Coronavirus prep
Options
Replies
-
Just listened to the doctor from This Week in Virology who viewed the first several hours of the FDA hearing (he had to log off before it was over to go to work). He said he was impressed by the data presented and assumed it would be approved (which we know it was).
He said it looks like those vaccinated have more titers than those who were infected.
He said soreness at the injection site and a headache are common upon vaccination for 24-48 hours. Fever and noticable fatigue look to be found in @ 15% or so.
The current US policy is that each individual state determines who is eligible for the doses assigned to the state, typically the state public health dept.
He works at a NYC hospital and noted that unfortunately he is starting to see multiple members of families being hospitalized together, he assumed these are Thanksgiving consequences
He still suggests pregnant women wait to be vaccinated, as well as "probably" children under 16, just because the data is a little limited.
He said immunocompromised people should be fine getting vaccinated, but there is no general rule yet, so he suggests consulting your doctors first, it would be a case by case basis.
From a much less good source than that (it was an NPR report, don't recall which program), I heard a rough ballpark from some expert (think it was the head of the first hospital to start giving the injections?) that in the trials around 80% of people were experiencing some kind of side effect, mostly short (hours) and minor (sore arm, headache, as you say).
Further, he said they were timing their staff vaccinations so that there was a staggering, i.e., a subset of each department got the vaccine at the same time, so that if a small number needed to take a few hours or day off because of more significant side effects (the fatigue and fever sort of thing), they would still have good staff coverage. I think he said their conservative (higher than probable) planning number for staff possibly needing time off was something like 20%, though my memory is less clear on that point - but it's pretty consistent with the numbers from your better source, Kimny.
I appreciate you letting us know key points from those podcasts, Kimny!
Seconding the appreciation for Kimny's "This Week in Virology" highlights!
I had a sore arm and headache for a few days from the flu vaccine too.2 -
paperpudding wrote: »I suspect many people in other countries are underestimating compliance levels here in the US . . . and I'm not saying there are *not* waaaaayyy too many who are noncompliant. There are. And culture is a part of that, the individualism. But around me, most people are complying with requirements.
I, from Australia, accept that may be so - however I was also going on Kimny's comment ( a poster Ive not known to be prone to exageration) who said " Regardless, I can't even imagine what kind of backlash from the anti-restrictions groups would have resulted in any state trying to close it's borders'
and that just didnt happen in Australia - there was very minimal backlash and certainly nowhere near enough to result in any change of policy.
I think would of been far more backlash had safe states suddenly decided to open borders to states still having community transmission rather than the reverse.
Just a few points...one, this became political at the highest level very quickly in the US...that didn't help matters. Add to that, there was and is very little to no support for people losing their jobs and income because businesses are closed and unemployment has sky rocketed...this would obviously make a lot of people resentful and basically you have a lot of people saying, "you're asking me to stay home and I've been laid off and I'm going to lose my home and you can't provide any kind of financial relief...but you want me to comply?"
ETA: Most of the people I know IRL who are compliant and feel we are doing the right thing with restrictions and stay at home orders remain either gainfully employed...mostly working from home, or retired with little change in their overall life...the people I know who are adamantly against any restrictions and lockdown policies are mostly people who've lost income, their jobs, insurance, etc and they have no relief. I work for the courts and we are anticipating a huge increase in foreclosure cases this spring. I don't think it's so much a matter of rebellion as it is people are literally losing everything with no relief.19 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Just listened to the doctor from This Week in Virology who viewed the first several hours of the FDA hearing (he had to log off before it was over to go to work). He said he was impressed by the data presented and assumed it would be approved (which we know it was).
He said it looks like those vaccinated have more titers than those who were infected.
He said soreness at the injection site and a headache are common upon vaccination for 24-48 hours. Fever and noticable fatigue look to be found in @ 15% or so.
The current US policy is that each individual state determines who is eligible for the doses assigned to the state, typically the state public health dept.
He works at a NYC hospital and noted that unfortunately he is starting to see multiple members of families being hospitalized together, he assumed these are Thanksgiving consequences
He still suggests pregnant women wait to be vaccinated, as well as "probably" children under 16, just because the data is a little limited.
He said immunocompromised people should be fine getting vaccinated, but there is no general rule yet, so he suggests consulting your doctors first, it would be a case by case basis.
From a much less good source than that (it was an NPR report, don't recall which program), I heard a rough ballpark from some expert (think it was the head of the first hospital to start giving the injections?) that in the trials around 80% of people were experiencing some kind of side effect, mostly short (hours) and minor (sore arm, headache, as you say).
Further, he said they were timing their staff vaccinations so that there was a staggering, i.e., a subset of each department got the vaccine at the same time, so that if a small number needed to take a few hours or day off because of more significant side effects (the fatigue and fever sort of thing), they would still have good staff coverage. I think he said their conservative (higher than probable) planning number for staff possibly needing time off was something like 20%, though my memory is less clear on that point - but it's pretty consistent with the numbers from your better source, Kimny.
I appreciate you letting us know key points from those podcasts, Kimny!
Seconding the appreciation for Kimny's "This Week in Virology" highlights!
I had a sore arm and headache for a few days from the flu vaccine too.
I'm hoping for the best because I had no side effects from the flu vaccine. Knock on wood, but the only shot that's done anything to me is the tetanus shot.
1 -
Clearly not all can do coronavirus prep.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/hunger-study-predicts-168000-pandemic-linked-child-deaths/2020/12/14/36c7feb8-3e29-11eb-b58b-1623f6267960_story.html0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »I suspect many people in other countries are underestimating compliance levels here in the US . . . and I'm not saying there are *not* waaaaayyy too many who are noncompliant. There are. And culture is a part of that, the individualism. But around me, most people are complying with requirements.
I, from Australia, accept that may be so - however I was also going on Kimny's comment ( a poster Ive not known to be prone to exageration) who said " Regardless, I can't even imagine what kind of backlash from the anti-restrictions groups would have resulted in any state trying to close it's borders'
and that just didnt happen in Australia - there was very minimal backlash and certainly nowhere near enough to result in any change of policy.
I think would of been far more backlash had safe states suddenly decided to open borders to states still having community transmission rather than the reverse.
ETA: Most of the people I know IRL who are compliant and feel we are doing the right thing with restrictions and stay at home orders remain either gainfully employed...mostly working from home, or retired with little change in their overall life...the people I know who are adamantly against any restrictions and lockdown policies are mostly people who've lost income, their jobs, insurance, etc and they have no relief. I work for the courts and we are anticipating a huge increase in foreclosure cases this spring. I don't think it's so much a matter of rebellion as it is people are literally losing everything with no relief.
Agree, work from home, retired, no change in income, etc. no harm no foul, no problem staying home, just a minor inconvenience. If one is going to lose much of what they have, they tend to have a different outlook on stay at home.
Both our sons were laid off due to the shutdowns in the spring. One of them actually got a much better job in an "essential" business so has been working since June.
The other one not quite so lucky Was a massage therapist and bartender making real good money at a high end establishments, both still closed. To add insult to injury he wasn't able to get unemployment for about 5 months due to state unemployment IT systems issues (he did finally get a large check for the amount due). Neither of them has a family of their own, plus they were fortunate enough that my wife and I were both working from home with no change in income and able/willing to give them money to help with their expenses. This isn't the way they wanted to spend the last 9 months but they are making due.
Now imagine someone who's unemployment isn't enough to live on, not much in savings and family not able to help them. That person is going to be a lot less likely to be happily compliant.
13 -
missysippy930 wrote: »@Chef_Barbell
I heard they are arriving in all 50 states today.
There are more roads in the US, than any other single country in the world. Flat out, an iimpossibility to monitor them all. What has been lacking here this entire time to slow the spread of covid, which other countries have successfully managed to do, is a national policy and leadership. We are about to surpass 300,000 deaths, and 16,500,000 cases. Those stats speak for themselves re: a viable national policy.
Yes. At this present moment, it is 308,010 deaths, and 16,934,969 total cases on the chart.1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »I suspect many people in other countries are underestimating compliance levels here in the US . . . and I'm not saying there are *not* waaaaayyy too many who are noncompliant. There are. And culture is a part of that, the individualism. But around me, most people are complying with requirements.
I, from Australia, accept that may be so - however I was also going on Kimny's comment ( a poster Ive not known to be prone to exageration) who said " Regardless, I can't even imagine what kind of backlash from the anti-restrictions groups would have resulted in any state trying to close it's borders'
and that just didnt happen in Australia - there was very minimal backlash and certainly nowhere near enough to result in any change of policy.
I think would of been far more backlash had safe states suddenly decided to open borders to states still having community transmission rather than the reverse.
...ETA: Most of the people I know IRL who are compliant and feel we are doing the right thing with restrictions and stay at home orders remain either gainfully employed...mostly working from home, or retired with little change in their overall life...the people I know who are adamantly against any restrictions and lockdown policies are mostly people who've lost income, their jobs, insurance, etc and they have no relief. I work for the courts and we are anticipating a huge increase in foreclosure cases this spring. I don't think it's so much a matter of rebellion as it is people are literally losing everything with no relief.
I think compliance is more related to someone's source of news.
My OH and I both lost our jobs but because we have science-based sources of news we believe in the restrictions and comply with them.
However, we do have unemployment, savings, and assets.7 -
IME, a lot of those who are less personally affected but who think the restrictions are important and are compliant want generous unemployment and other relief for those people and businesses who need it (and believe that restrictions or not business that rely on tourism, conventions, and travel generally would be in trouble, among others), whereas IME it is often those opposed to the restrictions who are against the relief efforts (or certain of them, like the more generous unemployment).
But I can't really say more than that, as that too quickly gets political.
I do think it's pretty obvious that the political polarization in the US more generally has not helped (although for the reasons that have already been explained I don't think that is why state borders could not realistically be closed).6 -
The backlash is super noisy, and potentially dangerous . . . but it's a minority. But Kimny's right: I can't imagine the backlash if state borders were closed, either, given what happened when much less extreme measures were imposed. (Of course, I'm prone to exaggerate . . . .
Oh I wasnt saying you are prone to exaggerating either, I hope you didn't read my post that way.1 -
The "economically safe = compliant" and "economically challenged = noncompliant" isn't the pattern I see among people I know. It seems more about general political & philosophical orientation, not about personal impact. (Source of news might be a factor in there, but perhaps more from the standpoint that people with particular orientations are more likely to seek out news sources that reinforce those views.)
I know people who were thrown into very difficult circumstances who are taking very strict precautions, and supporting strict measures. (Example: My massage therapist, in solo practice, did not go back to work even when it began being permitted, because - knowing lots about sanitation - he believes it's simply not safe for either party. While he has a contracted gig as a videographer for a church, he's in economically difficult circumstances, moved out of leased home/office combo, and moved in at least temporarily with his parents (he's 50+, not 23, BTW.).)
I also have a few younger friends who were hurt pretty badly economically (couple of hair stylists just getting started, waitstaff and bartender types, etc.), but are living quite compliantly and cautiously . . . sometimes criticizing their employed, secure parents who are not being compliant or cautious enough, in their view.
The strongest rebels I know (who are compliant in some ways, but strongly oppose the lockdown, think the pandemic is overblown) are all employed and as secure as ever. One is even a nurse (believes in wearing masks, thinks many of the other measures are wrong). Several others are retired, one is over 65 but works full time for state government in a secure position that's mostly WFH now (which she hates, so maybe that's a factor - but I think her overall philosophical orientation is the main reason), one is employed in secure civilian position with the National Guard. Examples.
It's never completely, universally as simple as these cartoons about people who are harmed by the measures oppose the measures, those with no pinch from them like them.15 -
Antiopelle wrote: »missysippy930 wrote: »I suppose it would be possible to stop people at borders, leaving and entering states, but logistically a nightmare for law enforcement. It’s done in states bordering Canada and Mexico, with varying degrees of success. Minnesota has miles of natural waterway borders, various rivers, and Lake Superior, that we share with Canada, No Dak, & Wisconsin, where there is limited bridge access to other jurisdictions. There are also a lot of miles of borders with abundant road access to our neighboring states, So Dak, No Dak, Iowa, Wisconsin and Canada. Multiply that times 50. Not an easy, nor inexpensive task. Millions of miles of roads in the US.
All of our individual states are part of the whole country. Governed by federal, state, and local jurisdictions. It would be a much better solution to have had a federal mandate from the beginning. Hindsight is 20/20, but, we may have had a much different outcome than the “over by Easter” (04/10/20) that we heard 9 months ago.
Exactly.
Since March, apparently if we were "really trying" enough, we would have hired something from thousands to tens (hundreds?) of thousands of new state-border guards, trained them, put up many thousands of barricades to close roads (don't know what we do about the very common ORVs and privately-owned boats, not to mention cyclists/pedestrians), and closed those state borders . . . a thing for which we have neither precedent nor obvious legal structure.
That, in parallel with trying to hire and train something like tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of contract tracers (estimated in itself, under one proposal, to cost something like $12 billion).
Ooookaaaayyyyyyy.
Just to give you a little insight from a small European country (Belgium), surrounded by the big ones: Germany, France and the Netherlands and across the Channel the UK. Since March, our borders are closed (they were open when things got better over the summer). And yes, we have a vast network of roads that cross all borders as well, ranging from large highways to small hiking paths.
We also have loads of people working in one country and living in another; we have people who's closest supermarket is around the corner but in another country. When the borders were closed, it was mainly a communication and people stuck to it without much enforcement. At a certain time, the police was doing random checks as it seemed that traffic was picking up and that was enough to discourage people again.
A personal example: I'm an avid scuba diver but there is no available salt water where I live. The best spots are in The Netherlands and we could go there very safely. We could get in the car, park at the waterfront, gear up, dive, change and get into our car again without actually meeting anyone. The probability that we would be checked by police is extremely small, but we don't do it because it is asked from the population to refrain crossing borders. None of our friends and acquaintances are crossing neither.
My point is that I think there is mainly a large cultural difference, not as much a logistical one. When our government tells people that there is a restriction some people will question it and be critical but the vast majority will comply and enforcement will hardly be needed.
Although I am scared that during Christmas and New Year's eve compliance will slide and the wish to host family events will prevail; and we will see a spike in deaths again after these holidays.
I live in France now, and have lived in Spain Portugal and Italy Europe in general for 13 years. Some people mistakenly like to compare the Eu to the US as if it is the same. There is nothing that is the same governmentally or culturally.
We have groups of men now defying the curfew by yelling in the streets during curfew hours. Workers like painters, plumbers don’t wear masks and there is about 50 percent compliance with masks at this point.
It could be that Belgium and Holland are a more Compliant people, that is definitely a good possibility as countries in the EU vary incredibly. Much more than Americans do State to State. That is why even though we now say it is the European Union it is not United like the United States is.10 -
Antiopelle wrote: »missysippy930 wrote: »I suppose it would be possible to stop people at borders, leaving and entering states, but logistically a nightmare for law enforcement. It’s done in states bordering Canada and Mexico, with varying degrees of success. Minnesota has miles of natural waterway borders, various rivers, and Lake Superior, that we share with Canada, No Dak, & Wisconsin, where there is limited bridge access to other jurisdictions. There are also a lot of miles of borders with abundant road access to our neighboring states, So Dak, No Dak, Iowa, Wisconsin and Canada. Multiply that times 50. Not an easy, nor inexpensive task. Millions of miles of roads in the US.
All of our individual states are part of the whole country. Governed by federal, state, and local jurisdictions. It would be a much better solution to have had a federal mandate from the beginning. Hindsight is 20/20, but, we may have had a much different outcome than the “over by Easter” (04/10/20) that we heard 9 months ago.
Exactly.
Since March, apparently if we were "really trying" enough, we would have hired something from thousands to tens (hundreds?) of thousands of new state-border guards, trained them, put up many thousands of barricades to close roads (don't know what we do about the very common ORVs and privately-owned boats, not to mention cyclists/pedestrians), and closed those state borders . . . a thing for which we have neither precedent nor obvious legal structure.
That, in parallel with trying to hire and train something like tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of contract tracers (estimated in itself, under one proposal, to cost something like $12 billion).
Ooookaaaayyyyyyy.
Just to give you a little insight from a small European country (Belgium), surrounded by the big ones: Germany, France and the Netherlands and across the Channel the UK. Since March, our borders are closed (they were open when things got better over the summer). And yes, we have a vast network of roads that cross all borders as well, ranging from large highways to small hiking paths.
We also have loads of people working in one country and living in another; we have people who's closest supermarket is around the corner but in another country. When the borders were closed, it was mainly a communication and people stuck to it without much enforcement. At a certain time, the police was doing random checks as it seemed that traffic was picking up and that was enough to discourage people again.
A personal example: I'm an avid scuba diver but there is no available salt water where I live. The best spots are in The Netherlands and we could go there very safely. We could get in the car, park at the waterfront, gear up, dive, change and get into our car again without actually meeting anyone. The probability that we would be checked by police is extremely small, but we don't do it because it is asked from the population to refrain crossing borders. None of our friends and acquaintances are crossing neither.
My point is that I think there is mainly a large cultural difference, not as much a logistical one. When our government tells people that there is a restriction some people will question it and be critical but the vast majority will comply and enforcement will hardly be needed.
Although I am scared that during Christmas and New Year's eve compliance will slide and the wish to host family events will prevail; and we will see a spike in deaths again after these holidays.
I live in France now, and have lived in Spain Portugal and Italy Europe in general for 13 years. Some people mistakenly like to compare the Eu to the US as if it is the same. There is nothing that is the same governmentally or culturally.
We have groups of men now defying the curfew by yelling in the streets during curfew hours. Workers like painters, plumbers don’t wear masks and there is about 50 percent compliance with masks at this point.
It could be that Belgium and Holland are a more Compliant people, that is definitely a good possibility as countries in the EU vary incredibly. Much more than Americans do State to State. That is why even though we now say it is the European Union it is not United like the United States is.
Exactly this^^^^^. Also my husband always says that he doesn't understand how the EU can work since all the individual countries have been at each others throats for thousands of years. And yes, this comes out when one country is irritated with another. The US only had State against State during the Civil War--and there are still feelings and reprecussions from that. So, you can't compare the two at all.
Italian teens are exploding--doing a "Fight Club" at various points of Rome with announcements on Internet. Why? Because they are too restricted--no gym, no school, no activities, no sports to work off energy. It doesn't take a scientist to figure out that you can't coop up a teenager for months and tell him or her to stay home. Common Sense is missing many times. For the most part Italians are following the rules, except bars are chock full at cocktail hour, and the main shopping streets are overrun. People that work in the North are already planning their escape to the South for the holidays, and this will spread COVID from North to South and back again.8 -
A huge snowstorm is coming to NYC in 2 days which will essentially shut down any outdoor dining. We are looking at 8-14 inches. Indoor dining has already been closed as of Monday. I really feel for my former colleagues struggling so hard with no relief in sight.11
-
IME, a lot of those who are less personally affected but who think the restrictions are important and are compliant want generous unemployment and other relief for those people and businesses who need it (and believe that restrictions or not business that rely on tourism, conventions, and travel generally would be in trouble, among others), whereas IME it is often those opposed to the restrictions who are against the relief efforts (or certain of them, like the more generous unemployment).
I 100% believe that the restrictions are important and that those impacted by a shut down need a safety net that is better then what we currently offer in the US. We can not expect to just close everything up, make people stay home, and then tell them "too bad so sad" when they don't have money for bills or groceries. Unemployment was not created to handle something like this. It is to keep someone afloat long enough to get another job. It is not a long term solution to job loss. Something else needs to be provided if we want tighter restrictions.
I am blessed and luck as heck that I can do my job from home. I have been work from home since March with no current end in sight. In face, even after all this is over, I will most likely still be WFH at least part time with a day or two in the office. If there is any silver lining, it has shown the people at the top that WFH is a viable option which they were against before.
15 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13474181/new-coronavirus-strain-spreading-hancock/
I hope this is fake news.
The Sun is like the UK's version of the National Enquirer. In this article, they basically are saying there's a mutation that spreads more and isn't more deadly and also should be susceptible to the vaccine. That's been pretty much the pattern of the mutations so far. More contagious, but also less deadly (but still very deadly to those with compromised immune systems or certain genetic dispositions as they are finding). Don't know where I saw it, but they have found 3 genetic variants that tend to correlate strongly with worse outcomes.9 -
IME, a lot of those who are less personally affected but who think the restrictions are important and are compliant want generous unemployment and other relief for those people and businesses who need it (and believe that restrictions or not business that rely on tourism, conventions, and travel generally would be in trouble, among others), whereas IME it is often those opposed to the restrictions who are against the relief efforts (or certain of them, like the more generous unemployment).
I 100% believe that the restrictions are important and that those impacted by a shut down need a safety net that is better then what we currently offer in the US. We can not expect to just close everything up, make people stay home, and then tell them "too bad so sad" when they don't have money for bills or groceries. Unemployment was not created to handle something like this. It is to keep someone afloat long enough to get another job. It is not a long term solution to job loss. Something else needs to be provided if we want tighter restrictions.
I am blessed and luck as heck that I can do my job from home. I have been work from home since March with no current end in sight. In face, even after all this is over, I will most likely still be WFH at least part time with a day or two in the office. If there is any silver lining, it has shown the people at the top that WFH is a viable option which they were against before.
I'd been WFM since 2011 for an employer that was generally against it, but was willing to do that for me because I'd worked in the office for 3 years before moving out of state to be closer to my aging mother. During those three years he'd also observed me checking in (well, working really) remotely while on vacation, so was confident in my work ethic.
I want to get another WFM job and am hoping one silver lining from this dreadful experience is that more employers are open to it now.7 -
kshama2001 wrote: »IME, a lot of those who are less personally affected but who think the restrictions are important and are compliant want generous unemployment and other relief for those people and businesses who need it (and believe that restrictions or not business that rely on tourism, conventions, and travel generally would be in trouble, among others), whereas IME it is often those opposed to the restrictions who are against the relief efforts (or certain of them, like the more generous unemployment).
I 100% believe that the restrictions are important and that those impacted by a shut down need a safety net that is better then what we currently offer in the US. We can not expect to just close everything up, make people stay home, and then tell them "too bad so sad" when they don't have money for bills or groceries. Unemployment was not created to handle something like this. It is to keep someone afloat long enough to get another job. It is not a long term solution to job loss. Something else needs to be provided if we want tighter restrictions.
I am blessed and luck as heck that I can do my job from home. I have been work from home since March with no current end in sight. In face, even after all this is over, I will most likely still be WFH at least part time with a day or two in the office. If there is any silver lining, it has shown the people at the top that WFH is a viable option which they were against before.
I'd been WFM since 2011 for an employer that was generally against it, but was willing to do that for me because I'd worked in the office for 3 years before moving out of state to be closer to my aging mother. During those three years he'd also observed me checking in (well, working really) remotely while on vacation, so was confident in my work ethic.
I want to get another WFM job and am hoping one silver lining from this dreadful experience is that more employers are open to it now.
I've said from the beginning that if nothing else good comes out of COVID, maybe it will at least kill the open floor plan office trend that so many companies adopted in the last few years. I don't want to be packed into a big room with 150 co-workers. It's too loud, there's no privacy, there's no sense of individuality, and now it's just a good place to spread diseases.14 -
My company is taking surveys about how we would feel WFH 3 days/wk, in office for two, but no assigned cubes. (i.e. you just get assigned one on the two days you're in).
I'm all for that. I work more from home without the 45 min commute each way.
7 -
HawkingRadiation wrote: »My company is taking surveys about how we would feel WFH 3 days/wk, in office for two, but no assigned cubes. (i.e. you just get assigned one on the two days you're in).
I'm all for that. I work more from home without the 45 min commute each way.
My company has tossed around a similar possibility and I have to say, the thought of sitting at a desk that some other random person sat at the day before makes me gag. There's the in-office nail clippers, the people that eat all kinds of greasy or crumbly food at their desks, etc. There are not enough sanitizing wipes in the world to make me comfortable 😷7 -
HawkingRadiation wrote: »My company is taking surveys about how we would feel WFH 3 days/wk, in office for two, but no assigned cubes. (i.e. you just get assigned one on the two days you're in).
I'm all for that. I work more from home without the 45 min commute each way.
We're moving to a hybrid starting in January. 40 hrs in office and 40 hrs WFH during an 80 hour pay period. This namely stems from us having some employees for whom it is essential for them to be in office most of the time and others who can remote work most of the time and those in office thinking it's unfair.
Some people doing 95% or more WFH are definitely up in arms...but personally, I'm looking forward to getting back into the office on a somewhat regular schedule. I can do most of my work from pretty much anywhere in the world so long as I have internet, a printer, and a scanner...but working at home, living at home, and everything outside of home being severely restricted is getting old and I'm looking forward to being out of the house more.
My home office is a setup in a little nook in our master bedroom...it was set up pre-covid to be used on those occasions my wife or I needed to work from home (kid sick, plumber coming, etc) or just a place to sit down at the computer and surf the internet...it was never intended to be a full time office that my wife and I share on alternating days and now our master bedroom oasis getaway looks like a combination of a mail room and a full time office that is lacking filing capacity.
Everyone at my office has either an assigned cubicle or designated office...so that's not really an issue.6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 920 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions