Coronavirus prep
Replies
-
Theoldguy1 wrote: »My company just announced that all in US and several other countries that can will work remotely until at least January, 2021, extended from October, 2020.
Getting sick of this stuff.
I wish I could have worked from home forever. It was the best thing ever (for me). I am really surprised some people want to go into work. I prefer to stay in my pjs all day.10 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »My company just announced that all in US and several other countries that can will work remotely until at least January, 2021, extended from October, 2020.
Getting sick of this stuff.
I wish I could have worked from home forever. It was the best thing ever (for me). I am really surprised some people want to go into work. I prefer to stay in my pjs all day.
In my workplace it seems to be divided: those with bigger homes and good desks, chairs and dedicated study/work rooms want to continue WFH, especially if their kids are school-aged so they have to leave early to bring their kids to hobbies etc, or if their kids are old enough to have moved out. These people tend to be older, and are also more experienced in their field and therefore need less guidance from colleagues. Our younger people with smaller homes and less possibilities to get nice desks, distancing themselves from spouses who also work and have meetings online, or have daycare-aged kids that make working from home a struggle seem to prefer working at the office.
I'm in the latter group: being in the same room with my husband 24/7 for 3 months straight was pretty rough. Now I'm leaning into a hybrid model where I do some work from home and some from the office. Today I'm spending the morning at home, answering emails and messages, then going out for lunch and spending the afternoon in the office doing high-focus work with my properly set-up desk and external monitors.
Currently we have a WFH recommendation in place until further notice, meaning everyone is allowed to choose for themselves but all meetings must be held online so nobody has to come in. The amount of people at the office seems to be 1-5 per day, out of 25 people. We had a pretty strong WFH culture even before covid and everyone has always been allowed to work from home whenever they wanted unless there were in-person meetings, so this is not such a drastic change.
11 -
AstraZeneca trials of their vaccine has slowed due to a participant being diagnosed with inflammation of the spinal cord. It’s unclear whether it’s from the vaccine at this point. Risky business. Here in the US, the commercials on tv for prescription drugs, have warnings of multiple possible side effects and risks from taking the drug, and they are supposedly fully vetted. This is scary stuff.6
-
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »My company just announced that all in US and several other countries that can will work remotely until at least January, 2021, extended from October, 2020.
Getting sick of this stuff.
I wish I could have worked from home forever. It was the best thing ever (for me). I am really surprised some people want to go into work. I prefer to stay in my pjs all day.
Interesting. I personally enjoy the in person interactions with co-workers and have never "gone to work" at home with out showering and getting dressed (gym shorts/sweats and t-shirt not typical office attire).
Each to their own.1 -
We had a pretty strong WFH culture even before covid and everyone has always been allowed to work from home whenever they wanted unless there were in-person meetings, so this is not such a drastic change.
We had NO work from home before Covid. It was not allowed except in very VERY select situations (I was allowed to work from home the day after my father died as I prepared to go out of state to deal with it for example). But those were so rare. We did a WFH test about 2 years ago and it went great, but we had so much push back from higher ups that it was never made into a real thing. They thought it wouldn't "look good" that we were allowed to work from home.
How things have changed. Not the way I wanted for WFH to be approved, but we got it. Due to changes needed at the main campus, we are losing a floor and going from 3 floors to 2 (another group needs more space). So many of us are now in permanent WFH positions, myself included. I enjoy the freedom of it but I do miss some of the interactions with my coworkers. We have a great team and it was fun to be around them. So I feel much more isolated. Feedback has also been a problem because I can't just swing by my bosses office with a question or concern. They are still very receptive to everyone, but it's just not the same. There is more of a disconnect.7 -
JW, why the disagreements with my above post? I’m really curious why.
Must be because of me saying it’s scary.2 -
My WFH situation is not sustainable. I work with specialized equipment, most of which I can't access from home. I can "remote in" to a few of the work stations, but not most. Even when I can get into my systems, it's slow and difficult to work with (because it's over a VPN). So, it's very limited what I can do from here.
My industry is shut down, my company has no revenue. There have been rounds of layoffs and furloughs, which I've survived so far. Every day, as I WFH, I'm trying to stay busy enough to justify that my job is relevant, even though I know that it's not.
I rarely hear from my boss or co-workers, so it's pretty lonely. Just hoping for the best that we can get back in our building soon and start planning for when we can get back to it.14 -
This is the latest, and we are only at the beginning of the school year with many places open for in person classes.
Half a million US children have been diagnosed with Covid-19
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/08/health/half-million-us-children-covid-wellness/index.html
More COVID-19 cases for children as many head back into the classroom is to be expected. I'd like to know how many were hospitalized or have serious symptoms. Also the article states that "Children with Covid-19 also tended to be older and have at least one underlying health condition." I focus more on the hospitalization, death rate and new information with continuing issues weeks/months after COVID than I do the positivity rate or #.2 -
missysippy930 wrote: »JW, why the disagreements with my above post? I’m really curious why.
Must be because of me saying it’s scary.
Might be because it's not widely reported (yet) what the issue is. A NYT story (I think) did report what you're saying, that it's spinal cord inflammation. I'm not sure why folks disagree. Nothing in your statement offended me.
Some folks are very optimistic about the vaccines and some (I think) at this point are on the edge and just want some positive news to hold on to. I can understand that. I think all of us are ready for more positive news.
As the NFL starts up this week, we'll see what happens. I'm a hopeless Bengals fan. Jamain Stephens' son passed yesterday at 20 years old. Jamain Stephens played for the Bengals and the Steelers (O-Line). His son was a big D lineman for a college team in PA. Being big isn't uncommon for college and pro O-linemen and Defensive linemen. I know football fans would be tremendously disappointed if the NFL season isn't played, but I've been of the opinion the entire time that lives could be lost. Already, you're seeing what might happen and it's tragic.
Yes, he was obese, but getting back to "normal" will come at a great cost as long as Covid-19 isn't contained and it's hardly contained right now.5 -
missysippy930 wrote: »JW, why the disagreements with my above post? I’m really curious why.
Must be because of me saying it’s scary.
I didn't disagree, but I will point out that drugs get approved all the time, even if they have serious side-effects. It has to be weighed if the risk of potential side-effects are worth the benefits of the drug. In the TV drug ads, they list ALL possible side-effects that were noted in trials, even if they were very rare.
I think it's safe to say that some people will have a bad reaction to the vaccine, as they do with other vaccines. It just has to be determined how rare it is, and if there were other contributing factors.7 -
I didn't click disagree either - but I do disagree that the fact that prescription med's can have side effects and these are listed for the public to know about, is scary stuff.
No, it isn't - it is just the obvious reality that medication can have side effects.4 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »Speaking of Herd Stupidity, oops, I mean Herd Immunity, German study on cell phone data just came out related to the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sturgis-motorcycle-rally-in-south-dakota-in-august-linked-to-more-than-250000-coronavirus-cases-study-finds-2020-09-08?siteid=yhoof2
So $786 million was injected into the South Dakota economy due to the rally, and the state collected $1.26 million in tax revenue, but it's gonna cost the rest of the country $12 billion in health care costs for treating infections linked to the rally and spread out all across the country? Nice work.
Trillions are being borrowed to cover pandemic cost and we do not have to pay it back. That responsibility will fall on the grand kids.
What COVID-19 is doing to many retirement income sources is not funny. Short term costs are huge but is just a drop in the bucket when compared to the long costs.
Can you say a little more about what you mean in the bolded? I kinda don't get it, so I think I'm missing something.
The main retirement sources I can think of are pensions, social security, and investments.
Pensions are rare these days, maybe endangered by companies going out of business or disastrously retrenching, but I haven't heard/read much to this effect. Social security does seem to be threatened by at least one of the strategies for putting more money in people's pockets in the short run, but it remains to be seen how that will play out. (Ideology seems to enter in here, but I won't go further than that general statement to avoid partisan political talk.) Investments, so far, if we mean stocks and bonds primarily, seem to be much more even keel so far than one might've expected. I would've thought more people would be dependent on that source now/future, because of defined contribution plans having replaced pensions in many cases.
What are you seeing, that makes you say the bolded? If it's just the deficit spending worrying you in general, related to retirement, what are scenario(s) are you visualizing?
I take your point about the grandkids.
Yes, you are absolutely right on pensions and social security. I would expect that most who have investments for retirement and are actually drawing from their retirement should have that retirement money now in conservative / low risk and low return investments. This is different than someone like me who is decades from retirement and can justify investing in higher risk / higher return funds. But either way, the markets as a whole do not seem to be affected much by the pandemic - at least not negatively.
The Federal Reserve has been buying when it looks like it's going down and is propping the Stock Market up.
Re: social security. It also doesn't help that certain people in the government are for halting payroll taxes which fund social security and Medicare. And I heard the President yesterday say that in his second term he is planning on doing more of the same. He says he will replace funding with stuff from the General Fund, but that is dependent on the economy suddenly bouncing back. I guess if you believe that the virus is a hoax and will end Nov 3rd and everything will suddenly go back to the way it was in the Before Times, sure, that might work. I'm not sure exactly how as I'm not an economist by any means, but robbing Peter to pay Paul doesn't sound promising. I predict, however, that recovery will continue to be a very long and slow slog back. The Stock Market is being inflated and does not mirror the well-being of the rest of the economy. Just ask the poor small businesses and all the other businesses that are gone now; ask all the folks hungry and facing eviction. There's not going to be a point and click resolution of this massive downturn. Plus, as has been expressed, we've put a lien on the grandkids.6 -
missysippy930 wrote: »JW, why the disagreements with my above post? I’m really curious why.
Must be because of me saying it’s scary.
Some people will disagree with anything just to be contrary. There was nothing nonfactual in your post. So I'd chalk it up to contrariness.
It is "scary" that someone can have a reaction like that. But that's what these trials are for, to see if it's just a freak personal one-off or something that turns out to be more common.
I am reassured that the Pharma companies making the COVID vaccines have pledged that they will be safe. I trust that they will do this because they want to not shoot themselves in the foot by messing up. The spotlights are all on them, and the stakes are high for their longevity. We need people to actually get the vaccine so that this crap can be over. It won't unless people get it.
[edited by MFP staff]
10 -
We had a pretty strong WFH culture even before covid and everyone has always been allowed to work from home whenever they wanted unless there were in-person meetings, so this is not such a drastic change.
We had NO work from home before Covid. It was not allowed except in very VERY select situations (I was allowed to work from home the day after my father died as I prepared to go out of state to deal with it for example). But those were so rare. We did a WFH test about 2 years ago and it went great, but we had so much push back from higher ups that it was never made into a real thing. They thought it wouldn't "look good" that we were allowed to work from home.
How things have changed. Not the way I wanted for WFH to be approved, but we got it. Due to changes needed at the main campus, we are losing a floor and going from 3 floors to 2 (another group needs more space). So many of us are now in permanent WFH positions, myself included. I enjoy the freedom of it but I do miss some of the interactions with my coworkers. We have a great team and it was fun to be around them. So I feel much more isolated. Feedback has also been a problem because I can't just swing by my bosses office with a question or concern. They are still very receptive to everyone, but it's just not the same. There is more of a disconnect.
Do you guys use microsoft teams? Jabber is also an option we've used in the past. Plus regular check ins (we have a 15 minute meeting every Monday morning for instance, biweekly huddles, monthly meetings with our team lead and the boss etc). I've worked from home for 8 years now so this isn't new but having Jabber and then now Microsoft teams is awesome. I can pop a question to whoever I want, we can exchange messages and gifs and it has practically unlimited numbers of groups or chats you can belong too. It helps keep the team close even though we are spread out all over the US.4 -
paperpudding wrote: »I didn't click disagree either - but I do disagree that the fact that prescription med's can have side effects and these are listed for the public to know about, is scary stuff.
No, it isn't - it is just the obvious reality that medication can have side effects.
That’s not what I meant. It’s scary that they are rushing the vaccine through. Prescription drugs follow guidelines before they are able to prescribe them to the general public. Still there are risks to some people. It takes years, not months. It’s up to each of us to discuss with our doctors potential risks involved with prescription drugs they want to prescribe for us. Educate ourselves.
It’s scary that they are trying to push a vaccine through so quickly with no long term possible effects. There is something to say for safely proceeding.
Why do you think that the US is one of only two countries that allow tv advertising of prescription drugs? The almighty dollar!!! We pay a lot more for everything related to healthcare than any other country by a lot.6 -
Side effects from any possible vaccine is only one factor; how fast can they tell if it even works? Why go through risks of having side effects if it's not even going to work. Plus it just gives people a false sense of security and false hope, saying they've got a vaccine close to development. 3
-
I'm not running for office. We're not in a competition. We're not not going to win a car at the end of this. Maybe I spoke too soon. Oooo, maybe someone will take all of the prizes home. We can't do anything about the way people see us. I've been here long enough to know that if you came unglued over the woo's they stacked up like pancakes. Those were the days.
In the wise words of Jeff Spicoli, If I'm here and you're here, doesn't that make it our time? Certainly, there's nothing wrong with a little milling around and shooting the breeze on our time. Keep tooling along and let the dust fly and settle where it will. Our time here may be free but it's never worthless.
5 -
missysippy930 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »I didn't click disagree either - but I do disagree that the fact that prescription med's can have side effects and these are listed for the public to know about, is scary stuff.
No, it isn't - it is just the obvious reality that medication can have side effects.
That’s not what I meant. It’s scary that they are rushing the vaccine through. Prescription drugs follow guidelines before they are able to prescribe them to the general public. Still there are risks to some people. It takes years, not months. It’s up to each of us to discuss with our doctors potential risks involved with prescription drugs they want to prescribe for us. Educate ourselves.
It’s scary that they are trying to push a vaccine through so quickly with no long term possible effects. There is something to say for safely proceeding.
Why do you think that the US is one of only two countries that allow tv advertising of prescription drugs? The almighty dollar!!! We pay a lot more for everything related to healthcare than any other country by a lot.
As I posted earlier, there are reasons why this trial may go faster than some others, and still have the same safety values. This disease is widespread, and very contagious. That means that more trial participants are explosed to the virus, and more likely to get it when exposed vs. things that are less common/contagious. That will contribute to faster trials (the statistically-required results accumulate faster). There are *unprecendented* levels of cooperation among organizations worldwide, such as lab/trial/manufacturing infrastructure being shared across organizations in unusual ways, because of the urgency. Much money is being directed to vaccines and trials because of the urgency, not the case for smaller spread/risk diseases. Researchers are highly motivated, whether by desired to be of service, or by recognition that if they make major breakthroughs, those will be much more visible than usual inside and outside their profession, so better chances of rewards (more prestigious jobs, more research funding in future, etc.)
There are legit reasons these trials could go faster than other trials, even if no one were taking dangerous shortcuts.
I'm not saying there's no political pressure on the vaccine developers or approvers, nor am I saying that I think for sure that pressure's having no effect (rushing things). But I think it's important to understand the process, and consider what's happening in an informed context.
I think the people who are concerned that vaccines are being rushed should consider being somewhat reasssured that this whole trial of the Astra Zeneca vaccine has been put on hold, for *one* case of a serious incident in a participant that may or not be related to the vaccine, in the UK (but the trial elsewhere is also on hold, not just in the UK.) This is a sign of *caution* happening. (I'm not 100% reassured, but will be interested to see how this whole case plays out, and what effect it has on the trial - that will be informative.)
(I didn't click disagree on your PPs about this point, either, BTW.)9 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »My company just announced that all in US and several other countries that can will work remotely until at least January, 2021, extended from October, 2020.
Getting sick of this stuff.
I wish I could have worked from home forever. It was the best thing ever (for me). I am really surprised some people want to go into work. I prefer to stay in my pjs all day.
In my workplace it seems to be divided: those with bigger homes and good desks, chairs and dedicated study/work rooms want to continue WFH, especially if their kids are school-aged so they have to leave early to bring their kids to hobbies etc, or if their kids are old enough to have moved out. These people tend to be older, and are also more experienced in their field and therefore need less guidance from colleagues. Our younger people with smaller homes and less possibilities to get nice desks, distancing themselves from spouses who also work and have meetings online, or have daycare-aged kids that make working from home a struggle seem to prefer working at the office.
I'm in the latter group: being in the same room with my husband 24/7 for 3 months straight was pretty rough. Now I'm leaning into a hybrid model where I do some work from home and some from the office. Today I'm spending the morning at home, answering emails and messages, then going out for lunch and spending the afternoon in the office doing high-focus work with my properly set-up desk and external monitors.
Currently we have a WFH recommendation in place until further notice, meaning everyone is allowed to choose for themselves but all meetings must be held online so nobody has to come in. The amount of people at the office seems to be 1-5 per day, out of 25 people. We had a pretty strong WFH culture even before covid and everyone has always been allowed to work from home whenever they wanted unless there were in-person meetings, so this is not such a drastic change.
My OH and I live in the home he grew up in. I'm sure it felt much smaller then, when there were 4 of them and the basement was less finished. Now, there are just the two of us. My office is a former bedroom and his is in the basement.
However, I did get a used computer desk for $100 from Craigslist and a fabulous office chair for free. My company provided my desktop and two monitors (years ago; unrelated to the coronavirus.)2 -
missysippy930 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »I didn't click disagree either - but I do disagree that the fact that prescription med's can have side effects and these are listed for the public to know about, is scary stuff.
No, it isn't - it is just the obvious reality that medication can have side effects.
That’s not what I meant. It’s scary that they are rushing the vaccine through. Prescription drugs follow guidelines before they are able to prescribe them to the general public. Still there are risks to some people. It takes years, not months. It’s up to each of us to discuss with our doctors potential risks involved with prescription drugs they want to prescribe for us. Educate ourselves.
It’s scary that they are trying to push a vaccine through so quickly with no long term possible effects. There is something to say for safely proceeding.
Why do you think that the US is one of only two countries that allow tv advertising of prescription drugs? The almighty dollar!!! We pay a lot more for everything related to healthcare than any other country by a lot.
As I posted earlier, there are reasons why this trial may go faster than some others, and still have the same safety values. This disease is widespread, and very contagious. That means that more trial participants are explosed to the virus, and more likely to get it when exposed vs. things that are less common/contagious. That will contribute to faster trials (the statistically-required results accumulate faster). There are *unprecendented* levels of cooperation among organizations worldwide, such as lab/trial/manufacturing infrastructure being shared across organizations in unusual ways, because of the urgency. Much money is being directed to vaccines and trials because of the urgency, not the case for smaller spread/risk diseases. Researchers are highly motivated, whether by desired to be of service, or by recognition that if they make major breakthroughs, those will be much more visible than usual inside and outside their profession, so better chances of rewards (more prestigious jobs, more research funding in future, etc.)
There are legit reasons these trials could go faster than other trials, even if no one were taking dangerous shortcuts.
I'm not saying there's no political pressure on the vaccine developers or approvers, nor am I saying that I think for sure that pressure's having no effect (rushing things). But I think it's important to understand the process, and consider what's happening in an informed context.
I think the people who are concerned that vaccines are being rushed should consider being somewhat reasssured that this whole trial of the Astra Zeneca vaccine has been put on hold, for *one* case of a serious incident in a participant that may or not be related to the vaccine, in the UK (but the trial elsewhere is also on hold, not just in the UK.) This is a sign of *caution* happening. (I'm not 100% reassured, but will be interested to see how this whole case plays out, and what effect it has on the trial - that will be informative.)
(I didn't click disagree on your PPs about this point, either, BTW.)
I kind of think you’re calling me uninformed. I DO understand the urgency, but, months vs years? With little consideration for erring on the side of caution. I do understand it’s one case, and they did the right thing by suspendIng testing, but, if it does end up tied to the vaccine, it’s a pretty serious side effect. I would hope that volunteers to take the vaccine are screened for preexisting conditions. Seems like that would be common sense.
It is a very political topic, and really shouldn’t be.
In comparison, the polio vaccine took decades to be developed. I’m old enough to remember lining up at school for polio vaccinations, and later the oral form.
I’ll bow to your better informed knowledge on finding a safe vaccine, is important and could have repercussions for years to come.3 -
Do you guys use microsoft teams? Jabber is also an option we've used in the past. Plus regular check ins (we have a 15 minute meeting every Monday morning for instance, biweekly huddles, monthly meetings with our team lead and the boss etc). I've worked from home for 8 years now so this isn't new but having Jabber and then now Microsoft teams is awesome. I can pop a question to whoever I want, we can exchange messages and gifs and it has practically unlimited numbers of groups or chats you can belong too. It helps keep the team close even though we are spread out all over the US.
We do use Teams. I have a monthly check in with my boss plus he is always available if I need to speak to him (maybe not right that second but that is no different... meetings stink haha). It's just not the same to me. I know that may sound silly and odd. Maybe it's because this is not what I am used to when it comes to working and now I am trying to adjust to it being the new normal.1 -
The researchers I listen to in podcasts say that the vaccines currently in Phase 3 will probably have some data on efficacy by the end of the year, but safety confirmation will take into 2021. I think it's important to remember that the components in these vaccines currently in Phase 3 trials are already tested, approved, and in use in the general public in other compounds. So any safety concerns are mostly related to dosage and I guess the specific combination. And some of the "rushing" is skipping through red tape that often causes what are essentially administrative delays. Not to say there aren't other corners being cut, but some of it is the stupid holdups that we all complain about all the time!
Considering the emerging data on long term health issues in those who get even mild cases of covid19 (and possibly in asymptomatic cases, as those people might not even realize they had it and now have a chronic, yet-to-be diagnosed condition), I will still be at the front of the line for any vaccine that is available let's say spring 2021 or later, assuming unassociated epidemiologists and contagious disease experts are confident in it. You're kinda rolling the dice either way, I guess, but that's how I am interpreting the odds for now..7 -
missysippy930 wrote: »missysippy930 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »I didn't click disagree either - but I do disagree that the fact that prescription med's can have side effects and these are listed for the public to know about, is scary stuff.
No, it isn't - it is just the obvious reality that medication can have side effects.
That’s not what I meant. It’s scary that they are rushing the vaccine through. Prescription drugs follow guidelines before they are able to prescribe them to the general public. Still there are risks to some people. It takes years, not months. It’s up to each of us to discuss with our doctors potential risks involved with prescription drugs they want to prescribe for us. Educate ourselves.
It’s scary that they are trying to push a vaccine through so quickly with no long term possible effects. There is something to say for safely proceeding.
Why do you think that the US is one of only two countries that allow tv advertising of prescription drugs? The almighty dollar!!! We pay a lot more for everything related to healthcare than any other country by a lot.
As I posted earlier, there are reasons why this trial may go faster than some others, and still have the same safety values. This disease is widespread, and very contagious. That means that more trial participants are explosed to the virus, and more likely to get it when exposed vs. things that are less common/contagious. That will contribute to faster trials (the statistically-required results accumulate faster). There are *unprecendented* levels of cooperation among organizations worldwide, such as lab/trial/manufacturing infrastructure being shared across organizations in unusual ways, because of the urgency. Much money is being directed to vaccines and trials because of the urgency, not the case for smaller spread/risk diseases. Researchers are highly motivated, whether by desired to be of service, or by recognition that if they make major breakthroughs, those will be much more visible than usual inside and outside their profession, so better chances of rewards (more prestigious jobs, more research funding in future, etc.)
There are legit reasons these trials could go faster than other trials, even if no one were taking dangerous shortcuts.
I'm not saying there's no political pressure on the vaccine developers or approvers, nor am I saying that I think for sure that pressure's having no effect (rushing things). But I think it's important to understand the process, and consider what's happening in an informed context.
I think the people who are concerned that vaccines are being rushed should consider being somewhat reasssured that this whole trial of the Astra Zeneca vaccine has been put on hold, for *one* case of a serious incident in a participant that may or not be related to the vaccine, in the UK (but the trial elsewhere is also on hold, not just in the UK.) This is a sign of *caution* happening. (I'm not 100% reassured, but will be interested to see how this whole case plays out, and what effect it has on the trial - that will be informative.)
(I didn't click disagree on your PPs about this point, either, BTW.)
I kind of think you’re calling me uninformed. I DO understand the urgency, but, months vs years? With little consideration for erring on the side of caution. I do understand it’s one case, and they did the right thing by suspendIng testing, but, if it does end up tied to the vaccine, it’s a pretty serious side effect. I would hope that volunteers to take the vaccine are screened for preexisting conditions. Seems like that would be common sense.
It is a very political topic, and really shouldn’t be.
In comparison, the polio vaccine took decades to be developed. I’m old enough to remember lining up at school for polio vaccinations, and later the oral form.
I’ll bow to your better informed knowledge on finding a safe vaccine, is important and could have repercussions for years to come.
I'm not calling you anything. And I'm not claiming to be materially better informed. Like you, I'm just saying things I've thought and read.
Specifically, I'm just saying that the situation is unusual, in various ways, and that's a consideration in evaluating the speed with which things are happening. There are many factors, including political pressure. Skepticism is still reasonable. If people feel more than skeptical, it's entirely reasonable to express that.
I believe volunteers to take the vaccine are intentionally selected (in phase 3) to be representative of the total population, and explicitly *not* to exclude people with pre-existing conditions (other than something that would be a contraindication to taking the vaccine once it's rolled out to general population, such as allergy/sensitivity to an ingredient).
If they exclude pre-existing conditions from the phase 3 trial, but include them at full-release time, new problems will emerge in that full release, and among people who didn't necessarily sign up for that level of risk. Many posts back, I called the vaccine trial volunteers brave and generous, and that's among the reasons why. They're intentionally, knowingly signing up for higher risks.
A trial being slow, in calendar time, doesn't necessarily *inherently* add anything safety related when it comes to immediate effects from administration of the vaccine, or even short/medium aftermath. The timeline is often just about accumulating enough data to achieve statistical significance: It takes time, but the benchmark is statistical significance, not duration. The one advantage slowness may have, as a sort of side effect rather than a designed-in feature, is that if there are long-term consequences, months to years after administration, a slow trial may show some of those.
But those things are always to be balanced off the consequences of waiting, in any trial. People are dying, in pretty large numbers, every day, from Covid. Scientists think (are pretty sure) it has long-term consequences for at least some people who don't immediately die of it, and some worry that there will be long-term consequences we don't even imagine yet, based on its acute mechanisms of action. Those unknowns balance off against the long-term unknowns about effects of the vaccine.
I've casually watched a bunch of trials in another area I care about, breast cancer, as they unfolded. The basic idea of the phase 3 here isn't different: Enroll people, accumulate enough comparative data about the treated vs. the control group to reach statistical significance. If Really Bad things happen along the way, pause or halt the trial. With enough data, move forward.8 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »My company just announced that all in US and several other countries that can will work remotely until at least January, 2021, extended from October, 2020.
Getting sick of this stuff.
I wish I could have worked from home forever. It was the best thing ever (for me). I am really surprised some people want to go into work. I prefer to stay in my pjs all day.
Interesting. I personally enjoy the in person interactions with co-workers and have never "gone to work" at home with out showering and getting dressed (gym shorts/sweats and t-shirt not typical office attire).
Each to their own.
Same here. I miss being in the office daily because I like the interactions -- more spontaneous and in person -- with co-workers, and I also miss being downtown vs in my house. (I actually do have a decent sized house with an office, too, but there are still things easier to do from the office.) I don't think I could manage working from home at all if I didn't have a routine, which includes showering and dressing. I dress way more casually than I did for the office, but when I go into the office these days, the same is true. (No one is required to be in the office, one signs up if one wants to be in, and so far there are never too many people -- it's limited by percentage, and easier for those of us with private offices.) It is nice to have the time back I spent commuting, but in some ways I even miss the commute a bit -- I have a somewhat long walk to the L, so that was steps I now have to schedule in, and I read books or did Duolingo on the L. But it's really mostly that what I value about my job in part is it being collaborative, I am in someone who prefers in-person to stuff like phone or Zoom.4 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »Some folks are very optimistic about the vaccines and some (I think) at this point are on the edge and just want some positive news to hold on to. I can understand that. I think all of us are ready for more positive news.
There's a podcast called Left, Right, and Center I sometimes listen to (hope that's non partisan enough!) and that I listened to recently because they were discussing the experiment in reopening at UIUC with the rapid tests and 2 tests/week requirement, that I am interested in. Like most schools, they've had some pitfalls early on due to not adequately anticipating stuff like partying -- apparently they thought people who tested positive would quarantine voluntarily and some went to parties, among other things. However, the rapid test model still seems really encouraging as an option to me, and I will continue to follow what happens. Anyway, the guest who was reporting on the UIUC and rapid test experiment was also asked about vaccine timing, and she didn't think it was going to be soon (at least vs what some have claimed).
It was an interesting discussion.3 -
missysippy930 wrote: »JW, why the disagreements with my above post? I’m really curious why.
Must be because of me saying it’s scary.
It's the process working the way the process is supposed to work, so that we're fairly confident that the drugs that are eventually approved are fairly safe for most people, that we know which sub-populations/other conditions/other drugs they are contraindicated for, and what side effects people should look out for.
It's a good thing, not a scary thing.7 -
missysippy930 wrote: »missysippy930 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »I didn't click disagree either - but I do disagree that the fact that prescription med's can have side effects and these are listed for the public to know about, is scary stuff.
No, it isn't - it is just the obvious reality that medication can have side effects.
That’s not what I meant. It’s scary that they are rushing the vaccine through. Prescription drugs follow guidelines before they are able to prescribe them to the general public. Still there are risks to some people. It takes years, not months. It’s up to each of us to discuss with our doctors potential risks involved with prescription drugs they want to prescribe for us. Educate ourselves.
It’s scary that they are trying to push a vaccine through so quickly with no long term possible effects. There is something to say for safely proceeding.
Why do you think that the US is one of only two countries that allow tv advertising of prescription drugs? The almighty dollar!!! We pay a lot more for everything related to healthcare than any other country by a lot.
As I posted earlier, there are reasons why this trial may go faster than some others, and still have the same safety values. This disease is widespread, and very contagious. That means that more trial participants are explosed to the virus, and more likely to get it when exposed vs. things that are less common/contagious. That will contribute to faster trials (the statistically-required results accumulate faster). There are *unprecendented* levels of cooperation among organizations worldwide, such as lab/trial/manufacturing infrastructure being shared across organizations in unusual ways, because of the urgency. Much money is being directed to vaccines and trials because of the urgency, not the case for smaller spread/risk diseases. Researchers are highly motivated, whether by desired to be of service, or by recognition that if they make major breakthroughs, those will be much more visible than usual inside and outside their profession, so better chances of rewards (more prestigious jobs, more research funding in future, etc.)
There are legit reasons these trials could go faster than other trials, even if no one were taking dangerous shortcuts.
I'm not saying there's no political pressure on the vaccine developers or approvers, nor am I saying that I think for sure that pressure's having no effect (rushing things). But I think it's important to understand the process, and consider what's happening in an informed context.
I think the people who are concerned that vaccines are being rushed should consider being somewhat reasssured that this whole trial of the Astra Zeneca vaccine has been put on hold, for *one* case of a serious incident in a participant that may or not be related to the vaccine, in the UK (but the trial elsewhere is also on hold, not just in the UK.) This is a sign of *caution* happening. (I'm not 100% reassured, but will be interested to see how this whole case plays out, and what effect it has on the trial - that will be informative.)
(I didn't click disagree on your PPs about this point, either, BTW.)
I kind of think you’re calling me uninformed. I DO understand the urgency, but, months vs years? With little consideration for erring on the side of caution. I do understand it’s one case, and they did the right thing by suspendIng testing, but, if it does end up tied to the vaccine, it’s a pretty serious side effect. I would hope that volunteers to take the vaccine are screened for preexisting conditions. Seems like that would be common sense.
It is a very political topic, and really shouldn’t be.
In comparison, the polio vaccine took decades to be developed. I’m old enough to remember lining up at school for polio vaccinations, and later the oral form.
I’ll bow to your better informed knowledge on finding a safe vaccine, is important and could have repercussions for years to come.
I don't know if they're screening for preexisting conditions or not, but I don't understand why that would be a good thing. Preexisting conditions are pretty good common. Do we really want a vaccine that has only been proven safe for perfectly healthy people?
Edited to correct mistype.5 -
The researchers I listen to in podcasts say that the vaccines currently in Phase 3 will probably have some data on efficacy by the end of the year, but safety confirmation will take into 2021. I think it's important to remember that the components in these vaccines currently in Phase 3 trials are already tested, approved, and in use in the general public in other compounds. So any safety concerns are mostly related to dosage and I guess the specific combination. And some of the "rushing" is skipping through red tape that often causes what are essentially administrative delays. Not to say there aren't other corners being cut, but some of it is the stupid holdups that we all complain about all the time!
Considering the emerging data on long term health issues in those who get even mild cases of covid19 (and possibly in asymptomatic cases, as those people might not even realize they had it and now have a chronic, yet-to-be diagnosed condition), I will still be at the front of the line for any vaccine that is available let's say spring 2021 or later, assuming unassociated epidemiologists and contagious disease experts are confident in it. You're kinda rolling the dice either way, I guess, but that's how I am interpreting the odds for now..
Other parts of the "rushing" are moving forward on manufacturing systems and productions before completing trials and gaining approvals. Those are financial risks, not health risks. If the trial proves the vaccine isn't effective or has unforeseeable serious side-effects that outweigh the benefit of the vaccine, that early investment will be money down the drain.
6 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »missysippy930 wrote: »missysippy930 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »I didn't click disagree either - but I do disagree that the fact that prescription med's can have side effects and these are listed for the public to know about, is scary stuff.
No, it isn't - it is just the obvious reality that medication can have side effects.
That’s not what I meant. It’s scary that they are rushing the vaccine through. Prescription drugs follow guidelines before they are able to prescribe them to the general public. Still there are risks to some people. It takes years, not months. It’s up to each of us to discuss with our doctors potential risks involved with prescription drugs they want to prescribe for us. Educate ourselves.
It’s scary that they are trying to push a vaccine through so quickly with no long term possible effects. There is something to say for safely proceeding.
Why do you think that the US is one of only two countries that allow tv advertising of prescription drugs? The almighty dollar!!! We pay a lot more for everything related to healthcare than any other country by a lot.
As I posted earlier, there are reasons why this trial may go faster than some others, and still have the same safety values. This disease is widespread, and very contagious. That means that more trial participants are explosed to the virus, and more likely to get it when exposed vs. things that are less common/contagious. That will contribute to faster trials (the statistically-required results accumulate faster). There are *unprecendented* levels of cooperation among organizations worldwide, such as lab/trial/manufacturing infrastructure being shared across organizations in unusual ways, because of the urgency. Much money is being directed to vaccines and trials because of the urgency, not the case for smaller spread/risk diseases. Researchers are highly motivated, whether by desired to be of service, or by recognition that if they make major breakthroughs, those will be much more visible than usual inside and outside their profession, so better chances of rewards (more prestigious jobs, more research funding in future, etc.)
There are legit reasons these trials could go faster than other trials, even if no one were taking dangerous shortcuts.
I'm not saying there's no political pressure on the vaccine developers or approvers, nor am I saying that I think for sure that pressure's having no effect (rushing things). But I think it's important to understand the process, and consider what's happening in an informed context.
I think the people who are concerned that vaccines are being rushed should consider being somewhat reasssured that this whole trial of the Astra Zeneca vaccine has been put on hold, for *one* case of a serious incident in a participant that may or not be related to the vaccine, in the UK (but the trial elsewhere is also on hold, not just in the UK.) This is a sign of *caution* happening. (I'm not 100% reassured, but will be interested to see how this whole case plays out, and what effect it has on the trial - that will be informative.)
(I didn't click disagree on your PPs about this point, either, BTW.)
I kind of think you’re calling me uninformed. I DO understand the urgency, but, months vs years? With little consideration for erring on the side of caution. I do understand it’s one case, and they did the right thing by suspendIng testing, but, if it does end up tied to the vaccine, it’s a pretty serious side effect. I would hope that volunteers to take the vaccine are screened for preexisting conditions. Seems like that would be common sense.
It is a very political topic, and really shouldn’t be.
In comparison, the polio vaccine took decades to be developed. I’m old enough to remember lining up at school for polio vaccinations, and later the oral form.
I’ll bow to your better informed knowledge on finding a safe vaccine, is important and could have repercussions for years to come.
I don't know if they're screening for preexisting conditions or not, but I don't understand why that would be a good thing. Preexisting conditions are pretty good common. Do we really want a vaccine that has only been proven safe for perfectly healthy people?
Edited to correct mistype.
In the news report I heard the other day about the Moderna trial (a report I discussed in a PP), the reporters explicitly said the study's researchers were trying to recruit trial participants to include people from higher-risk groups, like the 60+ age group. Can't recall if they specifically mentioned other higher-risks groups such as diabetics, the obese, etc., but it would be a reasonable inference that such participants would be desired, for the reasons you mention.
6 -
Well, a relative I had brunch with on Sunday (outside) called me to say he thinks he has covid.
He said he started feeling bad on Sunday, and has symptoms that are consistent with covid (and flu, and probably dozens or scores of other diseases -- plus he has a complicated set of preexisting conditions that could conceivably create these symptoms if they flared up).
Each of us lives alone and works from home (me all the time, him since March), and we are (as far as I know) the only other person each has had any undistanced face-to-face social interaction with in six months. We've met three times for outdoor meals during those six months, and met a few other times (masked) for brief conversations or quick shopping trips. Even when we eat together, we only take the masks off while we're actually eating. I mainly did this because I know his social interactions by phone or online are extremely limited.
I'm not especially worried about me, although it may be difficult to recognize any symptoms if they come soon because I'm still dealing with side effects from three vaccines on Monday. I'm a little worried because I stopped yesterday to talk to some 70- and 80-year-old neighbors who were out on their front porch, without my mask because I had just ducked outside to deal with the trash and recycling. I stayed about 8 to 10 feet away, despite their repeated invitations to come up on the porch and take a seat. I would hate it if it turns out I passed it on to them; neither is in great health.
Anyway, I plan to socially distance even more strictly than usual for the next two weeks (no grocery runs or carryout pickups -- contactless deliveries only), unless I hear from him sooner that he's tested negative.16
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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