Coronavirus prep
Replies
-
lynn_glenmont wrote: »I'm listening to a TWIV from the weekend and they mentioned they get lots of emails asking why they haven't done an episode about Delta. And they said that's because there is no scientifically verifiable data about it yet. It's too new. The data available is mostly anecdotal. The actual scientific study papers note that the data is insufficient to draw a solid conclusion, but articles draw conclusions anyway. But it's important to remember that public health officials can't wait for scientific conclusions, they see cases rising, they see ICUs filling up, and they have to do something. So the rely on the anecdotal or incomplete data as best they can.
They touched on the MA outbreak. They noted that most Covid tests are measuring viral particles in the nose. They noted most of the vaccinated people who get sick at all get upper respiratory symptoms. They wonder if perhaps what the vaccine immunity is doing is blocking the viral particles from working their way down from the nasal passage, to the upper respiratory tract, and down into the lungs. If that's the case, the fact that vaxxed folks have particles in their nose triggering a positive test isn't useful info. They weren't sure what conclusions to draw from that yet though.
I know you follow the science on this stuff closely, so this really is a question -- I was under the impression the vaccines work by preventing the virus from getting into our cells to replicate, not that they did much if anything about the initial particles in the virus you inhale, rub into your eyes, etc.? Am I way off base on this?
I don't 100% understand either, but yes I think that's how I understand it. I think the question is.. where does the virus get the toehold it needs to get into your cells, start replicating in overdrive, and do whatever damage it's going to do? And what is the best way to test whether the virus has done that or not? It seems like the public information out there is assuming that a positive test showing high level of virus in your nose means you're infected, but researchers don't actually know that's the case. I think, lol.6 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »HawkingRadiation wrote: »I’ve not seen any statistics showing which shot people with breakthrough cases got. It seems like that would be an interesting statistic.
If anyone has seen the breakdown, please post.
I don't know if somebody (CDC??) is keeping track of which vaccine has the most break-thru cases, or if testing centers ask for the name of the vaccine that a person received. It would be interesting to know.
I was reading online (Mr. Google to the rescue) that breakthrough cases may be under counted and underestimated since not all vaccinated people feeling sick or "thinking" that they got covid seek testing. Some just quarantine themselves for few days. In addition, some vaccinated people that might have been infected with the new variant could be totally un-symptomatic, but still able to spread the virus. That is why masks are still needed.
I agree. My dh was sick last week with a bad cold; I'm guessing but we had no proof. When he called the dr. they told him not to worry about getting tested because he had Covid back in November and was vaccinated in March/April. They only asked if he was running a fever. With all the breakthrough infections going on of vaccinated people.....I didn't agree with his dr. at all.
Our numbers are low but are they really, if people aren't getting tested the way they were?
Could go ahead and get tested. My mom and several people in the same house have had a bad cold lately. She had Covid August 2020 and was vaccinated earlier this year. If not for negative tests, I would have guessed Covid again. But people still do get other respiratory infections.
He's fine now. But it still baffles me why they didn't at least give him the option. He probably could've pushed a test for himself but he's one of those people that a) believe everything his dr. tells him and b) is lazy. They told him people are getting bad colds in our area so he went with that. 
But then how would they know if they're all bad colds and not Covid if they're not still pushing the tests?
He feels justified by his drs. decision because he didn't have a fever and didn't lose his sense of taste or smell. I reminded him that back when we contracted it in November, my only symptom was fatigue and I was tested because he'd had a "cold" and got tested. I cannot remember if he had a fever then or not.
They're getting lax with the testing. SMH
And to @lokihen, I agree with you.
But if it is Covid, which with vaccination is generally equivalent to a bad cold, then what is the point of testing to confirm that? At some point we move on from the pandemic "panic" stage of this, to the endemic stage - where yes, people are still going to get Covid, even with the vaccine, and they are going to recover without treatment in the vast majority of cases.
I read recently that the Delta variant is as contagious as chicken pox, if that is the case then we are not going to eradicate it by testing and isolating people indefinitely. The only way through this now is to vaccinate as many as possible so that it doesn't cause mass severe illness and death. The messaging that we are somehow going to "beat" Covid by eradicating it from the population through lockdowns, testing and isolation is outdated. It isn't going to happen.
1) So the infected person knows that he needs to quarantine and protect vulnerable people
2) To give public health officials relevant data to understand local risk factors, possible spreader events and long term vaccine efficacy metrics.
My point is that at a certain point as the disease becomes endemic quarantining infected people with mild illness isn’t feasible. At a certain point (I believe that point to be now in my specific area of the world) we have to shift our containment strategies away from “positive cases” to more meaningful metrics, such as hospitalizations and deaths. Mass testing of mildly ill people in a post vaccine scenario just doesn’t make sense. That is the whole point of the vaccine program, to keep people alive and out of the hospital, even after they are exposed.
Why not? What about kids under 12 -- just let them get infected?
Actually yes. Lockdowns and restrictions are far more detrimental to children than Covid. Look up the stats.
This 12th years old doesn't agree with your idea and she seems to have more empathy and common sense that some adults.
Florida tween takes on school board to call for mask mandate
Lila Hartley is heading into seventh grade next week. She's excited about history class and trying to figure out how to make more friends when she gets back to in-person school.
But first, the 12-year-old feels she has to stand up for her little brother and all children too young to be vaccinated against coronavirus.
"It's definitely a big deal to me," she said. "So many people are dying and getting sick, and masks just keep people safe. My brother isn't old enough to get the vaccine. So he's, like, vulnerable."
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/04/us/florida-school-mask-mandate-duval-teen/index.html
Idk where this line of discussion even came from tbh - is anyone telling people that they can’t wear a mask? My comments were in regard to testing for mild illnesses and quarantine/lockdowns - if people feel safer wearing a mask I have no issues with that.
You are forgiven for not being up on Florida mask policy:)
The Florida governor has threatened to cut off state funding to schools that implement mask mandates.
https://www.npr.org/2021/08/06/1025192746/some-florida-school-districts-will-require-masks-the-governor-may-cut-their-fund
..."We are finalizing health and education emergency rules this week that do not prohibit masks in schools but will require parents to have the right to opt their children out. School districts will be expected to allow parents to make this choice," DeSantis' press secretary, Christina Pushaw, said in a statement.
"t has to be the parent's free choice. Requiring medical documentation to opt out of the mask mandate, for example, would violate the spirit of the EO," she added.
The executive order says Florida could withhold public funds from "noncompliant school boards" that violate the new requirement.8 -
NM has seen a surge in hospitalizations over the past 4 weeks from 62 to now 206. It is being reported that 96% of those hospitalizations are unvaccinated individuals. Rolling 7 day averages of new cases remains relatively low...so it seems many new cases are needing hospitalization among the unvaxed crowd here.7
-
lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »I'm not sure if I have shared this already - apologies if so.
Data from a few days ago
Latest outbreak in NSW (state of Australia)
Deaths: 13
Vaccinated: 0
Unvaccinated: 13
Currently in ICU's: 54
Vaccinated: 4
Unvaccinated:50
What's the vaccination rate in NSW? Without knowing that, one cannot logically draw any conclusions from the above data.
OK, for those of you who disagree:
Assume a population of 10,000 with only 10% of the population vaccinated. That means the vaccinated have a 0.4% (4/1000) chance of ending up in the ICU, and the unvaccinated have 0.6% chance (54/9000) of ending up in the ICU. Not nearly as big a difference as suggested by just looking at the raw numbers of cases.
The lower the percentage of the population that is vaccinated the less convincing these numbers are. You need to know the vaccination rate to draw conclusions.
For ease of reading, using the same common denominators is best. The two numbers you are comparing are actually 36/9000 vs 54/9000 and easier to see the point you are making.
I would think it's more helpful to use the actual raw numbers in the example for people who don't understand why you need to know the vaccination rate to usefully compare the raw numbers. Why throw even more arithmetic at people for whom basic statistics is not intuitively obvious? If I had posted what you suggest, I would have expected the response to be, "Where the heck did you get 36 from? You're changing the numbers. It was just four vaccinated people in the ICU."
I see your point about the raw number data and not altering it. I still think the differing denominators can unfortunately be missed by people like me.3 -
Now the science says unvaccinated people are mostly safe not wearing a mask but vaccinated people must continue.
I assume this is a typo and meant to be the other way round?
Unless I am totally missing what you were saying??7 -
Regarding masking: I think we've hit a point where science is clashing with implementation. Up until now, mask mandates have been based on the science of how the virus is transmitted, evolving as we learned more about the virus but still basically applicable to most of the population.
Now the science says unvaccinated people are mostly safe not wearing a mask but vaccinated people must continue. It's impossible to enforce this without going to the kind of extreme measures that would probably lead to (even more) violent demonstrations on one side or another. I just don't see a resolution.
@mph323
I am also puzzled about this statement. Could you please clarify if this is a typo or where did you get this information? We are pretty overwhelmed with good, bad and in between reports, and we shouldn't add more confusion to an already upside down world.2 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »I don't know where you are or what conditions are like there, but where I am, we are not "coming out" of anything. We just moved from moderate to substantial virus transmission levels in my area, and we're going back to mask mandates in all indoor public spaces tomorrow.
I'll answer on behalf of Gail since I know she's in the same province as I am, Ontario. Mask mandates have never been dropped here, nor are we fully re-opened, although we're in a looser stage of restrictions than we've seen in a long time.
Cases are starting to climb again in some areas. Positivity rate is 1.4%.2 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »I'm listening to a TWIV from the weekend and they mentioned they get lots of emails asking why they haven't done an episode about Delta. And they said that's because there is no scientifically verifiable data about it yet. It's too new. The data available is mostly anecdotal. The actual scientific study papers note that the data is insufficient to draw a solid conclusion, but articles draw conclusions anyway. But it's important to remember that public health officials can't wait for scientific conclusions, they see cases rising, they see ICUs filling up, and they have to do something. So the rely on the anecdotal or incomplete data as best they can.
They touched on the MA outbreak. They noted that most Covid tests are measuring viral particles in the nose. They noted most of the vaccinated people who get sick at all get upper respiratory symptoms. They wonder if perhaps what the vaccine immunity is doing is blocking the viral particles from working their way down from the nasal passage, to the upper respiratory tract, and down into the lungs. If that's the case, the fact that vaxxed folks have particles in their nose triggering a positive test isn't useful info. They weren't sure what conclusions to draw from that yet though.
I know you follow the science on this stuff closely, so this really is a question -- I was under the impression the vaccines work by preventing the virus from getting into our cells to replicate, not that they did much if anything about the initial particles in the virus you inhale, rub into your eyes, etc.? Am I way off base on this?
I don't 100% understand either, but yes I think that's how I understand it. I think the question is.. where does the virus get the toehold it needs to get into your cells, start replicating in overdrive, and do whatever damage it's going to do? And what is the best way to test whether the virus has done that or not? It seems like the public information out there is assuming that a positive test showing high level of virus in your nose means you're infected, but researchers don't actually know that's the case. I think, lol.
Thanks!3 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »I'm not sure if I have shared this already - apologies if so.
Data from a few days ago
Latest outbreak in NSW (state of Australia)
Deaths: 13
Vaccinated: 0
Unvaccinated: 13
Currently in ICU's: 54
Vaccinated: 4
Unvaccinated:50
What's the vaccination rate in NSW? Without knowing that, one cannot logically draw any conclusions from the above data.
OK, for those of you who disagree:
Assume a population of 10,000 with only 10% of the population vaccinated. That means the vaccinated have a 0.4% (4/1000) chance of ending up in the ICU, and the unvaccinated have 0.6% chance (54/9000) of ending up in the ICU. Not nearly as big a difference as suggested by just looking at the raw numbers of cases.
The lower the percentage of the population that is vaccinated the less convincing these numbers are. You need to know the vaccination rate to draw conclusions.
For ease of reading, using the same common denominators is best. The two numbers you are comparing are actually 36/9000 vs 54/9000 and easier to see the point you are making.
I would think it's more helpful to use the actual raw numbers in the example for people who don't understand why you need to know the vaccination rate to usefully compare the raw numbers. Why throw even more arithmetic at people for whom basic statistics is not intuitively obvious? If I had posted what you suggest, I would have expected the response to be, "Where the heck did you get 36 from? You're changing the numbers. It was just four vaccinated people in the ICU."
I see your point about the raw number data and not altering it. I still think the differing denominators can unfortunately be missed by people like me.
Sorry. It may be a situation where it's hard to find a way to talk about it that communicates well to everyone.3 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »I'm listening to a TWIV from the weekend and they mentioned they get lots of emails asking why they haven't done an episode about Delta. And they said that's because there is no scientifically verifiable data about it yet. It's too new. The data available is mostly anecdotal. The actual scientific study papers note that the data is insufficient to draw a solid conclusion, but articles draw conclusions anyway. But it's important to remember that public health officials can't wait for scientific conclusions, they see cases rising, they see ICUs filling up, and they have to do something. So the rely on the anecdotal or incomplete data as best they can.
They touched on the MA outbreak. They noted that most Covid tests are measuring viral particles in the nose. They noted most of the vaccinated people who get sick at all get upper respiratory symptoms. They wonder if perhaps what the vaccine immunity is doing is blocking the viral particles from working their way down from the nasal passage, to the upper respiratory tract, and down into the lungs. If that's the case, the fact that vaxxed folks have particles in their nose triggering a positive test isn't useful info. They weren't sure what conclusions to draw from that yet though.
I know you follow the science on this stuff closely, so this really is a question -- I was under the impression the vaccines work by preventing the virus from getting into our cells to replicate, not that they did much if anything about the initial particles in the virus you inhale, rub into your eyes, etc.? Am I way off base on this?
In short the vaccine goal is to reduce risk of break through infections. Next reduce need for hospitalizations. Lastly reduce the need for an undertaker.
Sadly some went about as if the pandemic was over and became super spreaders before dying.5 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »I'm listening to a TWIV from the weekend and they mentioned they get lots of emails asking why they haven't done an episode about Delta. And they said that's because there is no scientifically verifiable data about it yet. It's too new. The data available is mostly anecdotal. The actual scientific study papers note that the data is insufficient to draw a solid conclusion, but articles draw conclusions anyway. But it's important to remember that public health officials can't wait for scientific conclusions, they see cases rising, they see ICUs filling up, and they have to do something. So the rely on the anecdotal or incomplete data as best they can.
They touched on the MA outbreak. They noted that most Covid tests are measuring viral particles in the nose. They noted most of the vaccinated people who get sick at all get upper respiratory symptoms. They wonder if perhaps what the vaccine immunity is doing is blocking the viral particles from working their way down from the nasal passage, to the upper respiratory tract, and down into the lungs. If that's the case, the fact that vaxxed folks have particles in their nose triggering a positive test isn't useful info. They weren't sure what conclusions to draw from that yet though.
I know you follow the science on this stuff closely, so this really is a question -- I was under the impression the vaccines work by preventing the virus from getting into our cells to replicate, not that they did much if anything about the initial particles in the virus you inhale, rub into your eyes, etc.? Am I way off base on this?
I don't 100% understand either, but yes I think that's how I understand it. I think the question is.. where does the virus get the toehold it needs to get into your cells, start replicating in overdrive, and do whatever damage it's going to do? And what is the best way to test whether the virus has done that or not? It seems like the public information out there is assuming that a positive test showing high level of virus in your nose means you're infected, but researchers don't actually know that's the case. I think, lol.
Not a virologist...I did read that sinuses have structures a bit like coral reefs that do not get a lot of blood flow. (For DD who had chronic sinus infections, this is why increasingly strong antibiotics by mouth didn't really do anything for a year. The antibiotics never reached the coral-like structures.) This allows the virus to multiply unencumbered by antibodies in the blood. When viral particles travel towards the lungs, though, they encounter all the blood borne defenses (antibodies, t cells) and get wiped out.
Again, not a virologist, but I would call this nasal "toehold" an infection even though it is not in the lungs. FWIW, the Delta strain is also reported to replicate in the throat, but I've read nothing about the tissue structures that permit this. But I do know DD with the chronic infections had massively inflamed and infected adenoids (prior to their surgical removal), so somehow bacteria was able to evade antibiotics there, too. Maybe it is a similar mechanism?7 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »I'm listening to a TWIV from the weekend and they mentioned they get lots of emails asking why they haven't done an episode about Delta. And they said that's because there is no scientifically verifiable data about it yet. It's too new. The data available is mostly anecdotal. The actual scientific study papers note that the data is insufficient to draw a solid conclusion, but articles draw conclusions anyway. But it's important to remember that public health officials can't wait for scientific conclusions, they see cases rising, they see ICUs filling up, and they have to do something. So the rely on the anecdotal or incomplete data as best they can.
They touched on the MA outbreak. They noted that most Covid tests are measuring viral particles in the nose. They noted most of the vaccinated people who get sick at all get upper respiratory symptoms. They wonder if perhaps what the vaccine immunity is doing is blocking the viral particles from working their way down from the nasal passage, to the upper respiratory tract, and down into the lungs. If that's the case, the fact that vaxxed folks have particles in their nose triggering a positive test isn't useful info. They weren't sure what conclusions to draw from that yet though.
I know you follow the science on this stuff closely, so this really is a question -- I was under the impression the vaccines work by preventing the virus from getting into our cells to replicate, not that they did much if anything about the initial particles in the virus you inhale, rub into your eyes, etc.? Am I way off base on this?
I don't 100% understand either, but yes I think that's how I understand it. I think the question is.. where does the virus get the toehold it needs to get into your cells, start replicating in overdrive, and do whatever damage it's going to do? And what is the best way to test whether the virus has done that or not? It seems like the public information out there is assuming that a positive test showing high level of virus in your nose means you're infected, but researchers don't actually know that's the case. I think, lol.
Not a virologist...I did read that sinuses have structures a bit like coral reefs that do not get a lot of blood flow. (For DD who had chronic sinus infections, this is why increasingly strong antibiotics by mouth didn't really do anything for a year. The antibiotics never reached the coral-like structures.) This allows the virus to multiply unencumbered by antibodies in the blood. When viral particles travel towards the lungs, though, they encounter all the blood borne defenses (antibodies, t cells) and get wiped out.
Again, not a virologist, but I would call this nasal "toehold" an infection even though it is not in the lungs. FWIW, the Delta strain is also reported to replicate in the throat, but I've read nothing about the tissue structures that permit this. But I do know DD with the chronic infections had massively inflamed and infected adenoids (prior to their surgical removal), so somehow bacteria was able to evade antibiotics there, too. Maybe it is a similar mechanism?
Interesting, thanks. I know the TWIV folks are skeptical of vaccinated people being just as infectious as unvaxxed but don't seem really clear yet on why if they are carrying as much virus in the nose, so obviously there's still a lot they have to learn about this thing!2 -
Regarding masking: I think we've hit a point where science is clashing with implementation. Up until now, mask mandates have been based on the science of how the virus is transmitted, evolving as we learned more about the virus but still basically applicable to most of the population.
Now the science says unvaccinated people are mostly safe not wearing a mask but vaccinated people must continue. It's impossible to enforce this without going to the kind of extreme measures that would probably lead to (even more) violent demonstrations on one side or another. I just don't see a resolution.
I'm also really mad at one of my husband's coworkers. He was out sick for a couple of weeks and the company still has relaxed rules about absenteeism and can't ask why an employee called in sick. The other day he comes in still slightly coughing and announces he had covid but tests negative now, meaning he exposed a bunch of people without letting them know, my husband included (he's 71). Most of the people where my husband works still wear a mask and the majority are vaccinated, but this kind of stupidity makes me sad for the future of humanity.
Just got a chance to get back here and wow, that's a blooper
I did mean it the other way around, sorry about the confusion and thanks to those who pointed it out! 18 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »siobhanaoife wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »On messaging: It sure doesn't help when messaging from the CDC and media outlets focus on a statistical outlier like Provincetown where the vaccinated proved to be more likely to get sick than the unvaccinated. I just can't believe the data or it must be an outlier, so why focus on it so much?!
I think it's getting more attention because it provided substantial new data on how the virus may behave among those who are vaccinated, adding to our knowledge on that aspect. I don't think the attention is primarily due to the size/scope of that outbreak.
I never assumed it was due to the size of that outbreak, but more so that it is the only case I've heard about where the data shows that a vaccinated person is more likely to get Covid than an unvaccinated person. That's why I think it is a statistical outlier or possibly bad data. Nowhere else have I seen data that shows people are more likely to get Covid if they are vaccinated.
You're assuming there were equal numbers of vaccinated and unvaccinated people around to get infected. Imagine an outbreak with 30 cases, 10 unvaccinated and 20 vaccinated. You might go HEY WAIT BEING VACCINATED MADE YOU TWICE AS LIKELY TO GET COVID. But if the population was almost entirely vaccinated people - say, 20 unvaccinated, 2000 vaccinated. Then fully half the unvaccinated people caught it but only 10% of the vaccinated did.
I dunno how vaxxed the guys at Bear Week at P-Town were But you see what I'm saying?
No, I am not assuming that.
Here's what we know from the MMWR: 69% of MA residents are vaccinated. 74% of the people who got Covid in this outbreak were vaccinated. If a vaccinated person is less likely to get Covid, the percentage of vaccinated people who got Covid should be less than the percentage of vaccinated people in the population as a whole.
If the vaccination rate was 50%, then it would be far worse than what I'm seeing from the available data.
ETA: If vaccinated rate was 75%, then it proves vaccinations help reduce risk of getting Covid. Or if 68% of those infected are vaccinated. The numbers to compare are vaccinated rate of population vs. rate of infection amongst those vaccinated.
Does any of that data takes into consideration whether those that were vaccinated had other pre-existing health conditions or were fully healthy when catching covid post vaccine. Just curious.
Work started requiring employee's mask up again (I personally never stopped) but most them are back to chin diapers again making it kinda pointless.....
The MMWR only mentions underlying conditions for those who were hospitalized. 50% of the vaccinated who were hospitalized had underlying conditions. 100% of the unvaccinated who were hospitalized had multiple underlying conditions.
Once again, data shows the vaccinated group was in worse shape here. Either the data is bad or vaccinations increase risk... or this is a statistical outlier. Since other data from other places shows different results, I strongly believe the CDC and media would stop focusing on this case and acting like it is a bellwether for future Delta variant outbreaks.
I see a lot of people clicking Disagree. Here is the MMWR for those who haven't yet looked at it: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm
Tell me where my statistics are wrong...
Again, this is a case where the vaccinated have been shown to have a statistically increased risk of getting Covid.
Here are the possible conclusions that I can think of:
1. Vaccinated people are more likely to get Covid (that's what this data shows - just take it at face value).
2. This case is a statistical outlier. In most outbreaks, vaccinated people are less likely to get Covid.
3. The data is wrong, there is an error in data collection, etc.
I'm pro-vaccine, so I really don't want to promote any of the above conclusions. Best case scenario in my mind is that the data is wrong. In that case, the CDC and media should not have focused on it. Next best case is that this is a statistical outlier. If so, the CDC and media should not have focused on it. Finally, there is the highly unlikely, yet possible situation that vaccinated people really are more likely to get Covid. If true, the CDC and media really should gather more information to be sure before they start focusing on this outbreak.4 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »siobhanaoife wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »On messaging: It sure doesn't help when messaging from the CDC and media outlets focus on a statistical outlier like Provincetown where the vaccinated proved to be more likely to get sick than the unvaccinated. I just can't believe the data or it must be an outlier, so why focus on it so much?!
I think it's getting more attention because it provided substantial new data on how the virus may behave among those who are vaccinated, adding to our knowledge on that aspect. I don't think the attention is primarily due to the size/scope of that outbreak.
I never assumed it was due to the size of that outbreak, but more so that it is the only case I've heard about where the data shows that a vaccinated person is more likely to get Covid than an unvaccinated person. That's why I think it is a statistical outlier or possibly bad data. Nowhere else have I seen data that shows people are more likely to get Covid if they are vaccinated.
You're assuming there were equal numbers of vaccinated and unvaccinated people around to get infected. Imagine an outbreak with 30 cases, 10 unvaccinated and 20 vaccinated. You might go HEY WAIT BEING VACCINATED MADE YOU TWICE AS LIKELY TO GET COVID. But if the population was almost entirely vaccinated people - say, 20 unvaccinated, 2000 vaccinated. Then fully half the unvaccinated people caught it but only 10% of the vaccinated did.
I dunno how vaxxed the guys at Bear Week at P-Town were But you see what I'm saying?
No, I am not assuming that.
Here's what we know from the MMWR: 69% of MA residents are vaccinated. 74% of the people who got Covid in this outbreak were vaccinated. If a vaccinated person is less likely to get Covid, the percentage of vaccinated people who got Covid should be less than the percentage of vaccinated people in the population as a whole.
If the vaccination rate was 50%, then it would be far worse than what I'm seeing from the available data.
ETA: If vaccinated rate was 75%, then it proves vaccinations help reduce risk of getting Covid. Or if 68% of those infected are vaccinated. The numbers to compare are vaccinated rate of population vs. rate of infection amongst those vaccinated.
Does any of that data takes into consideration whether those that were vaccinated had other pre-existing health conditions or were fully healthy when catching covid post vaccine. Just curious.
Work started requiring employee's mask up again (I personally never stopped) but most them are back to chin diapers again making it kinda pointless.....
The MMWR only mentions underlying conditions for those who were hospitalized. 50% of the vaccinated who were hospitalized had underlying conditions. 100% of the unvaccinated who were hospitalized had multiple underlying conditions.
Once again, data shows the vaccinated group was in worse shape here. Either the data is bad or vaccinations increase risk... or this is a statistical outlier. Since other data from other places shows different results, I strongly believe the CDC and media would stop focusing on this case and acting like it is a bellwether for future Delta variant outbreaks.
I see a lot of people clicking Disagree. Here is the MMWR for those who haven't yet looked at it: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm
Tell me where my statistics are wrong...
Again, this is a case where the vaccinated have been shown to have a statistically increased risk of getting Covid.
Here are the possible conclusions that I can think of:
1. Vaccinated people are more likely to get Covid (that's what this data shows - just take it at face value).
2. This case is a statistical outlier. In most outbreaks, vaccinated people are less likely to get Covid.
3. The data is wrong, there is an error in data collection, etc.
I'm pro-vaccine, so I really don't want to promote any of the above conclusions. Best case scenario in my mind is that the data is wrong. In that case, the CDC and media should not have focused on it. Next best case is that this is a statistical outlier. If so, the CDC and media should not have focused on it. Finally, there is the highly unlikely, yet possible situation that vaccinated people really are more likely to get Covid. If true, the CDC and media really should gather more information to be sure before they start focusing on this outbreak.
It's not that your statistics are wrong, it's that they are incomplete and you're misinterpreting them. It's that you're drawing conclusions at all in fact - you don't have anywhere near enough variables defined to draw a conclusion.
You can't use the percentage vaccinated in the entire state to compare to how many of the people who tested positive and were vaxxed in this outbreak to draw any conclusions. You don't know how many of the people actually in town at the time were vaxxed or unvaxxed. You don't know that every case was accounted for. You don't know how many people came to town already infected in the first place.
There is also no remotely logical reason why someone who has been vaccinated would be more likely to be infected, unless everything modern civilization knows about infectious disease and immunity is completely wrong.11 -
I was reading an interview with one of the people who tested positive and he mentioned something that no one else has seemingly noticed yet, which strikes me as very significant.T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »siobhanaoife wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »On messaging: It sure doesn't help when messaging from the CDC and media outlets focus on a statistical outlier like Provincetown where the vaccinated proved to be more likely to get sick than the unvaccinated. I just can't believe the data or it must be an outlier, so why focus on it so much?!
I think it's getting more attention because it provided substantial new data on how the virus may behave among those who are vaccinated, adding to our knowledge on that aspect. I don't think the attention is primarily due to the size/scope of that outbreak.
I never assumed it was due to the size of that outbreak, but more so that it is the only case I've heard about where the data shows that a vaccinated person is more likely to get Covid than an unvaccinated person. That's why I think it is a statistical outlier or possibly bad data. Nowhere else have I seen data that shows people are more likely to get Covid if they are vaccinated.
You're assuming there were equal numbers of vaccinated and unvaccinated people around to get infected. Imagine an outbreak with 30 cases, 10 unvaccinated and 20 vaccinated. You might go HEY WAIT BEING VACCINATED MADE YOU TWICE AS LIKELY TO GET COVID. But if the population was almost entirely vaccinated people - say, 20 unvaccinated, 2000 vaccinated. Then fully half the unvaccinated people caught it but only 10% of the vaccinated did.
I dunno how vaxxed the guys at Bear Week at P-Town were But you see what I'm saying?
No, I am not assuming that.
Here's what we know from the MMWR: 69% of MA residents are vaccinated. 74% of the people who got Covid in this outbreak were vaccinated. If a vaccinated person is less likely to get Covid, the percentage of vaccinated people who got Covid should be less than the percentage of vaccinated people in the population as a whole.
If the vaccination rate was 50%, then it would be far worse than what I'm seeing from the available data.
ETA: If vaccinated rate was 75%, then it proves vaccinations help reduce risk of getting Covid. Or if 68% of those infected are vaccinated. The numbers to compare are vaccinated rate of population vs. rate of infection amongst those vaccinated.
Does any of that data takes into consideration whether those that were vaccinated had other pre-existing health conditions or were fully healthy when catching covid post vaccine. Just curious.
Work started requiring employee's mask up again (I personally never stopped) but most them are back to chin diapers again making it kinda pointless.....
The MMWR only mentions underlying conditions for those who were hospitalized. 50% of the vaccinated who were hospitalized had underlying conditions. 100% of the unvaccinated who were hospitalized had multiple underlying conditions.
Once again, data shows the vaccinated group was in worse shape here. Either the data is bad or vaccinations increase risk... or this is a statistical outlier. Since other data from other places shows different results, I strongly believe the CDC and media would stop focusing on this case and acting like it is a bellwether for future Delta variant outbreaks.
I see a lot of people clicking Disagree. Here is the MMWR for those who haven't yet looked at it: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm
Tell me where my statistics are wrong...
Again, this is a case where the vaccinated have been shown to have a statistically increased risk of getting Covid.
Here are the possible conclusions that I can think of:
1. Vaccinated people are more likely to get Covid (that's what this data shows - just take it at face value).
2. This case is a statistical outlier. In most outbreaks, vaccinated people are less likely to get Covid.
3. The data is wrong, there is an error in data collection, etc.
I'm pro-vaccine, so I really don't want to promote any of the above conclusions. Best case scenario in my mind is that the data is wrong. In that case, the CDC and media should not have focused on it. Next best case is that this is a statistical outlier. If so, the CDC and media should not have focused on it. Finally, there is the highly unlikely, yet possible situation that vaccinated people really are more likely to get Covid. If true, the CDC and media really should gather more information to be sure before they start focusing on this outbreak.
He talks about himself and his husband going into a crowded venue which they HAD TO SHOW THEIR VACCINE CARD TO ENTER. If everyone there had to be vaccinated, then that automatically overrides any info about local vaccine rates, etc. It would be exactly the type of situation which would lead to these numbers - the unvaccinated people would be a small minority who were exposed outside, while the vaccinated were in the clubs, etc.
I also wonder, since this was an event specifically for older gay men, how many of the breakthrough cases were HIV positive and therefore immunocompromised. We already know that being immunocompromised causes the two dose vaccine not to work in a majority of cases, and older gay men are more likely to have lived through the time period when HIV was rampant in the gay community.
13 -
Even without any attendees being HIV+, gay men of a certain age, this is their second plague. In my experience, they're not messing around, they're taking it seriously and getting vaccinated.5
-
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »siobhanaoife wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »On messaging: It sure doesn't help when messaging from the CDC and media outlets focus on a statistical outlier like Provincetown where the vaccinated proved to be more likely to get sick than the unvaccinated. I just can't believe the data or it must be an outlier, so why focus on it so much?!
I think it's getting more attention because it provided substantial new data on how the virus may behave among those who are vaccinated, adding to our knowledge on that aspect. I don't think the attention is primarily due to the size/scope of that outbreak.
I never assumed it was due to the size of that outbreak, but more so that it is the only case I've heard about where the data shows that a vaccinated person is more likely to get Covid than an unvaccinated person. That's why I think it is a statistical outlier or possibly bad data. Nowhere else have I seen data that shows people are more likely to get Covid if they are vaccinated.
You're assuming there were equal numbers of vaccinated and unvaccinated people around to get infected. Imagine an outbreak with 30 cases, 10 unvaccinated and 20 vaccinated. You might go HEY WAIT BEING VACCINATED MADE YOU TWICE AS LIKELY TO GET COVID. But if the population was almost entirely vaccinated people - say, 20 unvaccinated, 2000 vaccinated. Then fully half the unvaccinated people caught it but only 10% of the vaccinated did.
I dunno how vaxxed the guys at Bear Week at P-Town were But you see what I'm saying?
No, I am not assuming that.
Here's what we know from the MMWR: 69% of MA residents are vaccinated. 74% of the people who got Covid in this outbreak were vaccinated. If a vaccinated person is less likely to get Covid, the percentage of vaccinated people who got Covid should be less than the percentage of vaccinated people in the population as a whole.
If the vaccination rate was 50%, then it would be far worse than what I'm seeing from the available data.
ETA: If vaccinated rate was 75%, then it proves vaccinations help reduce risk of getting Covid. Or if 68% of those infected are vaccinated. The numbers to compare are vaccinated rate of population vs. rate of infection amongst those vaccinated.
Does any of that data takes into consideration whether those that were vaccinated had other pre-existing health conditions or were fully healthy when catching covid post vaccine. Just curious.
Work started requiring employee's mask up again (I personally never stopped) but most them are back to chin diapers again making it kinda pointless.....
The MMWR only mentions underlying conditions for those who were hospitalized. 50% of the vaccinated who were hospitalized had underlying conditions. 100% of the unvaccinated who were hospitalized had multiple underlying conditions.
Once again, data shows the vaccinated group was in worse shape here. Either the data is bad or vaccinations increase risk... or this is a statistical outlier. Since other data from other places shows different results, I strongly believe the CDC and media would stop focusing on this case and acting like it is a bellwether for future Delta variant outbreaks.
I see a lot of people clicking Disagree. Here is the MMWR for those who haven't yet looked at it: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm
Tell me where my statistics are wrong...
Again, this is a case where the vaccinated have been shown to have a statistically increased risk of getting Covid.
Here are the possible conclusions that I can think of:
1. Vaccinated people are more likely to get Covid (that's what this data shows - just take it at face value).
2. This case is a statistical outlier. In most outbreaks, vaccinated people are less likely to get Covid.
3. The data is wrong, there is an error in data collection, etc.
I'm pro-vaccine, so I really don't want to promote any of the above conclusions. Best case scenario in my mind is that the data is wrong. In that case, the CDC and media should not have focused on it. Next best case is that this is a statistical outlier. If so, the CDC and media should not have focused on it. Finally, there is the highly unlikely, yet possible situation that vaccinated people really are more likely to get Covid. If true, the CDC and media really should gather more information to be sure before they start focusing on this outbreak.
4. Those who attended this event were not a random sample from the Mass. population but rather
a) sample was skewed by self-selection of attendees who felt protected by their vaccinated status and/or
b) sample was skewed because a significant portion of Mass. non-vaccinated population is not vaccinated for reasons that would make them less likely to attend the events mass-spreader events (really busy with multiple jobs and little to no ability to get time-off for vaccination or mass-spreader events; health conditions and medical advice against both vaccination and running around to crowded events).6 -
https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle-health-coronavirus-pandemic-south-dakota-sd-state-wire-b729c1e92cb7e0f74c12343c483f9474
This will also be a skewed sample I expect.
700,000 Harley Davidson motorcycle riders in a small rural town for 10 days most likely will yield some Covid-19 data as it did last year. Some will be riding for days both coming and going home.
I keep my eyes on the numbers coming out of UK as a leading indicator and based on these results which may or may not be true for the United States the risk of getting the Delta variant and having serious side effects or death is much lower for the fully vaccinated people by a huge factor.8 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »HawkingRadiation wrote: »I’ve not seen any statistics showing which shot people with breakthrough cases got. It seems like that would be an interesting statistic.
If anyone has seen the breakdown, please post.
I don't know if somebody (CDC??) is keeping track of which vaccine has the most break-thru cases, or if testing centers ask for the name of the vaccine that a person received. It would be interesting to know.
I was reading online (Mr. Google to the rescue) that breakthrough cases may be under counted and underestimated since not all vaccinated people feeling sick or "thinking" that they got covid seek testing. Some just quarantine themselves for few days. In addition, some vaccinated people that might have been infected with the new variant could be totally un-symptomatic, but still able to spread the virus. That is why masks are still needed.
I agree. My dh was sick last week with a bad cold; I'm guessing but we had no proof. When he called the dr. they told him not to worry about getting tested because he had Covid back in November and was vaccinated in March/April. They only asked if he was running a fever. With all the breakthrough infections going on of vaccinated people.....I didn't agree with his dr. at all.
Our numbers are low but are they really, if people aren't getting tested the way they were?
Could go ahead and get tested. My mom and several people in the same house have had a bad cold lately. She had Covid August 2020 and was vaccinated earlier this year. If not for negative tests, I would have guessed Covid again. But people still do get other respiratory infections.
He's fine now. But it still baffles me why they didn't at least give him the option. He probably could've pushed a test for himself but he's one of those people that a) believe everything his dr. tells him and b) is lazy. They told him people are getting bad colds in our area so he went with that. But then how would they know if they're all bad colds and not Covid if they're not still pushing the tests?
He feels justified by his drs. decision because he didn't have a fever and didn't lose his sense of taste or smell. I reminded him that back when we contracted it in November, my only symptom was fatigue and I was tested because he'd had a "cold" and got tested. I cannot remember if he had a fever then or not.
They're getting lax with the testing. SMH
And to @lokihen, I agree with you.
But if it is Covid, which with vaccination is generally equivalent to a bad cold, then what is the point of testing to confirm that? At some point we move on from the pandemic "panic" stage of this, to the endemic stage - where yes, people are still going to get Covid, even with the vaccine, and they are going to recover without treatment in the vast majority of cases.
I read recently that the Delta variant is as contagious as chicken pox, if that is the case then we are not going to eradicate it by testing and isolating people indefinitely. The only way through this now is to vaccinate as many as possible so that it doesn't cause mass severe illness and death. The messaging that we are somehow going to "beat" Covid by eradicating it from the population through lockdowns, testing and isolation is outdated. It isn't going to happen.
1) So the infected person knows that he needs to quarantine and protect vulnerable people
2) To give public health officials relevant data to understand local risk factors, possible spreader events and long term vaccine efficacy metrics.
My point is that at a certain point as the disease becomes endemic quarantining infected people with mild illness isn’t feasible. At a certain point (I believe that point to be now in my specific area of the world) we have to shift our containment strategies away from “positive cases” to more meaningful metrics, such as hospitalizations and deaths. Mass testing of mildly ill people in a post vaccine scenario just doesn’t make sense. That is the whole point of the vaccine program, to keep people alive and out of the hospital, even after they are exposed.
Why not? What about kids under 12 -- just let them get infected?
Actually yes. Lockdowns and restrictions are far more detrimental to children than Covid. Look up the stats.
This 12th years old doesn't agree with your idea and she seems to have more empathy and common sense that some adults.
Florida tween takes on school board to call for mask mandate
Lila Hartley is heading into seventh grade next week. She's excited about history class and trying to figure out how to make more friends when she gets back to in-person school.
But first, the 12-year-old feels she has to stand up for her little brother and all children too young to be vaccinated against coronavirus.
"It's definitely a big deal to me," she said. "So many people are dying and getting sick, and masks just keep people safe. My brother isn't old enough to get the vaccine. So he's, like, vulnerable."
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/04/us/florida-school-mask-mandate-duval-teen/index.html
Idk where this line of discussion even came from tbh - is anyone telling people that they can’t wear a mask? My comments were in regard to testing for mild illnesses and quarantine/lockdowns - if people feel safer wearing a mask I have no issues with that.
This 12-year-old apparently understands that wearing a mask herself is not nearly as strong protection against her bringing the virus home to her little brother as her wearing a mask and all the other kids and staff in her school wearing masks as well.
Yes there are a lot of measures that provide enhanced protection - the issue as we come out of the acute phase and move into the endemic phase is how to balance protection with a return to normalcy. Especially for children. There are going to be a lot of different opinions about that. And probably some trial an error as well.
I don't know where you are or what conditions are like there, but where I am, we are not "coming out" of anything. We just moved from moderate to substantial virus transmission levels in my area, and we're going back to mask mandates in all indoor public spaces tomorrow.
I had hoped to go have a meal in a restaurant with someone I know doesn't have a huge social support system (both of us are vaccinated) but now I don't know if I feel comfortable doing that with the increase in infections locally, and I don't know if he'll be willing to eat outside.
I'm in Ontario, we have 82% of adults that have received one does, and 73% fully vaccinated. We still have mask mandates in indoor public spaces I believe, and various other restrictions in place. Infections have increased from the 100's to the 300's (province of 15 million) over the last few days, not sure if hospitalizations have increased though, which to me is the more important metric with such a high vaccine rate.8 -
rheddmobile wrote: »
I was reading an interview with one of the people who tested positive and he mentioned something that no one else has seemingly noticed yet, which strikes me as very significant.T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »siobhanaoife wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »On messaging: It sure doesn't help when messaging from the CDC and media outlets focus on a statistical outlier like Provincetown where the vaccinated proved to be more likely to get sick than the unvaccinated. I just can't believe the data or it must be an outlier, so why focus on it so much?!
I think it's getting more attention because it provided substantial new data on how the virus may behave among those who are vaccinated, adding to our knowledge on that aspect. I don't think the attention is primarily due to the size/scope of that outbreak.
I never assumed it was due to the size of that outbreak, but more so that it is the only case I've heard about where the data shows that a vaccinated person is more likely to get Covid than an unvaccinated person. That's why I think it is a statistical outlier or possibly bad data. Nowhere else have I seen data that shows people are more likely to get Covid if they are vaccinated.
You're assuming there were equal numbers of vaccinated and unvaccinated people around to get infected. Imagine an outbreak with 30 cases, 10 unvaccinated and 20 vaccinated. You might go HEY WAIT BEING VACCINATED MADE YOU TWICE AS LIKELY TO GET COVID. But if the population was almost entirely vaccinated people - say, 20 unvaccinated, 2000 vaccinated. Then fully half the unvaccinated people caught it but only 10% of the vaccinated did.
I dunno how vaxxed the guys at Bear Week at P-Town were But you see what I'm saying?
No, I am not assuming that.
Here's what we know from the MMWR: 69% of MA residents are vaccinated. 74% of the people who got Covid in this outbreak were vaccinated. If a vaccinated person is less likely to get Covid, the percentage of vaccinated people who got Covid should be less than the percentage of vaccinated people in the population as a whole.
If the vaccination rate was 50%, then it would be far worse than what I'm seeing from the available data.
ETA: If vaccinated rate was 75%, then it proves vaccinations help reduce risk of getting Covid. Or if 68% of those infected are vaccinated. The numbers to compare are vaccinated rate of population vs. rate of infection amongst those vaccinated.
Does any of that data takes into consideration whether those that were vaccinated had other pre-existing health conditions or were fully healthy when catching covid post vaccine. Just curious.
Work started requiring employee's mask up again (I personally never stopped) but most them are back to chin diapers again making it kinda pointless.....
The MMWR only mentions underlying conditions for those who were hospitalized. 50% of the vaccinated who were hospitalized had underlying conditions. 100% of the unvaccinated who were hospitalized had multiple underlying conditions.
Once again, data shows the vaccinated group was in worse shape here. Either the data is bad or vaccinations increase risk... or this is a statistical outlier. Since other data from other places shows different results, I strongly believe the CDC and media would stop focusing on this case and acting like it is a bellwether for future Delta variant outbreaks.
I see a lot of people clicking Disagree. Here is the MMWR for those who haven't yet looked at it: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm
Tell me where my statistics are wrong...
Again, this is a case where the vaccinated have been shown to have a statistically increased risk of getting Covid.
Here are the possible conclusions that I can think of:
1. Vaccinated people are more likely to get Covid (that's what this data shows - just take it at face value).
2. This case is a statistical outlier. In most outbreaks, vaccinated people are less likely to get Covid.
3. The data is wrong, there is an error in data collection, etc.
I'm pro-vaccine, so I really don't want to promote any of the above conclusions. Best case scenario in my mind is that the data is wrong. In that case, the CDC and media should not have focused on it. Next best case is that this is a statistical outlier. If so, the CDC and media should not have focused on it. Finally, there is the highly unlikely, yet possible situation that vaccinated people really are more likely to get Covid. If true, the CDC and media really should gather more information to be sure before they start focusing on this outbreak.
He talks about himself and his husband going into a crowded venue which they HAD TO SHOW THEIR VACCINE CARD TO ENTER. If everyone there had to be vaccinated, then that automatically overrides any info about local vaccine rates, etc. It would be exactly the type of situation which would lead to these numbers - the unvaccinated people would be a small minority who were exposed outside, while the vaccinated were in the clubs, etc.
I also wonder, since this was an event specifically for older gay men, how many of the breakthrough cases were HIV positive and therefore immunocompromised. We already know that being immunocompromised causes the two dose vaccine not to work in a majority of cases, and older gay men are more likely to have lived through the time period when HIV was rampant in the gay community.
This article speaks to one those involved and the citizen scientists that helped alert the CDC to the outbreak early on and the high incidence in vaccinated individuals. One of the bright sides about this was the gay community's willingness to work with the medical community and CDC for contact tracing.
The article doesn't speak to the incidence of HIV and weakened immune systems in those with breakthrough infections, and it also was not mentioned in the CDC study. I expect the CDC would have considered that factor in their investigation before they made the decision to revise the masking guidance for all vaccinated individuals, and it would have been mentioned in the study if it was determined to be a significant factor.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/08/06/1025553638/how-a-gay-community-helped-the-cdc-spot-a-covid-outbreak-and-learn-more-about-de4 -
Argh. My niece just told me today, about an 80 yo woman who lived in Maine. She went to the dr. for cold symptoms, didn't feel well and the dr. just sent her home. She started feeling worse, went back to the dr. and was sent home once again with antibiotics. Five days later she died due to Covid. She'd been vaccinated and was still very careful about masking and social distancing, and the dr. never bothered to test for Covid.
We all need to advocate for ourselves and question the doctors. We cannot rely on what they say to be 100%.
Our local high school reopens in a couple weeks and dh works there. He said they're going to mandate masks for everybody for the first 10 days and see how it goes.
I feel everyone is getting too complacent if they've been vaccinated. Even the medical community. 15 -
When we talk about large maskless events, I am going to be very curious about what we might see after a large 60th birthday party on Martha's Vineyard this weekend.4
-
-
When we talk about large maskless events, I am going to be very curious about what we might see after a large 60th birthday party on Martha's Vineyard this weekend.
Won't see anything if you haven't already. Social media reports/pictures from the party have been taken down. Apparently not setting a good example.4 -
I also have a friend who hosted a 60th birthday party for herself with 50 people this weekend. She’s a cancer survivor, immune suppressed, needs monthly immunoglobulin infusions. Won’t fly if her levels are low, wears masks, and that was long before covid. She’s also hosting 2 unvaccinated families at her house during the party week. I’m hopeful for no bad outcome. Time will tell.13
-
A Florida doctor I talked with said every patient he's had to send to the hospital has T2DM. I've been struggling to get my diabetes back under control so this news makes me want to hide. At least my best friend is understanding that I probably won't make it to her wedding next month.13
-
1
-
Any party that has an ambulance sitting at the ready in the parking lot does not strike me as scaled down IMO. Definitely pics out there so I will still be curious about the aftermath.
Hubby and I turn 60 this year. His “event” had five of us. Two of us, two close friends and his mother (we were in Florida). Mine in October could be slightly bigger as we are in mass and our two children are here. No friends will be included. Only family and total size will remain less and 10.5 -
Any party that has an ambulance sitting at the ready in the parking lot does not strike me as scaled down IMO. Definitely pics out there so I will still be curious about the aftermath.
Hubby and I turn 60 this year. His “event” had five of us. Two of us, two close friends and his mother (we were in Florida). Mine in October could be slightly bigger as we are in mass and our two children are here. No friends will be included. Only family and total size will remain less and 10.
Given Mr. Obama's status as an ex-President I wouldn't doubt there is an ambulance near him at all times, along with the Secret Service detail.9
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions