Coronavirus prep
Replies
-
Context: I'm having a heated discussion with a relative whose argument is that all countries with similar demographics will eventually have similar hospitalization and death statistics, and that those who take the hit in the beginning of a wave (Sweden for instance) by not imposing strict health mandates will get to endemic status much sooner through a combination of vaccines and natural infection.
I agree that pre-vaccination the natural infection rates would probably have evened out over time, but now that vaccines are in play, slow-rolling infections while letting the vaccine rate catch up as much as it's going to will result in much better outcomes, since more unvaccinated people will die if infected than vaccinated.
edit: meaning that delaying until there is a substantial majority of vaccinated people, plus those who survived the virus would greatly outnumber people who are unvaccinated.
They are arguing that not putting restrictions on businesses would lead to less impact on the economy but I think the economic impact wouldn't be much different, since the more people are infected, the fewer can work and that would probably cause a similar situation as intentionally restricting some business activities.5 -
Context: I'm having a heated discussion with a relative whose argument is that all countries with similar demographics will eventually have similar hospitalization and death statistics, and that those who take the hit in the beginning of a wave (Sweden for instance) by not imposing strict health mandates will get to endemic status much sooner through a combination of vaccines and natural infection.
I agree that pre-vaccination the natural infection rates would probably have evened out over time, but now that vaccines are in play, slow-rolling infections while letting the vaccine rate catch up as much as it's going to will result in much better outcomes, since more unvaccinated people will die if infected than vaccinated.
edit: meaning that delaying until there is a substantial majority of vaccinated people, plus those who survived the virus would greatly outnumber people who are unvaccinated.
They are arguing that not putting restrictions on businesses would lead to less impact on the economy but I think the economic impact wouldn't be much different, since the more people are infected, the fewer can work and that would probably cause a similar situation as intentionally restricting some business activities.
I was just a mid-level munchkin, but speaking as someone with some decades of management experience, if we're comparing disruptions of similar total magnitude, I would 100% prefer announced, scheduled shutdowns, with specific mitigation measures created by the government **, compared to random, episodic, unpredictable, probably repeated shutdowns without such mitigation measures.
I believe the total human impact of planned, scheduled shutdowns would be lower, including economic impacts.
The unpredictable ones are much more difficult to manage and stay profitable, through both impacts local to that specific business (like sick/dead/quarantined employees), and random, unpredictable supply chain disruptions that can mean that even if my business can run, it can't do what it does because it's lacking needed supplies/materials.
** Mitigation measures: For example, the loans to business who kept people on payroll; the provisions like mask mandates that protected essential in-person employees at least a little more protected from unpredictable infections and therefore shutdowns of individual business sites due to staff shortages; etc. Some will argue that these mitigation measures were imperfect, some very much so . . . but some of them were better than nothing at all.
Even with mitigation measures in both cases, I'd prefer the scheduled, predictable version, feeling like that creates more opportunities to plan, adjust, figure out how to make profits under the changed circumstances if at all possible, rather than lurching from one unpredictable crisis situation to another.11 -
Context: I'm having a heated discussion with a relative whose argument is that all countries with similar demographics will eventually have similar hospitalization and death statistics, and that those who take the hit in the beginning of a wave (Sweden for instance) by not imposing strict health mandates will get to endemic status much sooner through a combination of vaccines and natural infection.
I agree that pre-vaccination the natural infection rates would probably have evened out over time, but now that vaccines are in play, slow-rolling infections while letting the vaccine rate catch up as much as it's going to will result in much better outcomes, since more unvaccinated people will die if infected than vaccinated.
edit: meaning that delaying until there is a substantial majority of vaccinated people, plus those who survived the virus would greatly outnumber people who are unvaccinated.
They are arguing that not putting restrictions on businesses would lead to less impact on the economy but I think the economic impact wouldn't be much different, since the more people are infected, the fewer can work and that would probably cause a similar situation as intentionally restricting some business activities.
Yep, not putting restrictions on businesses doesn't really help the economy, between people choosing on their own to minimize their risk and employees getting sick, leading to work stoppages, and at least some of them ending up dead or with chronic health conditions that cause more permanent employee shortages.
I'm pretty sure Sweden changed their strategy after they initially fared worse than their neighbors and many businesses and people ended up choosing to use mitigations even if there weren't mandates, didn't they?
Another problem with just letting cases spike with no restrictions are health resources. Overwhelmed hospitals lead to more people dying not just from covid, but from all other conditions. It also can lead to increases in healthcare workers burning out and leaving the profession, and hcw suicides. Several nurses I know, who were already struggling with shortages of well trained nurses, are fed up and figuring out how they are going to get out of the field. I think we are going to pay the price in hcw shortages for a long time.
If you remove the human costs and just think about who gets out of this sooner, I don't think there's a clear answer to that. But is getting to "endemic" fast with a huge death toll better than getting there slower but with less casualties of the disease? Is the toll of mitigation restrictions worse than the toll of uncontrolled spread? I doubt that very much, and think there are ways to limit that toll, but I know not everyone agrees. I'm not really sure if there are countries out there that just let covid spike and everyone just kept living their lives as normal, did they? Watching your local hospital fill up with people who are struggling to breathe can be a pretty powerful motivator, even if you're technically allowed to carry on as if nothing is happening.7 -
As of yesterday, 68 Florida hospitals only had enough oxygen for 48 hours.
An army vet died of a treatable issue (gallstone pancreatitis) because he couldn't get an ICU bed because of the number of covid cases.
Louisiana and the Gulf Coast is about to be slammed by Hurricane Ida and hospitals in all surroundings states are full.
It is proven that the vaccinated make up a SUPER SMALL number of hospitalizations and deaths. Breakthrough cases happen with every vaccine so this is no different, but it is doing its job. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been sticking their heads in the sand. They don't care about proof or science. At this point, anyone not vaccinated by choice is signing their own death certificate.
And I don't feel bad about that.
This is the fault of the unvaccinated.25 -
Apologies if this is a question that has been already covered, but I am wondering if anyone has stats for rate of "break through" infections vs second Covid infections. Basically, hubby and I are trying to assess the risk for my 82 year old vaccinated MIL by her being around a non-vaccinated person that tested positive for a COVID infection in May 2020. Is she really at more risk being with this person vs my husband and I, who are fully vaccinated with no known infection? My instinct is that it should be a draw, but I bet there is a more official answer. TIA
My understanding based on current studies is that being vaccinated reduced the likelihood of being infected with Delta, compared to having had an earlier variant. Also, fully vaxxed people can pass on the virus, but are less likely to, especially if they are asymptomatic. The belief at the moment is that breakthrough infections which reside in the nasal cavity can be just as infectious, but because they are in the nasal cavity they also cause, well, runny noses. Apparently in the limited studies that have been done asymptomatic vaccinated people didn’t harbor as much virus.
I can tell you what I would do, in the case of my high-risk 84 year old mother - allow her to see this person but outdoors, distanced and masked. If the person really wants to see her without a mask, they can get vaxxed. At this point I have no kind feelings towards anyone refusing the vaccine for anything other than health reasons, and consider such a person to be likely to be careless in their behavior generally, and therefore unsafe to be around.9 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »SummerSkier wrote: »It's actually easy here in Tx to get a booster. I was just talking to one of my friends yesterday morning about it (she is immuno compromised) and got her 2nd shot in Feb I think. She was able to walk right in to the pharmacy and get her booster yesterday afternoon. It will be interesting to see if she has any reaction to the 3rd. So far all reports I have heard are just arm soreness and nothing like the 2nd shot. She got Moderna I think. (and looks like that poster was quite successful in getting the other thread shut down).
On another note maybe MORE people will be encouraged to and will be able to get the antibodies now that our Governor has made them more in the news again.
I don't think that was a "booster". I think she got a regular shot which are widely available to walk into any pharmacy and get. So she got herself a third shot, but not necessarily a "booster". Per the CDC, boosters won't be available until the fall after full FDA approval (which happened yesterday August 23). From what I've read, these won't be just walk in and get...you will get a notification that you are eligible as per the date of your 2nd shot. It will go in the same order that the original shots were prioritized.
This is per the CDC on 8/20/21...so not really sure what your friend got here...maybe it was a booster and they were just starting before the official announcement of FDA approval or something. I won't be eligible to get mine until Dec as my 2nd shot was April 2 per the CDC.
I'm not sure how those notifications will work since that data isn't always in a single place (aside from the paper vaccine card).
I got my 1st dose of Moderna in TN, then moved to TX and got my 2nd dose at a pharmacy here. In May, the county where I lived in TN called me wanting to know if I was going to schedule my 2nd shot. There is no single national / international database with all of those records for each individual.
ETA: The original shots were also not prioritized in a uniform fashion. This was also a state decision. This is part of the reason I was able to get it in TN in March. I knew I would be moving soon and TX considered Type 1 Diabetics in the "healthy" group while TN put us in the "comorbidity" group. I agreed with TN and made sure to get my first when able. I got it the same week they opened it up to residents with 1 comorbidity. I was able to schedule a 2nd dose in TX only because I had already received my 1st dose.
In my state, those records are held by our state DOH and we will be notified by our DOH when we are eligible and that record will have to be provided to the pharmacy. This is to avoid a run on vaccine and vaccine shortfalls. Our state is simply following the 8 month CDC guidance for when to send notifications. This keeps everyone in the same order as the first go around.
That's great for people who got both doses in the same state and there are consistent records. For those of us who got our 2 doses in 2 different states, the systems you described functions to prevent me from ever receiving a booster.
In your situation, someone here would simply contact the DOH and explain that they received their first two vaccines in another state which is easy for them to verify. If you have your vax card, even easier and then they just register you using the date of your 2nd shot. If you had your first shot somewhere else, and your 2nd shot in state, the DOH would have on record that you received your second dose here, so you would already be in the database and get your notification 8 months after the 2nd dose on record.
Your vax card can also be used at the pharmacy here to indicate whether or not you're eligible for a booster as per the dates on the card.
Yea, the vax card is the only thing that helps me. Both TN and TX each think I got a 1st dose and skipped the 2nd dose. Although I don't know that the state of TX actually has any records.2 -
I still don't see how wearing a mask hurts the economy. We have to wear shirts and shoes when we go inside a business. What's one more item of clothing?22
-
-
LiveOnceBeHappy wrote: »
If the whole country had a mandate how would a different business or state provide a different option?
While some people would drive to a different state, per your above, *I* chose to walk out of a place where employees (and of course customers) were not wearing a mask and go to a grocery store that DID require them for their employees and where at least some of the customers were wearing one.
And walked away from a hair cutting place where people were using them for props and went to one where they had them on their face instead. And tipped them 25% even though they don't know that this was why I tipped.
With the government backing (or at least providing lip service even with no enforcement) at least SOME people will wear one and effectively reduce SOME level of transmission.
Once the government doesn't even bother to implement a zero cost to them "indoor masks are mandated" policy, then they are **effectively** saying "masks are no longer allowed"
You can mandate and enforce. You can mandate and not bother to enforce which still results into SOME level of compliance and reduction of transmission. Or you can state that there exists no mandate, guaranteeing that no one will wear one except for a very few.11 -
LiveOnceBeHappy wrote: »
Going to another state every time you want a coffee at a Cafe or items from the supermarket seems a tad impractical.10 -
paperpudding wrote: »LiveOnceBeHappy wrote: »
Going to another state every time you want a coffee at a Cafe or items from the supermarket seems a tad impractical.
Sure. For many. However, I live in a historically democratic state and live about 8 miles from a republican state. So there is that! Summer 2020 looked very different just 8 miles away.
In some cases, it's not about moving states. There are cities that have one set of rules and another very nearby that has a different set. If a person is against wearing a mask to shop, it's very easy to drive a few more miles to go to a location without the rule.
Those people who reject wearing masks would be very much less likely to visit a place for vacation with a mask mandate.
3 -
LiveOnceBeHappy wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »LiveOnceBeHappy wrote: »
Going to another state every time you want a coffee at a Cafe or items from the supermarket seems a tad impractical.
Sure. For many. However, I live in a historically democratic state and live about 8 miles from a republican state. So there is that! Summer 2020 looked very different just 8 miles away.
In some cases, it's not about moving states. There are cities that have one set of rules and another very nearby that has a different set. If a person is against wearing a mask to shop, it's very easy to drive a few more miles to go to a location without the rule.
Those people who reject wearing masks would be very much less likely to visit a place for vacation with a mask mandate.
Good. I don't want them in my state.
I'd happily trade any potential short term tourist hit for what we have now - hospitals with capacity.18 -
I still don't see how wearing a mask hurts the economy. We have to wear shirts and shoes when we go inside a business. What's one more item of clothing?LiveOnceBeHappy wrote: »Some people will choose to go to other businesses or states if they would be required to wear a mask.
In my desired scenario, all businesses follow the the CDC guidelines and require that everyone masks in areas with High or Substantial transmission.
I hate wearing masks and have been vaxxed since April, but I started masking in businesses again this month.14 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Apologies if this is a question that has been already covered, but I am wondering if anyone has stats for rate of "break through" infections vs second Covid infections. Basically, hubby and I are trying to assess the risk for my 82 year old vaccinated MIL by her being around a non-vaccinated person that tested positive for a COVID infection in May 2020. Is she really at more risk being with this person vs my husband and I, who are fully vaccinated with no known infection? My instinct is that it should be a draw, but I bet there is a more official answer. TIA
My understanding based on current studies is that being vaccinated reduced the likelihood of being infected with Delta, compared to having had an earlier variant. Also, fully vaxxed people can pass on the virus, but are less likely to, especially if they are asymptomatic. The belief at the moment is that breakthrough infections which reside in the nasal cavity can be just as infectious, but because they are in the nasal cavity they also cause, well, runny noses. Apparently in the limited studies that have been done asymptomatic vaccinated people didn’t harbor as much virus.
I can tell you what I would do, in the case of my high-risk 84 year old mother - allow her to see this person but outdoors, distanced and masked. If the person really wants to see her without a mask, they can get vaxxed. At this point I have no kind feelings towards anyone refusing the vaccine for anything other than health reasons, and consider such a person to be likely to be careless in their behavior generally, and therefore unsafe to be around.
Yes, this is why I turned down the 12 free massages I am eligible for from the VA - none of the providers on the list are vaccinated. (Well, one was for a health reason - the others did not say.) I just don't want to be that close to and give my business to someone who doesn't share my beliefs about health and safety.
The local branch of the chain Massage Envy would not put me in touch with a vaccinated provider - they say they are not allowed to ask. Which is a BS excuse - plenty of businesses are requiring their employees be vaccinated and are therefore asking. When I get around to it I will send corporate an email giving them a piece of my mind.
I did find a vaccinated massage therapist and am paying him out of pocket. I've encouraged him to apply to be part of the VA's Community Care network. I told him it is likely they will pay him less than his fee and I will make up the difference.9 -
So in the latest TWIV they interviewed Paul Bieniasz and Theodora Hatziiouannou, virologists who are renowned for working on HIV but obviously right now are focused on covid. This one was really fascinating and I'll probably listen to it again because it was more conversational and I def missed some stuff. Anyway...
They noted that declining antibodies months after vaxx is normal. The point of vaxx is not to have permanently circulating antibodies but for your body to know how to make the antibodies. They said that if your goal is just to reduce hospitalizations, then skip boosters and make sure everyone gets their two shots, but if your goal is to reduce transmission, boosters are a good idea. If I'm understanding correctly, they were saying that if you get the standard dose and 8 months later you don't have antibodies, you may become infected and be contagious for a short time before your body creates antibodies to keep you from getting really sick. But if you get a booster and have circulating antibodies when you get infected, they will eliminate the infection before you have a chance to spread.
Basically, every time you get vaxxed or get infected, it prompts your body to create more antibodies, and every time your body gets better and faster at doing so. So they expect that people who get vaxxed and then get a breakthrough infection, that infection is like a booster, except of course there is the risk that the infection may still be powerful enough to do damage in a small percentage of people.
The confounding factor is the high percentage of unvaxxed people. They said the possibility of more dangerous variants emerging as the unvaxxed continue to incubate the virus makes boosters to provide extra protection for the vaxxed an even better idea.
The other point that stuck with me was that covid tests are measuring viral RNA load in the nose, but they don't believe viral RNA load is a good way to measure transmissibility. In a vaxxed person, that RNA being measured could be in deactivated virus, not contagious viral particles. And the viral RNA load declines much more rapidly in a vaxxed person. They think time will show that vaxxed people are much less infectious and only for a short period of time, and that a vaxxed person infecting another vaxxed person is not much of a danger.
I think they touched on the case of Israel, but I don't remember what they be said. It doesn't seem from the stuff I do remember that they feel it is an accurate picture of vaccine effectiveness though.
A big focus on every episode of TWIV now is that almost all widely available vaccines do NOT stop infection, they prevent illness and greatly reduce spread. Their almost total effectiveness is reached because of herd immunity. If we want to stop having to worry about COVID-19, we need more people vaxxed asap. Which is a sobering thought. I will happily get a booster whenever it's recommended until more people come around.16 -
LiveOnceBeHappy wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »LiveOnceBeHappy wrote: »
Going to another state every time you want a coffee at a Cafe or items from the supermarket seems a tad impractical.
Sure. For many. However, I live in a historically democratic state and live about 8 miles from a republican state. So there is that! Summer 2020 looked very different just 8 miles away.
In some cases, it's not about moving states. There are cities that have one set of rules and another very nearby that has a different set. If a person is against wearing a mask to shop, it's very easy to drive a few more miles to go to a location without the rule.
Those people who reject wearing masks would be very much less likely to visit a place for vacation with a mask mandate.
Fine for those few people who live very close to a state border.
But even going to a nearby city in the same state just for everyday purchases seems rather impractical
and sure, people can avoid going on vacation to places requiring mask wearing if they want to - presuming they don't have to stop at any mask wearing places for petrol etc on route.
as of course, they would not be able to fly anywhere since airlines require mask wearing. as do public busses and co.
at least they do here in Australia - and highly likely tourists will need proof of vaccination before coming here too - when our borders are finally re opened.
Like kshama, I am quite happy for such people to travel elsewhere instead - we have low community transmission here and would like it to stay that way, thanks.9 -
Context: I'm having a heated discussion with a relative whose argument is that all countries with similar demographics will eventually have similar hospitalization and death statistics, and that those who take the hit in the beginning of a wave (Sweden for instance) by not imposing strict health mandates will get to endemic status much sooner through a combination of vaccines and natural infection.
I agree that pre-vaccination the natural infection rates would probably have evened out over time, but now that vaccines are in play, slow-rolling infections while letting the vaccine rate catch up as much as it's going to will result in much better outcomes, since more unvaccinated people will die if infected than vaccinated.
edit: meaning that delaying until there is a substantial majority of vaccinated people, plus those who survived the virus would greatly outnumber people who are unvaccinated.
They are arguing that not putting restrictions on businesses would lead to less impact on the economy but I think the economic impact wouldn't be much different, since the more people are infected, the fewer can work and that would probably cause a similar situation as intentionally restricting some business activities.
I think there are a lot fewer polio victims in the U.S. among people born between 2000 and 2020 than there were among those born between 1935 and 1955, even without accounting for the increase in the population. If this is not a refutation of your relative's argument, I guess I am misunderstanding the argument.5 -
Thank you Kimny 72. You put it so much better than I.
Once the body knows about a virus it has the ability to let numbers decline but ramp up production should they be required again.
Thank you too for the other information.4 -
LiveOnceBeHappy wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »LiveOnceBeHappy wrote: »
Going to another state every time you want a coffee at a Cafe or items from the supermarket seems a tad impractical.
Sure. For many. However, I live in a historically democratic state and live about 8 miles from a republican state. So there is that! Summer 2020 looked very different just 8 miles away.
In some cases, it's not about moving states. There are cities that have one set of rules and another very nearby that has a different set. If a person is against wearing a mask to shop, it's very easy to drive a few more miles to go to a location without the rule.
Those people who reject wearing masks would be very much less likely to visit a place for vacation with a mask mandate.
And those who believe in science and think a ventilator is a lot more uncomfortable than a mask, in your scenario, will find it's very easy to drive a few more miles to go to a location that requires masks, or to do business with organizations that make it known their staff is all vaccinated, or that require people entering to show vaccination proof. I've walked out of several businesses during the past year and (nearly) a half where people weren't masked, and took my money elsewhere. It's only been a few times because we have a pretty high compliance level here.
I refused to approach a cash register in a Dunkin' once when I realized the customer ahead of me, who was still lingering near the register waiting for his order, was wearing his mask below his nose. I didn't say anything -- no point in having him decide to spit on me -- I just hung back until he moved on, even though the person at the register was trying to get me to order. If it happened now with Delta I would just leave.13 -
So in the latest TWIV they interviewed Paul Bieniasz and Theodora Hatziiouannou, virologists who are renowned for working on HIV but obviously right now are focused on covid. This one was really fascinating and I'll probably listen to it again because it was more conversational and I def missed some stuff. Anyway...
They noted that declining antibodies months after vaxx is normal. The point of vaxx is not to have permanently circulating antibodies but for your body to know how to make the antibodies. They said that if your goal is just to reduce hospitalizations, then skip boosters and make sure everyone gets their two shots, but if your goal is to reduce transmission, boosters are a good idea. If I'm understanding correctly, they were saying that if you get the standard dose and 8 months later you don't have antibodies, you may become infected and be contagious for a short time before your body creates antibodies to keep you from getting really sick. But if you get a booster and have circulating antibodies when you get infected, they will eliminate the infection before you have a chance to spread.
Basically, every time you get vaxxed or get infected, it prompts your body to create more antibodies, and every time your body gets better and faster at doing so. So they expect that people who get vaxxed and then get a breakthrough infection, that infection is like a booster, except of course there is the risk that the infection may still be powerful enough to do damage in a small percentage of people.
The confounding factor is the high percentage of unvaxxed people. They said the possibility of more dangerous variants emerging as the unvaxxed continue to incubate the virus makes boosters to provide ex"ftra protection for the vaxxed an even better idea.
The other point that stuck with me was that covid tests are measuring viral RNA load in the nose, but they don't believe viral RNA load is a good way to measure transmissibility. In a vaxxed person, that RNA being measured could be in deactivated virus, not contagious viral particles. And the viral RNA load declines much more rapidly in a vaxxed person. They think time will show that vaxxed people are much less infectious and only for a short period of time, and that a vaxxed person infecting another vaxxed person is not much of a danger.
I think they touched on the case of Israel, but I don't remember what they be said. It doesn't seem from the stuff I do remember that they feel it is an accurate picture of vaccine effectiveness though.
A big focus on every episode of TWIV now is that almost all widely available vaccines do NOT stop infection, they prevent illness and greatly reduce spread. Their almost total effectiveness is reached because of herd immunity. If we want to stop having to worry about COVID-19, we need more people vaxxed asap. Which is a sobering thought. I will happily get a booster whenever it's recommended until more people come around.
I don't follow this stuff as closely as you do, and obviously don't want to argue with the actual experts you listened to (although I'm curious what "focused on covid" actually means -- have they been doing research on covid, or just talking about it on podcasts?) -- but, anyway, the impression I had in the discussions I've seen about the possible need for boosters was that epidemiologists and public health officials, as well as researchers following the early-vaccinated subjects from the clinical trials, were seeing a falling efficacy in terms of preventing infections and, in the face of the delta variant, a falling efficacy in terms of preventing varying degrees of symptomatic cases. I don't recall hearing or reading any suggestion that experts considering the need for boosters were doing so based on antibody levels, which as you say and which, even with my limited knowledge, I knew was to be expected and not a cause for concern.1 -
I would suggest like many scientist on realising the international community required assistance in getting through this pandemic they have set aside their original interest in HIV or other speciality for the time being and taken their scientific knowledge and applied it to COVID.2
-
LiveOnceBeHappy wrote: »
i know its not the case for everyone who lives near a state border, but i live just north of the NC state border, and the nearest town (with any shopping) would be 45 minutes from our town. for routine shopping, a bit impractical.
now, i go down there all the time, and twice as far, because i dont like that town, but not for routine shopping of any kind. For healthcare and 'fun' shopping or specialized shopping, yes.0 -
LiveOnceBeHappy wrote: »
If the whole country had a mandate how would a different business or state provide a different option?
While some people would drive to a different state, per your above, *I* chose to walk out of a place where employees (and of course customers) were not wearing a mask and go to a grocery store that DID require them for their employees and where at least some of the customers were wearing one.
And walked away from a hair cutting place where people were using them for props and went to one where they had them on their face instead. And tipped them 25% even though they don't know that this was why I tipped.
With the government backing (or at least providing lip service even with no enforcement) at least SOME people will wear one and effectively reduce SOME level of transmission.
Once the government doesn't even bother to implement a zero cost to them "indoor masks are mandated" policy, then they are **effectively** saying "masks are no longer allowed"
You can mandate and enforce. You can mandate and not bother to enforce which still results into SOME level of compliance and reduction of transmission. Or you can state that there exists no mandate, guaranteeing that no one will wear one except for a very few.LiveOnceBeHappy wrote: »
If the whole country had a mandate how would a different business or state provide a different option?
While some people would drive to a different state, per your above, *I* chose to walk out of a place where employees (and of course customers) were not wearing a mask and go to a grocery store that DID require them for their employees and where at least some of the customers were wearing one.
And walked away from a hair cutting place where people were using them for props and went to one where they had them on their face instead. And tipped them 25% even though they don't know that this was why I tipped.
With the government backing (or at least providing lip service even with no enforcement) at least SOME people will wear one and effectively reduce SOME level of transmission.
Once the government doesn't even bother to implement a zero cost to them "indoor masks are mandated" policy, then they are **effectively** saying "masks are no longer allowed"
You can mandate and enforce. You can mandate and not bother to enforce which still results into SOME level of compliance and reduction of transmission. Or you can state that there exists no mandate, guaranteeing that no one will wear one except for a very few.
This is essentially what has happened in England. On July 19th the legal requirement for distancing and masks in all indoor spaces was removed. It was widely referred to as “Freedom Day”. Our government “strongly advised” people to keep wearing masks but of course many didn’t and now the percentage of those wearing masks is getting less all the time despite delta increasing infections, hospital admissions and deaths.
It wasn’t freedom for me, I’m double vaxxed but I work with clinically extremely vulnerable people some of whom couldn’t be vaxxed for health reasons. I had more freedom when most people wore masks and distanced as I could go about my day with less risk of picking up an infection that could be deadly to others.16 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »So in the latest TWIV they interviewed Paul Bieniasz and Theodora Hatziiouannou, virologists who are renowned for working on HIV but obviously right now are focused on covid. This one was really fascinating and I'll probably listen to it again because it was more conversational and I def missed some stuff. Anyway...
They noted that declining antibodies months after vaxx is normal. The point of vaxx is not to have permanently circulating antibodies but for your body to know how to make the antibodies. They said that if your goal is just to reduce hospitalizations, then skip boosters and make sure everyone gets their two shots, but if your goal is to reduce transmission, boosters are a good idea. If I'm understanding correctly, they were saying that if you get the standard dose and 8 months later you don't have antibodies, you may become infected and be contagious for a short time before your body creates antibodies to keep you from getting really sick. But if you get a booster and have circulating antibodies when you get infected, they will eliminate the infection before you have a chance to spread.
Basically, every time you get vaxxed or get infected, it prompts your body to create more antibodies, and every time your body gets better and faster at doing so. So they expect that people who get vaxxed and then get a breakthrough infection, that infection is like a booster, except of course there is the risk that the infection may still be powerful enough to do damage in a small percentage of people.
The confounding factor is the high percentage of unvaxxed people. They said the possibility of more dangerous variants emerging as the unvaxxed continue to incubate the virus makes boosters to provide ex"ftra protection for the vaxxed an even better idea.
The other point that stuck with me was that covid tests are measuring viral RNA load in the nose, but they don't believe viral RNA load is a good way to measure transmissibility. In a vaxxed person, that RNA being measured could be in deactivated virus, not contagious viral particles. And the viral RNA load declines much more rapidly in a vaxxed person. They think time will show that vaxxed people are much less infectious and only for a short period of time, and that a vaxxed person infecting another vaxxed person is not much of a danger.
I think they touched on the case of Israel, but I don't remember what they be said. It doesn't seem from the stuff I do remember that they feel it is an accurate picture of vaccine effectiveness though.
A big focus on every episode of TWIV now is that almost all widely available vaccines do NOT stop infection, they prevent illness and greatly reduce spread. Their almost total effectiveness is reached because of herd immunity. If we want to stop having to worry about COVID-19, we need more people vaxxed asap. Which is a sobering thought. I will happily get a booster whenever it's recommended until more people come around.
I don't follow this stuff as closely as you do, and obviously don't want to argue with the actual experts you listened to (although I'm curious what "focused on covid" actually means -- have they been doing research on covid, or just talking about it on podcasts?) -- but, anyway, the impression I had in the discussions I've seen about the possible need for boosters was that epidemiologists and public health officials, as well as researchers following the early-vaccinated subjects from the clinical trials, were seeing a falling efficacy in terms of preventing infections and, in the face of the delta variant, a falling efficacy in terms of preventing varying degrees of symptomatic cases. I don't recall hearing or reading any suggestion that experts considering the need for boosters were doing so based on antibody levels, which as you say and which, even with my limited knowledge, I knew was to be expected and not a cause for concern.
I "think" the issue is that the declining efficacy is anecdotal.
Public health officials have to run with anecdotal because they don't have the luxury of waiting for verified data. But the declining efficacy has to be caused by something, and the point of a vaccine is antibodies, and I guess the press at least has linked the two? I get confused on whether I've heard stuff from the CDC, local health dept, on the news, something I've read, etc lol.
So they think that the unproven idea that efficacy is waning is coming from testing picking up "dead" viral RNA in vaxxed people while hospitals are filling up with unvaxxed people. But they think that a booster will probably keep more vaccinated people from getting sick at all from the possibly more dangerous variants, so it's a good plan anyway. If I'm following them correctly
4 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »So in the latest TWIV they interviewed Paul Bieniasz and Theodora Hatziiouannou, virologists who are renowned for working on HIV but obviously right now are focused on covid. This one was really fascinating and I'll probably listen to it again because it was more conversational and I def missed some stuff. Anyway...
They noted that declining antibodies months after vaxx is normal. The point of vaxx is not to have permanently circulating antibodies but for your body to know how to make the antibodies. They said that if your goal is just to reduce hospitalizations, then skip boosters and make sure everyone gets their two shots, but if your goal is to reduce transmission, boosters are a good idea. If I'm understanding correctly, they were saying that if you get the standard dose and 8 months later you don't have antibodies, you may become infected and be contagious for a short time before your body creates antibodies to keep you from getting really sick. But if you get a booster and have circulating antibodies when you get infected, they will eliminate the infection before you have a chance to spread.
Basically, every time you get vaxxed or get infected, it prompts your body to create more antibodies, and every time your body gets better and faster at doing so. So they expect that people who get vaxxed and then get a breakthrough infection, that infection is like a booster, except of course there is the risk that the infection may still be powerful enough to do damage in a small percentage of people.
The confounding factor is the high percentage of unvaxxed people. They said the possibility of more dangerous variants emerging as the unvaxxed continue to incubate the virus makes boosters to provide ex"ftra protection for the vaxxed an even better idea.
The other point that stuck with me was that covid tests are measuring viral RNA load in the nose, but they don't believe viral RNA load is a good way to measure transmissibility. In a vaxxed person, that RNA being measured could be in deactivated virus, not contagious viral particles. And the viral RNA load declines much more rapidly in a vaxxed person. They think time will show that vaxxed people are much less infectious and only for a short period of time, and that a vaxxed person infecting another vaxxed person is not much of a danger.
I think they touched on the case of Israel, but I don't remember what they be said. It doesn't seem from the stuff I do remember that they feel it is an accurate picture of vaccine effectiveness though.
A big focus on every episode of TWIV now is that almost all widely available vaccines do NOT stop infection, they prevent illness and greatly reduce spread. Their almost total effectiveness is reached because of herd immunity. If we want to stop having to worry about COVID-19, we need more people vaxxed asap. Which is a sobering thought. I will happily get a booster whenever it's recommended until more people come around.
I don't follow this stuff as closely as you do, and obviously don't want to argue with the actual experts you listened to (although I'm curious what "focused on covid" actually means -- have they been doing research on covid, or just talking about it on podcasts?) -- but, anyway, the impression I had in the discussions I've seen about the possible need for boosters was that epidemiologists and public health officials, as well as researchers following the early-vaccinated subjects from the clinical trials, were seeing a falling efficacy in terms of preventing infections and, in the face of the delta variant, a falling efficacy in terms of preventing varying degrees of symptomatic cases. I don't recall hearing or reading any suggestion that experts considering the need for boosters were doing so based on antibody levels, which as you say and which, even with my limited knowledge, I knew was to be expected and not a cause for concern.
Pertaining to TWIV, they are all virologists. The two guests they had in this episode do work on CoVid. They regularly have guests who work on this virus. Every week he hosts an infectious disease doc who updates everyone on the clinical aspects of Covid. These episodes generally drop on Saturdays I believe.
The episode Kimny discussed was a great one. I'm currently getting caught up now that I'm commuting again.2 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »So in the latest TWIV they interviewed Paul Bieniasz and Theodora Hatziiouannou, virologists who are renowned for working on HIV but obviously right now are focused on covid. This one was really fascinating and I'll probably listen to it again because it was more conversational and I def missed some stuff. Anyway...
They noted that declining antibodies months after vaxx is normal. The point of vaxx is not to have permanently circulating antibodies but for your body to know how to make the antibodies. They said that if your goal is just to reduce hospitalizations, then skip boosters and make sure everyone gets their two shots, but if your goal is to reduce transmission, boosters are a good idea. If I'm understanding correctly, they were saying that if you get the standard dose and 8 months later you don't have antibodies, you may become infected and be contagious for a short time before your body creates antibodies to keep you from getting really sick. But if you get a booster and have circulating antibodies when you get infected, they will eliminate the infection before you have a chance to spread.
Basically, every time you get vaxxed or get infected, it prompts your body to create more antibodies, and every time your body gets better and faster at doing so. So they expect that people who get vaxxed and then get a breakthrough infection, that infection is like a booster, except of course there is the risk that the infection may still be powerful enough to do damage in a small percentage of people.
The confounding factor is the high percentage of unvaxxed people. They said the possibility of more dangerous variants emerging as the unvaxxed continue to incubate the virus makes boosters to provide ex"ftra protection for the vaxxed an even better idea.
The other point that stuck with me was that covid tests are measuring viral RNA load in the nose, but they don't believe viral RNA load is a good way to measure transmissibility. In a vaxxed person, that RNA being measured could be in deactivated virus, not contagious viral particles. And the viral RNA load declines much more rapidly in a vaxxed person. They think time will show that vaxxed people are much less infectious and only for a short period of time, and that a vaxxed person infecting another vaxxed person is not much of a danger.
I think they touched on the case of Israel, but I don't remember what they be said. It doesn't seem from the stuff I do remember that they feel it is an accurate picture of vaccine effectiveness though.
A big focus on every episode of TWIV now is that almost all widely available vaccines do NOT stop infection, they prevent illness and greatly reduce spread. Their almost total effectiveness is reached because of herd immunity. If we want to stop having to worry about COVID-19, we need more people vaxxed asap. Which is a sobering thought. I will happily get a booster whenever it's recommended until more people come around.
I don't follow this stuff as closely as you do, and obviously don't want to argue with the actual experts you listened to (although I'm curious what "focused on covid" actually means -- have they been doing research on covid, or just talking about it on podcasts?) -- but, anyway, the impression I had in the discussions I've seen about the possible need for boosters was that epidemiologists and public health officials, as well as researchers following the early-vaccinated subjects from the clinical trials, were seeing a falling efficacy in terms of preventing infections and, in the face of the delta variant, a falling efficacy in terms of preventing varying degrees of symptomatic cases. I don't recall hearing or reading any suggestion that experts considering the need for boosters were doing so based on antibody levels, which as you say and which, even with my limited knowledge, I knew was to be expected and not a cause for concern.
Pertaining to TWIV, they are all virologists. The two guests they had in this episode do work on CoVid. They regularly have guests who work on this virus. Every week he hosts an infectious disease doc who updates everyone on the clinical aspects of Covid. These episodes generally drop on Saturdays I believe.
The episode Kimny discussed was a great one. I'm currently getting caught up now that I'm commuting again.
Interestingly, it seems at least in my limited exposure to the field, that many of the specialists currently all in on covid-19 were previously focused on HIV. Not sure if their is something the two viruses have in common or just the sudden global need for rapid answers. Now that I think about it, I may have heard that the mRNA vaccine technology had researchers hoping for an mRNA vaccine for HIV before covid-19 emerged and opened the door to grant money and study volunteers. Don't quote me in that though
2 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »So in the latest TWIV they interviewed Paul Bieniasz and Theodora Hatziiouannou, virologists who are renowned for working on HIV but obviously right now are focused on covid. This one was really fascinating and I'll probably listen to it again because it was more conversational and I def missed some stuff. Anyway...
They noted that declining antibodies months after vaxx is normal. The point of vaxx is not to have permanently circulating antibodies but for your body to know how to make the antibodies. They said that if your goal is just to reduce hospitalizations, then skip boosters and make sure everyone gets their two shots, but if your goal is to reduce transmission, boosters are a good idea. If I'm understanding correctly, they were saying that if you get the standard dose and 8 months later you don't have antibodies, you may become infected and be contagious for a short time before your body creates antibodies to keep you from getting really sick. But if you get a booster and have circulating antibodies when you get infected, they will eliminate the infection before you have a chance to spread.
Basically, every time you get vaxxed or get infected, it prompts your body to create more antibodies, and every time your body gets better and faster at doing so. So they expect that people who get vaxxed and then get a breakthrough infection, that infection is like a booster, except of course there is the risk that the infection may still be powerful enough to do damage in a small percentage of people.
The confounding factor is the high percentage of unvaxxed people. They said the possibility of more dangerous variants emerging as the unvaxxed continue to incubate the virus makes boosters to provide ex"ftra protection for the vaxxed an even better idea.
The other point that stuck with me was that covid tests are measuring viral RNA load in the nose, but they don't believe viral RNA load is a good way to measure transmissibility. In a vaxxed person, that RNA being measured could be in deactivated virus, not contagious viral particles. And the viral RNA load declines much more rapidly in a vaxxed person. They think time will show that vaxxed people are much less infectious and only for a short period of time, and that a vaxxed person infecting another vaxxed person is not much of a danger.
I think they touched on the case of Israel, but I don't remember what they be said. It doesn't seem from the stuff I do remember that they feel it is an accurate picture of vaccine effectiveness though.
A big focus on every episode of TWIV now is that almost all widely available vaccines do NOT stop infection, they prevent illness and greatly reduce spread. Their almost total effectiveness is reached because of herd immunity. If we want to stop having to worry about COVID-19, we need more people vaxxed asap. Which is a sobering thought. I will happily get a booster whenever it's recommended until more people come around.
I don't follow this stuff as closely as you do, and obviously don't want to argue with the actual experts you listened to (although I'm curious what "focused on covid" actually means -- have they been doing research on covid, or just talking about it on podcasts?) -- but, anyway, the impression I had in the discussions I've seen about the possible need for boosters was that epidemiologists and public health officials, as well as researchers following the early-vaccinated subjects from the clinical trials, were seeing a falling efficacy in terms of preventing infections and, in the face of the delta variant, a falling efficacy in terms of preventing varying degrees of symptomatic cases. I don't recall hearing or reading any suggestion that experts considering the need for boosters were doing so based on antibody levels, which as you say and which, even with my limited knowledge, I knew was to be expected and not a cause for concern.
Pertaining to TWIV, they are all virologists. The two guests they had in this episode do work on CoVid. They regularly have guests who work on this virus. Every week he hosts an infectious disease doc who updates everyone on the clinical aspects of Covid. These episodes generally drop on Saturdays I believe.
The episode Kimny discussed was a great one. I'm currently getting caught up now that I'm commuting again.
Interestingly, it seems at least in my limited exposure to the field, that many of the specialists currently all in on covid-19 were previously focused on HIV. Not sure if their is something the two viruses have in common or just the sudden global need for rapid answers. Now that I think about it, I may have heard that the mRNA vaccine technology had researchers hoping for an mRNA vaccine for HIV before covid-19 emerged and opened the door to grant money and study volunteers. Don't quote me in that though
Also - and this is just a suspicion - I think HIV may have been one of the more interesting, high-value research targets among virologists before this pandemic, so probably many working on that pre-Covid. HIV's been a tough and therefore interesting challenge, with many lives affected; and much has been learned and developed.
At risk of feeding the conspiracy theorists, I also wonder if - in the US at least - the relatively close attention to HIV within NIH, FDA, etc., over the last few decades, may've strengthened communication channels and relationships between virologists/administrators in the governmental health institutions, and the HIV researchers, via grant reviews, conferences, etc., etc.3 -
https://www.jpost.com/health-science/new-covid-variant-detected-in-south-africa-most-mutated-variant-so-far-678011
Someday maybe the world will be vaccinated so Covid-19 mutations slowly stops happening.8 -
I have friends who specifically drove to the next state for all their shopping during the first COVID peak because no masks were required at that time. Couple months later they hosted a large outdoor baby shower at which our state still required masks for outdoor gatherings. I was one of the few following the state requirement. Even the mother-to-be an NP was maskless and going around greeting all the fellow maskless guests. This surprised even me.10
-
Area HS, central IL, going to full remote learning today due to Covid cases. Didn't take long, opening day was 2 weeks ago.
9
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K 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
- 421 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions