Coronavirus prep
Replies
-
My sister and I went to the movie theater yesterday, first time since they've been shut down. It was a special offer so not many people were there, about 25. We two were the only ones wearing masks and I felt pretty silly. BUT OTOH my brother is now quarantined because someone from his church tested positive so they're closed church for 2 weeks.12
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/08/11/german-nurse-injects-saline-coronavirus-vaccine/
This is a sad case for these 70+ age people.2 -
I was listening to TWIV and they feel confident that the FDA will give Pfizer full approval soon, hopefully by Labor Day. At that point, they expect military mandates as well as others which will jack up the vaxxed percentage. They also think an extension of the approved age range down to 6 yrs old will come shortly after that.
They also noted that once the polio vaccine was fully approved, it took FIVE YEARS for the US to get to 90% vaccinated. So while this feels like it's been going on forever, it isn't going nearly as badly as our impatience thinks it is. I am going to knit that into a pillow that I can fling at the wall.22 -
DM not necessarily the best news source, but always early to post a given story. Will this story get verified through other sources? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9884193/CDC-adjusts-Floridas-weekend-Covid-numbers-state-accused-agency-overcounting-cases.html1
-
They also discussed this report on the Barnstable outbreak:
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm
They said there is a lot of info that simply wasn't collected that limits the conclusions you can draw. But what jumped out to them was that only 1% of known vaxxed attendees required hospitalization with 0 deaths. Also that the attendees interviewed described attending densely packed indoor/outdoor events including bars and house parties with minimal if any mitigations. Basically a recipe for breakthroughs.
There was no clinical tracing done to try to determine who got who sick, so it doesn't really add to the conversation about how much vaxxed people are transmitting.
This part goes over my head, but maybe it will mean something to someone. The paper notes that the CT values detected by the covid tests were similar between vaxxed and unvaxxed attendees who tested positive. Dr Griffin noted that the CT value is detecting the amount of COVID-19 Rna in the nose, not "necessarily" viral particles. He said public health officials seem to be assuming that similar amounts of RNA mean similar amounts of virus, but it is entirely possible that vaccine-induced antibodies have neutralized many of the viral particles, so the RNA being picked up by the test is in neutralized virus that isn't transmissible. My layman's understanding is he's questioning the assertion that vaxxed folks are "just as contagious" as unvaxxed.13 -
...meanwhile in Tx I had a discussion this morning with one of my barn friends. He will be dosing with ivermectrin if his kid tests positive. I.. kid.. you... not...
At first I thought he was joking but he knows a friend of a friend who was traveling with 5 other people in a van. The friend was taking ivermectrin and was the only one who did not get sick. He also quoted to me that he knows an ER doc who says 99 percent of the cases he is seeing are vaccinated folks. I am not going to even wonder if he has been vaccinated. 12 -
SummerSkier wrote: »...meanwhile in Tx I had a discussion this morning with one of my barn friends. He will be dosing with ivermectrin if his kid tests positive. I.. kid.. you... not... At first I thought he was joking but he knows a friend of a friend who was traveling with 5 other people in a van. The friend was taking ivermectrin and was the only one who did not get sick. He also quoted to me that he knows an ER doc who says 99 percent of the cases he is seeing are vaccinated folks. I am not going to even wonder if he has been vaccinated.
The local VA hospital is giving Ivermectin to covid patients.
Interesting with limited data: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7698683/
6 -
SummerSkier wrote: »...meanwhile in Tx I had a discussion this morning with one of my barn friends. He will be dosing with ivermectrin if his kid tests positive. I.. kid.. you... not... At first I thought he was joking but he knows a friend of a friend who was traveling with 5 other people in a van. The friend was taking ivermectrin and was the only one who did not get sick. He also quoted to me that he knows an ER doc who says 99 percent of the cases he is seeing are vaccinated folks. I am not going to even wonder if he has been vaccinated.
The local VA hospital is giving Ivermectin to covid patients.
Interesting with limited data: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7698683/
@lokihen thanks for the link! My response is not directed at you, just what pops into my head as I read that report.
I'm fascinated by the fact that the same people who won't take a vaccine that's been fully trialed because "they don't know what's in it" and "there isn't enough data yet", would instead take a veterinary/chemo drug off-label that also has little to no data, and no possible explanation of why it might work yet.
This study is correlative, with admitted wildly different sized cohorts in each group, wildly different dosages inside the group, and uses "maybe" "might" "could" etc because there are tons of other variables they have no way of controlling for. I can't imagine it will pass peer review. But I'm sure it is being used as proof and a source by folks insisting it's the way to go.15 -
They also discussed this report on the Barnstable outbreak:
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm
They said there is a lot of info that simply wasn't collected that limits the conclusions you can draw. But what jumped out to them was that only 1% of known vaxxed attendees required hospitalization with 0 deaths. Also that the attendees interviewed described attending densely packed indoor/outdoor events including bars and house parties with minimal if any mitigations. Basically a recipe for breakthroughs.
There was no clinical tracing done to try to determine who got who sick, so it doesn't really add to the conversation about how much vaxxed people are transmitting.
This part goes over my head, but maybe it will mean something to someone. The paper notes that the CT values detected by the covid tests were similar between vaxxed and unvaxxed attendees who tested positive. Dr Griffin noted that the CT value is detecting the amount of COVID-19 Rna in the nose, not "necessarily" viral particles. He said public health officials seem to be assuming that similar amounts of RNA mean similar amounts of virus, but it is entirely possible that vaccine-induced antibodies have neutralized many of the viral particles, so the RNA being picked up by the test is in neutralized virus that isn't transmissible. My layman's understanding is he's questioning the assertion that vaxxed folks are "just as contagious" as unvaxxed.
Interesting. Some may recall that I had pointed out that the area has a 69% vaccinated adult population and that 74% of the people who were infected had been vaccinated. Statistically, that means a vaccine increases your risk of infection. I questioned the data, but acknowledged it could be a statistical outlier. Many Disagreed with my comments on that, but now a specific concern with data collection has been identified.
As to the gatherings in bars and homes: I'm not sure what everyone expects to happen during bear week; I am not surprised.2 -
SummerSkier wrote: »...meanwhile in Tx I had a discussion this morning with one of my barn friends. He will be dosing with ivermectrin if his kid tests positive. I.. kid.. you... not... At first I thought he was joking but he knows a friend of a friend who was traveling with 5 other people in a van. The friend was taking ivermectrin and was the only one who did not get sick. He also quoted to me that he knows an ER doc who says 99 percent of the cases he is seeing are vaccinated folks. I am not going to even wonder if he has been vaccinated.
The local VA hospital is giving Ivermectin to covid patients.
Interesting with limited data: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7698683/
@lokihen thanks for the link! My response is not directed at you, just what pops into my head as I read that report.
I'm fascinated by the fact that the same people who won't take a vaccine that's been fully trialed because "they don't know what's in it" and "there isn't enough data yet", would instead take a veterinary/chemo drug off-label that also has little to no data, and no possible explanation of why it might work yet.
This study is correlative, with admitted wildly different sized cohorts in each group, wildly different dosages inside the group, and uses "maybe" "might" "could" etc because there are tons of other variables they have no way of controlling for. I can't imagine it will pass peer review. But I'm sure it is being used as proof and a source by folks insisting it's the way to go.
You may recall that I am extremely cautious about catching covid; I only stopped disinfecting groceries in the late spring. Which is why I'm fully vaccinated AND have Ivermectin on hand. I will continue with my plan of never being exposed if at all possible.6 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »They also discussed this report on the Barnstable outbreak:
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm
They said there is a lot of info that simply wasn't collected that limits the conclusions you can draw. But what jumped out to them was that only 1% of known vaxxed attendees required hospitalization with 0 deaths. Also that the attendees interviewed described attending densely packed indoor/outdoor events including bars and house parties with minimal if any mitigations. Basically a recipe for breakthroughs.
There was no clinical tracing done to try to determine who got who sick, so it doesn't really add to the conversation about how much vaxxed people are transmitting.
This part goes over my head, but maybe it will mean something to someone. The paper notes that the CT values detected by the covid tests were similar between vaxxed and unvaxxed attendees who tested positive. Dr Griffin noted that the CT value is detecting the amount of COVID-19 Rna in the nose, not "necessarily" viral particles. He said public health officials seem to be assuming that similar amounts of RNA mean similar amounts of virus, but it is entirely possible that vaccine-induced antibodies have neutralized many of the viral particles, so the RNA being picked up by the test is in neutralized virus that isn't transmissible. My layman's understanding is he's questioning the assertion that vaxxed folks are "just as contagious" as unvaxxed.
Interesting. Some may recall that I had pointed out that the area has a 69% vaccinated adult population and that 74% of the people who were infected had been vaccinated. Statistically, that means a vaccine increases your risk of infection. I questioned the data, but acknowledged it could be a statistical outlier. Many Disagreed with my comments on that, but now a specific concern with data collection has been identified.
As to the gatherings in bars and homes: I'm not sure what everyone expects to happen during bear week; I am not surprised.
Again, the 69% is for the entire state, not for the attendees of these events in this one town. The 69% and 74% have nothing to do with each other and comparing them statistically means absolutely nothing. It never meant vaccination increases your risk tif infection, regardless of how data was collected.
I believe the focus on where they were gathering was to stress that this one situation shouldn't be extrapolated to most people's situation. These vaccinated people put themselves into a high risk, concentrated environment for an extended period of time. So it's no reason for some of the panicked reactions many are having if they are still being mindful of spacing and ventilation in places they can't be sure everyone is vaccinated and healthy.7 -
SummerSkier wrote: »...meanwhile in Tx I had a discussion this morning with one of my barn friends. He will be dosing with ivermectrin if his kid tests positive. I.. kid.. you... not... At first I thought he was joking but he knows a friend of a friend who was traveling with 5 other people in a van. The friend was taking ivermectrin and was the only one who did not get sick. He also quoted to me that he knows an ER doc who says 99 percent of the cases he is seeing are vaccinated folks. I am not going to even wonder if he has been vaccinated.
The local VA hospital is giving Ivermectin to covid patients.
Interesting with limited data: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7698683/
@lokihen thanks for the link! My response is not directed at you, just what pops into my head as I read that report.
I'm fascinated by the fact that the same people who won't take a vaccine that's been fully trialed because "they don't know what's in it" and "there isn't enough data yet", would instead take a veterinary/chemo drug off-label that also has little to no data, and no possible explanation of why it might work yet.
This study is correlative, with admitted wildly different sized cohorts in each group, wildly different dosages inside the group, and uses "maybe" "might" "could" etc because there are tons of other variables they have no way of controlling for. I can't imagine it will pass peer review. But I'm sure it is being used as proof and a source by folks insisting it's the way to go.
You may recall that I am extremely cautious about catching covid; I only stopped disinfecting groceries in the late spring. Which is why I'm fully vaccinated AND have Ivermectin on hand. I will continue with my plan of never being exposed if at all possible.
I know, that's why I said it wasn't directed at you. Personally, I would not take ivermectin, but I'm sure you've done due diligence on the risk/reward. And I hope your plan works
7 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »They also discussed this report on the Barnstable outbreak:
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm
They said there is a lot of info that simply wasn't collected that limits the conclusions you can draw. But what jumped out to them was that only 1% of known vaxxed attendees required hospitalization with 0 deaths. Also that the attendees interviewed described attending densely packed indoor/outdoor events including bars and house parties with minimal if any mitigations. Basically a recipe for breakthroughs.
There was no clinical tracing done to try to determine who got who sick, so it doesn't really add to the conversation about how much vaxxed people are transmitting.
This part goes over my head, but maybe it will mean something to someone. The paper notes that the CT values detected by the covid tests were similar between vaxxed and unvaxxed attendees who tested positive. Dr Griffin noted that the CT value is detecting the amount of COVID-19 Rna in the nose, not "necessarily" viral particles. He said public health officials seem to be assuming that similar amounts of RNA mean similar amounts of virus, but it is entirely possible that vaccine-induced antibodies have neutralized many of the viral particles, so the RNA being picked up by the test is in neutralized virus that isn't transmissible. My layman's understanding is he's questioning the assertion that vaxxed folks are "just as contagious" as unvaxxed.
Interesting. Some may recall that I had pointed out that the area has a 69% vaccinated adult population and that 74% of the people who were infected had been vaccinated. Statistically, that means a vaccine increases your risk of infection. I questioned the data, but acknowledged it could be a statistical outlier. Many Disagreed with my comments on that, but now a specific concern with data collection has been identified.
As to the gatherings in bars and homes: I'm not sure what everyone expects to happen during bear week; I am not surprised.
The most recent numbers where I am are approx 325 cases with 58 of those in fully vaxx’d people. This is a daily case count. We have about 25% not fully vaxx’d- so 82% ish of cases in 25% of the population indicates the opposite- vaccine greatly reduces the risk of infection.
I think they also said that there are 6 of 170ish hospitalized patients that have been fully vaxx’d and no deaths among that group.
8 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »They also discussed this report on the Barnstable outbreak:
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm
They said there is a lot of info that simply wasn't collected that limits the conclusions you can draw. But what jumped out to them was that only 1% of known vaxxed attendees required hospitalization with 0 deaths. Also that the attendees interviewed described attending densely packed indoor/outdoor events including bars and house parties with minimal if any mitigations. Basically a recipe for breakthroughs.
There was no clinical tracing done to try to determine who got who sick, so it doesn't really add to the conversation about how much vaxxed people are transmitting.
This part goes over my head, but maybe it will mean something to someone. The paper notes that the CT values detected by the covid tests were similar between vaxxed and unvaxxed attendees who tested positive. Dr Griffin noted that the CT value is detecting the amount of COVID-19 Rna in the nose, not "necessarily" viral particles. He said public health officials seem to be assuming that similar amounts of RNA mean similar amounts of virus, but it is entirely possible that vaccine-induced antibodies have neutralized many of the viral particles, so the RNA being picked up by the test is in neutralized virus that isn't transmissible. My layman's understanding is he's questioning the assertion that vaxxed folks are "just as contagious" as unvaxxed.
Interesting. Some may recall that I had pointed out that the area has a 69% vaccinated adult population and that 74% of the people who were infected had been vaccinated. Statistically, that means a vaccine increases your risk of infection. I questioned the data, but acknowledged it could be a statistical outlier. Many Disagreed with my comments on that, but now a specific concern with data collection has been identified.
As to the gatherings in bars and homes: I'm not sure what everyone expects to happen during bear week; I am not surprised.
https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-vaccines-pfizer-moderna-delta-biden-e9be4bb0-3d10-4f56-8054-5410be357070.html
If Pfizer protection is down to 42% that could support the numbers you posted. One study showed Pfizer protection declining after 6 months.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »Seems like the tut tutting is in full force, so you are not right about that.
Personally, I'm okay with anyone having outdoor events with (I would hope) vaxxed people, but it seems like there is going to be (unhelpful) tut tutting of anyone one disapproves of politically no matter what the event.
My neighborhood is planning a block party, so come tut tut us.
It's possible to approve of someone politically and disapprove of their holding a party with hundreds of people during a pandemic, even if it's outside, even if in theory they're all supposed to be vaccinated (IMO, if you get together a group that large, you're going to have at least a couple of dozen who are lying about being vaccinated).
While his estate may be big enough that hundreds of people could theoretically wander the grounds at a safe distance from each other, I doubt that was the prevailing behavior at an occasion with music, dancing, food, drink, and the opportunity to get within elbow-rubbing distance of Beyonce.
Given the evidence that vaccinated people can still transmit it, odds are a large number of people are going to go back to their lives (a few may even fly commercial -- gasp!! -- back to their lives) and create new transmissions chains that will end up reaching folks who are unvaccinated because they can't get vaccinated. I just think throwing an extravagant birthday party under pandemic conditions is a really bad look. If somebody wants to act like a narcissist, they shouldn't be surprised when other people call them on it.
I think the only people who can claim consistency on this one is (1) habitual opponents of mask-wearing and other pandemic-control measures who shrug their shoulders at Obama's party and (2) habitual supporters of mask-wearing and other pandemic-control measures who tut-tut over Obama's party.
I think that the people who can claim consistency on this are those that consistently adhere to whatever the current public health guidelines are in effect in their area at a given time.
My family are holding two gatherings (weddings) over the next several weeks - both of which will follow or exceed the guidelines that our public health department has set out. I wouldn't say we are narcissists.
Unfortunately, public health guidelines have tended to be extremely reactive and based on trailing indicators. After cases and hospitalizations spiked in 2020 after Easter, and after Memorial Day cookouts, and after July 4 cookouts, I didn't need to wait until late September for local public health guidance to be tweaked to know that anybody I encountered a few days after Labor Day was statistically more likely to be infected than they were a few days before. We haven't got this under control and public health guidelines that repeatedly have encouraged loosening up as though we have it under control only to be followed by new surges haven't really helped matters.
And the remark about acting like a narcissist was aimed at extremely wealthy and famous people who largely have far more ability than the rest of us to control their risk from things like shopping or public transit and nevertheless choose to create a publicized spectacle of hundreds of people in close quarters, outside or not.
I've been feeling guilty that I attended a couple of funerals during the recent brief period of very low transmission/incidence rates locally, even though I was vaccinated and everyone I knew who was going was vaccinated and I and most other people wore masks for the indoor portion in spaces that were definitely well below 50% capacity. And now things are spiking again.
So I just don't have any patience left for people who apparently think that after 600,000+ deaths in this country alone, you can't be happy with a nice meal or cookout and cake and ice cream with immediate family and maybe a few close friends who don't have to jet across the country to get there -- speaking of which, I could go live in a cave for the rest of my life eating only what I could forage and go naked when my current clothing wears out and the reduction in my carbon footprint might make up half of the carbon emissions generated by people just flying to this party, if I lived to 110!
Not sure where you are in the US - I looked at a few of the stats for states down there and given the abysmal vaccination rates you seem to be in a much different situation than we are up here. Also I believe from everything I have heard that our public health measures have been much more restrictive than yours, we have never come out of indoor masking and capacity limits for events.
Tbh I have paid only peripheral attention to what is going on in the US, but a lot of it seems pretty negative.
I expect our divergent opinions are influenced by the different ways we have experienced the pandemic based on our location, and given what I have heard about the US situation I understand your frustration.
The percentage I see quoted for my state is just under 60%, and that's of total population, which I think is pretty good since nobody under 12 can get vaccinated. But we're still surging on transmissions and infections. Not so much on hospitalizations and deaths -- yet, at least.2 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »Seems like the tut tutting is in full force, so you are not right about that.
Personally, I'm okay with anyone having outdoor events with (I would hope) vaxxed people, but it seems like there is going to be (unhelpful) tut tutting of anyone one disapproves of politically no matter what the event.
My neighborhood is planning a block party, so come tut tut us.
It's possible to approve of someone politically and disapprove of their holding a party with hundreds of people during a pandemic, even if it's outside, even if in theory they're all supposed to be vaccinated (IMO, if you get together a group that large, you're going to have at least a couple of dozen who are lying about being vaccinated).
While his estate may be big enough that hundreds of people could theoretically wander the grounds at a safe distance from each other, I doubt that was the prevailing behavior at an occasion with music, dancing, food, drink, and the opportunity to get within elbow-rubbing distance of Beyonce.
Given the evidence that vaccinated people can still transmit it, odds are a large number of people are going to go back to their lives (a few may even fly commercial -- gasp!! -- back to their lives) and create new transmissions chains that will end up reaching folks who are unvaccinated because they can't get vaccinated. I just think throwing an extravagant birthday party under pandemic conditions is a really bad look. If somebody wants to act like a narcissist, they shouldn't be surprised when other people call them on it.
I think the only people who can claim consistency on this one is (1) habitual opponents of mask-wearing and other pandemic-control measures who shrug their shoulders at Obama's party and (2) habitual supporters of mask-wearing and other pandemic-control measures who tut-tut over Obama's party.
Some of us have been consistent that outdoor events are low risk, and have been consistent with that despite the political leanings of any particular event. The exception, of course, is when an outdoor event has a whole lot of indoor gatherings along with it... one in particular comes to mind where many profile government officials became infected as a result. In short, consistency is consistency whether they fall under your categories or not.
If hundreds of people are under a couple of tents dancing with each other, I think the distinction between indoor and outdoor becomes fairly academic.
Tents have walls and ceilings, so I would agree there. If it's just a conopy (without walls), I don't see it as "inside."
Close enough to dance, for long enough to dance, with no mask, with someone outside one's own household, even under a roof-only canopy? Seems close enough for contagion, to me, even if everyone's vaxed.
I didn't claim zero risk, I said outdoors is low risk. I don't disagree with your conclusion that such circumstances COULD result in spread. But as you already acknowledged, we don't really know the setup or how people interacted, nor for how long. We don't even really know how many people were there.
But it's so unnecessary! So many people have been twisting themselves in knots for 17 months to figure out ways to do things that are necessary -- go to work, get food, go to school, get medical treatment -- in ways that would minimize the risk of getting or spreading the virus, and all I can see is a bunch of rich people willing to increase that risk for an over-the-top party -- not even a get-together with close family members you haven't been able to see in person for a year or more -- because what? They're bored because going to Martha's Vineyard is the most exciting thing they're allowed to do right now?
And the party hosts, at least, didn't even have the excuse that they're too uneducated to know better or that their sense of identity is so wrapped up in a nonscientific alternative reality that they think covid isn't real or is just a bad flu.
I don't think bourbon is the answer for me. So many of the reasonably healthy things I would do in normal times to preserve my mental and emotional health (and my patience) I can't or won't do now, because of covid. And I can't even go for a decent walk this week between insane temperatures and thunderstorms.11 -
My sister and I went to the movie theater yesterday, first time since they've been shut down. It was a special offer so not many people were there, about 25. We two were the only ones wearing masks and I felt pretty silly. BUT OTOH my brother is now quarantined because someone from his church tested positive so they're closed church for 2 weeks.
In-person church is another thing I've given up. I wasn't a regular attendee before covid, but I was sure going a lot more than never in 17 months. My sister is going back to church with, in her area, unrestricted numbers and singing. She's a cancer survivor in her mid 70s. At least I can still pray at home that she doesn't get it.13 -
I was listening to TWIV and they feel confident that the FDA will give Pfizer full approval soon, hopefully by Labor Day. At that point, they expect military mandates as well as others which will jack up the vaxxed percentage. They also think an extension of the approved age range down to 6 yrs old will come shortly after that.
They also noted that once the polio vaccine was fully approved, it took FIVE YEARS for the US to get to 90% vaccinated. So while this feels like it's been going on forever, it isn't going nearly as badly as our impatience thinks it is. I am going to knit that into a pillow that I can fling at the wall.
Hmmm. Pillow-flinging. I wonder if that would work for me? Sometimes I just scream in my empty house, but all it seems to get me is a sore throat.9 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »They also discussed this report on the Barnstable outbreak:
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm
They said there is a lot of info that simply wasn't collected that limits the conclusions you can draw. But what jumped out to them was that only 1% of known vaxxed attendees required hospitalization with 0 deaths. Also that the attendees interviewed described attending densely packed indoor/outdoor events including bars and house parties with minimal if any mitigations. Basically a recipe for breakthroughs.
There was no clinical tracing done to try to determine who got who sick, so it doesn't really add to the conversation about how much vaxxed people are transmitting.
This part goes over my head, but maybe it will mean something to someone. The paper notes that the CT values detected by the covid tests were similar between vaxxed and unvaxxed attendees who tested positive. Dr Griffin noted that the CT value is detecting the amount of COVID-19 Rna in the nose, not "necessarily" viral particles. He said public health officials seem to be assuming that similar amounts of RNA mean similar amounts of virus, but it is entirely possible that vaccine-induced antibodies have neutralized many of the viral particles, so the RNA being picked up by the test is in neutralized virus that isn't transmissible. My layman's understanding is he's questioning the assertion that vaxxed folks are "just as contagious" as unvaxxed.
Interesting. Some may recall that I had pointed out that the area has a 69% vaccinated adult population and that 74% of the people who were infected had been vaccinated. Statistically, that means a vaccine increases your risk of infection. I questioned the data, but acknowledged it could be a statistical outlier. Many Disagreed with my comments on that, but now a specific concern with data collection has been identified.
As to the gatherings in bars and homes: I'm not sure what everyone expects to happen during bear week; I am not surprised.
https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-vaccines-pfizer-moderna-delta-biden-e9be4bb0-3d10-4f56-8054-5410be357070.html
If Pfizer protection is down to 42% that could support the numbers you posted. One study showed Pfizer protection declining after 6 months.
That's not the right extrapolation. Only one hospitalized patient (of 5, no deaths) had Pfizer. The most likely explanation (although Carnivore is right, the data is wanting) is that nearly 100% of the Bear Week attendees were vaccinated, which seems likely. And the vast majority of them, despite what seems to be super risky behavior, did not get seriously ill and none died. Yay, vaxx.11 -
I continue to think that the risk of vaxxed people getting together is super minimal, and do not regret doing a dinner inside and escape room with other vaxxed folks earlier this year, or going to work maskless (plus lots of outdoor stuff). I have some younger friends (liberal. not that it matters, but some seem to think we are all scolds, so scold in response) who have been generally CDC followers and careful whom have been going to weddings almost every weekend this summer (and expect to continue), all vaxxed. Many I know have finally planned vacations. So far I see the risk to vaxxed and the risk to kids (although I hope they do expand age for the vaxx to 6 soon, as kimny suggested, and support vax mandates for teachers) as minimal from the studies I've read. I am not happy if others have more risk, but none of them seem to be saying "lock down on my account," and I really think a lot of us need life to go somewhat back to normal. That some won't vaccinate is not reason not to, when they can.9
-
SummerSkier wrote: »...meanwhile in Tx I had a discussion this morning with one of my barn friends. He will be dosing with ivermectrin if his kid tests positive. I.. kid.. you... not... At first I thought he was joking but he knows a friend of a friend who was traveling with 5 other people in a van. The friend was taking ivermectrin and was the only one who did not get sick. He also quoted to me that he knows an ER doc who says 99 percent of the cases he is seeing are vaccinated folks. I am not going to even wonder if he has been vaccinated.
Ugh. I have family who are all taking bi-weekly doses of ivermectin because they think that not only does it protect against Covid, it's a general cure-all for whatever ails you. So they all get wormed regularly and it prevents/cures most diseases! *eyes rolling* I can't even...Just get vaxxed, and then you don't have to take ivermectin every time you get the sniffles.7 -
For five weeks the SD DOH felt justified by low numbers to only publish data once a week. Today they reversed that decision and went back to daily updates. Delta is here in force.11
-
both of the kids tested positive. They had fever but my barn friend said he would not have thought it was covid except that he was notified they were exposed by one of the painters in their house (young guy) who was in the hospital. I called him yesterday to check as he has 6 kids total. He said the ones who were the worst were the youngest but they were doing better now. Him and his wife and the older kid may be positive but they are not tested and have no symptoms. So yeah I think there are probably a ton more cases out there than the #s show esp of vaccinated folks who think they have allergies or a cold.
cases at work have spiked back matching the surrounding communities of course. But they went back to masking early on only really not masked for 2 weeks in July. What is interesting is that they talked about the cases and said they were more severe and many were in the hospital. We have only had 1 person who died from all our cases since the start of the pandemic. Currently 5 active, 20 folks isolating and 181 total to date. For a total of about 8 percent of our pop at work. No internal mass spread just folks exposed outside.11 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »They also discussed this report on the Barnstable outbreak:
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm
They said there is a lot of info that simply wasn't collected that limits the conclusions you can draw. But what jumped out to them was that only 1% of known vaxxed attendees required hospitalization with 0 deaths. Also that the attendees interviewed described attending densely packed indoor/outdoor events including bars and house parties with minimal if any mitigations. Basically a recipe for breakthroughs.
There was no clinical tracing done to try to determine who got who sick, so it doesn't really add to the conversation about how much vaxxed people are transmitting.
This part goes over my head, but maybe it will mean something to someone. The paper notes that the CT values detected by the covid tests were similar between vaxxed and unvaxxed attendees who tested positive. Dr Griffin noted that the CT value is detecting the amount of COVID-19 Rna in the nose, not "necessarily" viral particles. He said public health officials seem to be assuming that similar amounts of RNA mean similar amounts of virus, but it is entirely possible that vaccine-induced antibodies have neutralized many of the viral particles, so the RNA being picked up by the test is in neutralized virus that isn't transmissible. My layman's understanding is he's questioning the assertion that vaxxed folks are "just as contagious" as unvaxxed.
Interesting. Some may recall that I had pointed out that the area has a 69% vaccinated adult population and that 74% of the people who were infected had been vaccinated. Statistically, that means a vaccine increases your risk of infection. I questioned the data, but acknowledged it could be a statistical outlier. Many Disagreed with my comments on that, but now a specific concern with data collection has been identified.
As to the gatherings in bars and homes: I'm not sure what everyone expects to happen during bear week; I am not surprised.
Again, the 69% is for the entire state, not for the attendees of these events in this one town. The 69% and 74% have nothing to do with each other and comparing them statistically means absolutely nothing. It never meant vaccination increases your risk tif infection, regardless of how data was collected.
I believe the focus on where they were gathering was to stress that this one situation shouldn't be extrapolated to most people's situation. These vaccinated people put themselves into a high risk, concentrated environment for an extended period of time. So it's no reason for some of the panicked reactions many are having if they are still being mindful of spacing and ventilation in places they can't be sure everyone is vaccinated and healthy.
We will never have vaccinated rates for the exact population directly exposed. Using the state vaccination rate is reliable enough for the CDC to use in its MMWR.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »They also discussed this report on the Barnstable outbreak:
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm
They said there is a lot of info that simply wasn't collected that limits the conclusions you can draw. But what jumped out to them was that only 1% of known vaxxed attendees required hospitalization with 0 deaths. Also that the attendees interviewed described attending densely packed indoor/outdoor events including bars and house parties with minimal if any mitigations. Basically a recipe for breakthroughs.
There was no clinical tracing done to try to determine who got who sick, so it doesn't really add to the conversation about how much vaxxed people are transmitting.
This part goes over my head, but maybe it will mean something to someone. The paper notes that the CT values detected by the covid tests were similar between vaxxed and unvaxxed attendees who tested positive. Dr Griffin noted that the CT value is detecting the amount of COVID-19 Rna in the nose, not "necessarily" viral particles. He said public health officials seem to be assuming that similar amounts of RNA mean similar amounts of virus, but it is entirely possible that vaccine-induced antibodies have neutralized many of the viral particles, so the RNA being picked up by the test is in neutralized virus that isn't transmissible. My layman's understanding is he's questioning the assertion that vaxxed folks are "just as contagious" as unvaxxed.
Interesting. Some may recall that I had pointed out that the area has a 69% vaccinated adult population and that 74% of the people who were infected had been vaccinated. Statistically, that means a vaccine increases your risk of infection. I questioned the data, but acknowledged it could be a statistical outlier. Many Disagreed with my comments on that, but now a specific concern with data collection has been identified.
As to the gatherings in bars and homes: I'm not sure what everyone expects to happen during bear week; I am not surprised.
https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-vaccines-pfizer-moderna-delta-biden-e9be4bb0-3d10-4f56-8054-5410be357070.html
If Pfizer protection is down to 42% that could support the numbers you posted. One study showed Pfizer protection declining after 6 months.
That's not the right extrapolation. Only one hospitalized patient (of 5, no deaths) had Pfizer. The most likely explanation (although Carnivore is right, the data is wanting) is that nearly 100% of the Bear Week attendees were vaccinated, which seems likely. And the vast majority of them, despite what seems to be super risky behavior, did not get seriously ill and none died. Yay, vaxx.
This is a fair point, but the CDC and the media have failed to focus on this. Instead, they just wanted to talk about Delta variant and breakthrough cases. Focusing on the negative statistics, whether cherry picking this specific outbreak with exceptionally bad results, or focusing on positive cases instead of the outcomes.3 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »They also discussed this report on the Barnstable outbreak:
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm
They said there is a lot of info that simply wasn't collected that limits the conclusions you can draw. But what jumped out to them was that only 1% of known vaxxed attendees required hospitalization with 0 deaths. Also that the attendees interviewed described attending densely packed indoor/outdoor events including bars and house parties with minimal if any mitigations. Basically a recipe for breakthroughs.
There was no clinical tracing done to try to determine who got who sick, so it doesn't really add to the conversation about how much vaxxed people are transmitting.
This part goes over my head, but maybe it will mean something to someone. The paper notes that the CT values detected by the covid tests were similar between vaxxed and unvaxxed attendees who tested positive. Dr Griffin noted that the CT value is detecting the amount of COVID-19 Rna in the nose, not "necessarily" viral particles. He said public health officials seem to be assuming that similar amounts of RNA mean similar amounts of virus, but it is entirely possible that vaccine-induced antibodies have neutralized many of the viral particles, so the RNA being picked up by the test is in neutralized virus that isn't transmissible. My layman's understanding is he's questioning the assertion that vaxxed folks are "just as contagious" as unvaxxed.
Interesting. Some may recall that I had pointed out that the area has a 69% vaccinated adult population and that 74% of the people who were infected had been vaccinated. Statistically, that means a vaccine increases your risk of infection. I questioned the data, but acknowledged it could be a statistical outlier. Many Disagreed with my comments on that, but now a specific concern with data collection has been identified.
As to the gatherings in bars and homes: I'm not sure what everyone expects to happen during bear week; I am not surprised.
Again, the 69% is for the entire state, not for the attendees of these events in this one town. The 69% and 74% have nothing to do with each other and comparing them statistically means absolutely nothing. It never meant vaccination increases your risk tif infection, regardless of how data was collected.
I believe the focus on where they were gathering was to stress that this one situation shouldn't be extrapolated to most people's situation. These vaccinated people put themselves into a high risk, concentrated environment for an extended period of time. So it's no reason for some of the panicked reactions many are having if they are still being mindful of spacing and ventilation in places they can't be sure everyone is vaccinated and healthy.
We will never have vaccinated rates for the exact population directly exposed. Using the state vaccination rate is reliable enough for the CDC to use in its MMWR.
But you're using the whole state's percentage and assuming it's the rate for this one town's event and drawing a very specific conclusion. That's not how percentages or statistics work. Which is probably why no public health officials or researchers (including the CDC report) came to the conclusion you did. They found it concerning that vaxxed people were testing positive and changed their mask recommendations, but in no way did they suggest vaxxed people were more likely to get infected. Vaxx rates vary dramatically by county and by demographic within states.
51% of the Virginia population is women, but 65% of the people in my local rural Food Lion this week were men, so statistically that means that men are more likely to go grocery shopping?14 -
Here's another scenario where on the face of it, it looks like vaccinated people are more likely to get sick than unvaxxed:
A reported 203 people tested positive for covid after Lollapalooza in Chicago which took place about 2 weeks ago. Of those numbers, 127 were vaccinated, and 76 were not. Just looking at the numbers one could say that vaccinated people were more likely to get sick, so vaccines aren't really useful, except
1. Everyone in attendance was required to show proof of vaccine or a negative test, and estimates are that 88% of the attendees were vaccinated
2. There were an estimated 385,000 attendees which translates to 0.04% of the vaccinated people later testing positive vs. 0.16% unvaxxed, so actually unvaxxed people were more likely to get sick as expected
As a personal observation, aside from supporting the science that vaccinated people are less likely to become ill, I am encouraged by the evidence that large outdoor events can take place again without being super-spreaders if proper precautions are taken. The number of covid cases reported is amazingly low for a crowd like that, and even given that there are likely many more unreported asymptomatic cases it's still a pretty good example of how we can start getting our lives back with some basic precautions. Especially given that no one was excluded based on vaccine status.
Source: https://blockclubchicago.org/2021/08/12/more-than-200-lollapalooza-attendees-got-covid-19-but-it-wasnt-a-super-spreader-event-citys-top-doc-says/
edited to complete point 212 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »They also discussed this report on the Barnstable outbreak:
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm
They said there is a lot of info that simply wasn't collected that limits the conclusions you can draw. But what jumped out to them was that only 1% of known vaxxed attendees required hospitalization with 0 deaths. Also that the attendees interviewed described attending densely packed indoor/outdoor events including bars and house parties with minimal if any mitigations. Basically a recipe for breakthroughs.
There was no clinical tracing done to try to determine who got who sick, so it doesn't really add to the conversation about how much vaxxed people are transmitting.
This part goes over my head, but maybe it will mean something to someone. The paper notes that the CT values detected by the covid tests were similar between vaxxed and unvaxxed attendees who tested positive. Dr Griffin noted that the CT value is detecting the amount of COVID-19 Rna in the nose, not "necessarily" viral particles. He said public health officials seem to be assuming that similar amounts of RNA mean similar amounts of virus, but it is entirely possible that vaccine-induced antibodies have neutralized many of the viral particles, so the RNA being picked up by the test is in neutralized virus that isn't transmissible. My layman's understanding is he's questioning the assertion that vaxxed folks are "just as contagious" as unvaxxed.
Interesting. Some may recall that I had pointed out that the area has a 69% vaccinated adult population and that 74% of the people who were infected had been vaccinated. Statistically, that means a vaccine increases your risk of infection. I questioned the data, but acknowledged it could be a statistical outlier. Many Disagreed with my comments on that, but now a specific concern with data collection has been identified.
As to the gatherings in bars and homes: I'm not sure what everyone expects to happen during bear week; I am not surprised.
Again, the 69% is for the entire state, not for the attendees of these events in this one town. The 69% and 74% have nothing to do with each other and comparing them statistically means absolutely nothing. It never meant vaccination increases your risk tif infection, regardless of how data was collected.
I believe the focus on where they were gathering was to stress that this one situation shouldn't be extrapolated to most people's situation. These vaccinated people put themselves into a high risk, concentrated environment for an extended period of time. So it's no reason for some of the panicked reactions many are having if they are still being mindful of spacing and ventilation in places they can't be sure everyone is vaccinated and healthy.
We will never have vaccinated rates for the exact population directly exposed. Using the state vaccination rate is reliable enough for the CDC to use in its MMWR.
But you're using the whole state's percentage and assuming it's the rate for this one town's event and drawing a very specific conclusion. That's not how percentages or statistics work. Which is probably why no public health officials or researchers (including the CDC report) came to the conclusion you did. They found it concerning that vaxxed people were testing positive and changed their mask recommendations, but in no way did they suggest vaxxed people were more likely to get infected. Vaxx rates vary dramatically by county and by demographic within states.
51% of the Virginia population is women, but 65% of the people in my local rural Food Lion this week were men, so statistically that means that men are more likely to go grocery shopping?
Speaking of food shopping "statistics," shortly after the mask mandate was dropped in MA for vaxxed people, I noticed that @ 75% of people in Whole Foods were masked, as opposed to @ 50% or less at other supermarkets and Walmart.
At the time, I wondered if it was due to more caution or less vaccination.
I was at the same store at about the same time Monday and close to 100% were masked. So I'm going to surmise that both times caution is the more likely explanation than lack of vaccination.
I've been vaxxed since April but have started masking in stores again after my partner's brother's whole vaccinated family got sick due to their unvaxxed 2 yo grandchild.8 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »They also discussed this report on the Barnstable outbreak:
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm
They said there is a lot of info that simply wasn't collected that limits the conclusions you can draw. But what jumped out to them was that only 1% of known vaxxed attendees required hospitalization with 0 deaths. Also that the attendees interviewed described attending densely packed indoor/outdoor events including bars and house parties with minimal if any mitigations. Basically a recipe for breakthroughs.
There was no clinical tracing done to try to determine who got who sick, so it doesn't really add to the conversation about how much vaxxed people are transmitting.
This part goes over my head, but maybe it will mean something to someone. The paper notes that the CT values detected by the covid tests were similar between vaxxed and unvaxxed attendees who tested positive. Dr Griffin noted that the CT value is detecting the amount of COVID-19 Rna in the nose, not "necessarily" viral particles. He said public health officials seem to be assuming that similar amounts of RNA mean similar amounts of virus, but it is entirely possible that vaccine-induced antibodies have neutralized many of the viral particles, so the RNA being picked up by the test is in neutralized virus that isn't transmissible. My layman's understanding is he's questioning the assertion that vaxxed folks are "just as contagious" as unvaxxed.
Interesting. Some may recall that I had pointed out that the area has a 69% vaccinated adult population and that 74% of the people who were infected had been vaccinated. Statistically, that means a vaccine increases your risk of infection. I questioned the data, but acknowledged it could be a statistical outlier. Many Disagreed with my comments on that, but now a specific concern with data collection has been identified.
As to the gatherings in bars and homes: I'm not sure what everyone expects to happen during bear week; I am not surprised.
Again, the 69% is for the entire state, not for the attendees of these events in this one town. The 69% and 74% have nothing to do with each other and comparing them statistically means absolutely nothing. It never meant vaccination increases your risk tif infection, regardless of how data was collected.
I believe the focus on where they were gathering was to stress that this one situation shouldn't be extrapolated to most people's situation. These vaccinated people put themselves into a high risk, concentrated environment for an extended period of time. So it's no reason for some of the panicked reactions many are having if they are still being mindful of spacing and ventilation in places they can't be sure everyone is vaccinated and healthy.
We will never have vaccinated rates for the exact population directly exposed. Using the state vaccination rate is reliable enough for the CDC to use in its MMWR.
But you're using the whole state's percentage and assuming it's the rate for this one town's event and drawing a very specific conclusion. That's not how percentages or statistics work. Which is probably why no public health officials or researchers (including the CDC report) came to the conclusion you did. They found it concerning that vaxxed people were testing positive and changed their mask recommendations, but in no way did they suggest vaxxed people were more likely to get infected. Vaxx rates vary dramatically by county and by demographic within states.
51% of the Virginia population is women, but 65% of the people in my local rural Food Lion this week were men, so statistically that means that men are more likely to go grocery shopping?
This is fair, and we don't know anything beyond the state data. Having said that, if the vaccinated rate was 74% (pretty high, but possible), then the conclusion is that the vaccine doesn't prevent infections at all. If the vaccination rate was the highest possible at 99% (it can't be 100% because there are some who were infected and not vaccinated), then the vaccine is 23% effective at preventing infection. That's the highest it could possibly be when assuming best case for the unknown details. Why focus on this case?!1 -
Just came on the local news https://vineyardgazette.com/news/2021/08/12/hospitalizations-and-business-closures-case-spike-continues1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions