Coronavirus prep
Replies
-
RetiredAndLovingIt wrote: »Dr. Oz (I know people think he's a quack) was talking about those monoclonal antibodies the other day and he said everyone should try to get them if they have Covid, especially if they meet the qualifications.
Lol @ Dr. Oz. I wouldn't try anything he recommends with a 10 foot pole.12 -
I was listening to TWIV, and they are not sure the British and South African variants are as worrisome as the press is suggesting.
They said there is now evidence the British variant has been in the US since November, and we didn't realize because we simply aren't tracing and sequencing the virus as much as other countries. And even though that means it has been here for 2-3 months, it is still a relatively small portion of our cases, so is clearly not spreading unusually quickly here. They noted this variant was sequenced and spreading quickly in Britain around the same time that compliance with safety regulations was plummeting, so the increased spread was quite possibly from behavior, not the variant.
As far as the South African variant, they said it is too early to tell whether the variant is what is causing the lower success percentage of the vaccines. It's important to remember that different populations have different immune health, stuff like poor quality diet, parasitic infections, genetic differences affect how responsive a persons immune system is. For example, countries with tropical climates have more people with chronic parasitic infections, and over time that can take your immune strength down a peg. South Africa has a higher per capita percentage of people who are HIV positive than other developed countries, and if a higher percentage of trial participants were HIV positive that would reduce the efficacy of the vaccines in their studies. And they reminded that even if the current vaccines have the lower percentage success with the SA variant, they will still dramatically slow the spread and the mRNA vaccines could be able to be updated within a couple of months to correct the weakness.
My brother's in-laws got the call from the health dept and got there first shot. I'm hopeful that means my parents will get the call sooner rather than later, though it took them a week or so to get online and register.
I got a packet in the mail that my county has made safety improvements to the courthouse, so they are resuming trial juries in March and I am in the pool for March for grand jury duty. Not thrilled about that.
Thanks for always updating us on This Week in Virology - I really appreciate it!
If there is a medical reason to excuse you from jury duty your doctor can write a letter. For example, due to my uterine fibroids pressing on my bladder I have to urinate much more frequently than would be efficient for jury duty. My doctor wrote a note explaining this and I was excused. Or if you happen to be in therapy and serving would have a negative affect on your mental health, your therapist could write a letter.7 -
kshama2001 wrote: »I was listening to TWIV, and they are not sure the British and South African variants are as worrisome as the press is suggesting.
They said there is now evidence the British variant has been in the US since November, and we didn't realize because we simply aren't tracing and sequencing the virus as much as other countries. And even though that means it has been here for 2-3 months, it is still a relatively small portion of our cases, so is clearly not spreading unusually quickly here. They noted this variant was sequenced and spreading quickly in Britain around the same time that compliance with safety regulations was plummeting, so the increased spread was quite possibly from behavior, not the variant.
As far as the South African variant, they said it is too early to tell whether the variant is what is causing the lower success percentage of the vaccines. It's important to remember that different populations have different immune health, stuff like poor quality diet, parasitic infections, genetic differences affect how responsive a persons immune system is. For example, countries with tropical climates have more people with chronic parasitic infections, and over time that can take your immune strength down a peg. South Africa has a higher per capita percentage of people who are HIV positive than other developed countries, and if a higher percentage of trial participants were HIV positive that would reduce the efficacy of the vaccines in their studies. And they reminded that even if the current vaccines have the lower percentage success with the SA variant, they will still dramatically slow the spread and the mRNA vaccines could be able to be updated within a couple of months to correct the weakness.
My brother's in-laws got the call from the health dept and got there first shot. I'm hopeful that means my parents will get the call sooner rather than later, though it took them a week or so to get online and register.
I got a packet in the mail that my county has made safety improvements to the courthouse, so they are resuming trial juries in March and I am in the pool for March for grand jury duty. Not thrilled about that.
Thanks for always updating us on This Week in Virology - I really appreciate it!
If there is a medical reason to excuse you from jury duty your doctor can write a letter. For example, due to my uterine fibroids pressing on my bladder I have to urinate much more frequently than would be efficient for jury duty. My doctor wrote a note explaining this and I was excused. Or if you happen to be in therapy and serving would have a negative affect on your mental health, your therapist could write a letter.
Thanks. I really don't have any reason other than "I don't care how far apart we sit in filtered air, I've managed to be a hermit for a year now, don't make me gather, dammit". As someone with no risk factors, I figure if someone has to do it, it should be someone like me. We are a low pop, rural county so I'm hoping they just won't need a grand jury trial that month. An impending grand jury hearing often spurs deal making, and we don't see a ton of charges that require a grand jury, so fingers crossed regardless. And they could change their minds I guess, if they get a lot of people begging off. I ordered a couple of KF94 masks jic.13 -
Removed due to broken link.1
-
Our Governor (Iowa) did a proclamation starting at midnight tonight that masks are no longer required in public spaces, bars & restaurants are basically open, and nothing against larger gatherings now. I don't understand why at this time, although I know our numbers are better, cases about 1/2 what they were in Nov. Also they made a law that all schools have to offer in school classes, also, starting Monday. So since masks are no longer required will that apply to school also? Our daughter is a teacher, and has been doing in school classes since they started in the fall, but lots of the others have been virtual only. They are doing vaccination clinics for some school districts, but unfortunately not hers.
Regarding vaccination, CVS & Walgreens now have doses that had been assigned to nursing homes, but not used, so they are giving them to people 65+ and another medical facility is having mass immunization for people 65+ this weekend.8 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »A friend sent this to me for my brother. I'm not sure if my SIL will do it but I'm pushing her to. My brother can't be beyond 10 days symptomatic in order to qualify. He does qualify on all the rest of the criteria. This is the same antibody cocktail that Trump received. The only cost, assuming you qualify, is from the hospital -- but not for the drug. I had no idea this was available until a friend of mine told me that his high risk brother got it.
https://combatcovid.hhs.gov/i-have-covid-19-now/monoclonal-antibodies-high-risk-covid-19-positive-patients?fbclid=IwAR1KX492pGJxg2p07_bA_N_1oHtHQBxxTsX0eo4mj5cL_tlJFlOne5qjhEo
Local news reports here recently that the supply of monoclonal antibody doses is high (a stockpile), but the uptake very low.
There seem to be multiple problems: It apparently does the most good early (before many people seek health care, let alone hospitalization), people don't know about it or know it's available or know how to get it, and other such communications/logistics stuff.
SIL said his medicine he's on doesn't technically qualify him. His oxygen dropped dramatically and he's in the hospital now. I haven't heard if it's the ICU or not, but I assume so. It seems like they have a narrow band of people that can get it, which is a shame. His oxygen was in the mid 80s. Low 80s usually means permanent organ damage.17 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »A friend sent this to me for my brother. I'm not sure if my SIL will do it but I'm pushing her to. My brother can't be beyond 10 days symptomatic in order to qualify. He does qualify on all the rest of the criteria. This is the same antibody cocktail that Trump received. The only cost, assuming you qualify, is from the hospital -- but not for the drug. I had no idea this was available until a friend of mine told me that his high risk brother got it.
https://combatcovid.hhs.gov/i-have-covid-19-now/monoclonal-antibodies-high-risk-covid-19-positive-patients?fbclid=IwAR1KX492pGJxg2p07_bA_N_1oHtHQBxxTsX0eo4mj5cL_tlJFlOne5qjhEo
Local news reports here recently that the supply of monoclonal antibody doses is high (a stockpile), but the uptake very low.
There seem to be multiple problems: It apparently does the most good early (before many people seek health care, let alone hospitalization), people don't know about it or know it's available or know how to get it, and other such communications/logistics stuff.
SIL said his medicine he's on doesn't technically qualify him. His oxygen dropped dramatically and he's in the hospital now. I haven't heard if it's the ICU or not, but I assume so. It seems like they have a narrow band of people that can get it, which is a shame. His oxygen was in the mid 80s. Low 80s usually means permanent organ damage.
Oh my goodness that is terrible. Hopefully they can get him stable and his oxygen back up. Is he normally a healthy guy?3 -
@MikePfirrman Hoping they can help your brother & get his O2 back up again.4
-
Personally, I found this rather appalling as the term “essential employee” has been left open to interpretation. That and the shifting directions on who to vaccinate.
https://apple.news/ApkRhyC0dRLKdXs-4jrDVog
Yeah but I also don't really agree with the consensus that teachers should be on the first priority list. I don't know why say a 32 year old teacher is a higher priority than a 62 year old factory worker, or postal sorter, or delivery person. I really think that they should be prioritizing by age and health, and not occupation (besides health care I guess where they are directly exposed to high doses.) Especially since people in those occupations are more likely to be members of low income vulnerable communities, which have been hit particularly hard.
It must be hard though to have to make those calls, because no matter who is left to the end you know at least someone in that group is going to die. There is also a mask mandate here so any teacher and all of their students are masked the same as every other workplace where you can't distance.
Kind of agree, but I think it's essential that schools get open ASAP, and in some areas teachers not being vaccinated yet are excuses for schools not being open (whereas in others they seem to be open no problem). So if it helps school opening, I'm for teachers being among the first. (IMO, the evidence is that kids don't actually spread it that much and spread from schools is low, but let's do what we need to do to get schools open as this is a disaster for the US with in person schools being closed so long.)
Beyond that, I think we need to focus more on vaccinating quickly and less on the group order, which seems to slow down the process, especially if some eligible don't come. We all benefit if more are vaccinated, and I'm not actually sympathetic to those who are reluctant to do so--let them give up their spot.6 -
What happens when adequate precautions aren’t taken for in-person learning. 😞 https://apple.news/AyMIn9a3ARZ6AaQiWX-Y6_w3
-
Just a pessimistic note on the British variant. It was first identified in September in Kent and the surge came four months later in January. This is why there are cautionary watches on March for the US.
It’s in the US, including California. What worries me is the South African variant has been identified in three states in the last week and a half: Maryland, Virginia, and one of the Carolinas.3 -
Personally, I found this rather appalling as the term “essential employee” has been left open to interpretation. That and the shifting directions on who to vaccinate.
https://apple.news/ApkRhyC0dRLKdXs-4jrDVog
Yeah but I also don't really agree with the consensus that teachers should be on the first priority list. I don't know why say a 32 year old teacher is a higher priority than a 62 year old factory worker, or postal sorter, or delivery person. I really think that they should be prioritizing by age and health, and not occupation (besides health care I guess where they are directly exposed to high doses.) Especially since people in those occupations are more likely to be members of low income vulnerable communities, which have been hit particularly hard.
It must be hard though to have to make those calls, because no matter who is left to the end you know at least someone in that group is going to die. There is also a mask mandate here so any teacher and all of their students are masked the same as every other workplace where you can't distance.
I think it depends on the work/circumstances. A senior staying at home versus a teacher required to go back in the classroom?
Taking the only resource out of a rural community hurts everyone. Including the people the health dept. wants to prioritize.3 -
Personally, I found this rather appalling as the term “essential employee” has been left open to interpretation. That and the shifting directions on who to vaccinate.
https://apple.news/ApkRhyC0dRLKdXs-4jrDVog
Yeah but I also don't really agree with the consensus that teachers should be on the first priority list. I don't know why say a 32 year old teacher is a higher priority than a 62 year old factory worker, or postal sorter, or delivery person. I really think that they should be prioritizing by age and health, and not occupation (besides health care I guess where they are directly exposed to high doses.) Especially since people in those occupations are more likely to be members of low income vulnerable communities, which have been hit particularly hard.
It must be hard though to have to make those calls, because no matter who is left to the end you know at least someone in that group is going to die. There is also a mask mandate here so any teacher and all of their students are masked the same as every other workplace where you can't distance.
If schools were reopening with safety precautions in place, I would feel differently. For example, in Oklahoma, it's been decided if students are physically distanced, they don't have to wear masks indoors. All the science we have says that's a very bad idea.
If teachers are being required to go back in the classroom with students without proper safety/testing procedures in place, they should be vaccinated first.8 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »RetiredAndLovingIt wrote: »Dr. Oz (I know people think he's a quack) was talking about those monoclonal antibodies the other day and he said everyone should try to get them if they have Covid, especially if they meet the qualifications.
Lol @ Dr. Oz. I wouldn't try anything he recommends with a 10 foot pole.
I think the monoclonal antibody recommendation may be one of those "even a broken clock is right twice a day" things, if Oz is recommending it.
US FDA says monoclonal antibodies have been "shown in clinical trials to reduce COVID-19-related hospitalization or emergency room visits in patients at high risk for disease progression within 28 days after treatment when compared to placebo." Many mainstream authorities seem at least optimistic about benefit, as balanced against their risk profile.5 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »RetiredAndLovingIt wrote: »Dr. Oz (I know people think he's a quack) was talking about those monoclonal antibodies the other day and he said everyone should try to get them if they have Covid, especially if they meet the qualifications.
Lol @ Dr. Oz. I wouldn't try anything he recommends with a 10 foot pole.
I think the monoclonal antibody recommendation may be one of those "even a broken clock is right twice a day" things, if Oz is recommending it.
US FDA says monoclonal antibodies have been "shown in clinical trials to reduce COVID-19-related hospitalization or emergency room visits in patients at high risk for disease progression within 28 days after treatment when compared to placebo." Many mainstream authorities seem at least optimistic about benefit, as balanced against their risk profile.
Dr. Oz also recommended hydroxychloroquine after health officials said otherwise. He'll jump on any bandwagon that will let him. :laugh:
8 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »RetiredAndLovingIt wrote: »Dr. Oz (I know people think he's a quack) was talking about those monoclonal antibodies the other day and he said everyone should try to get them if they have Covid, especially if they meet the qualifications.
Lol @ Dr. Oz. I wouldn't try anything he recommends with a 10 foot pole.
I think the monoclonal antibody recommendation may be one of those "even a broken clock is right twice a day" things, if Oz is recommending it.
US FDA says monoclonal antibodies have been "shown in clinical trials to reduce COVID-19-related hospitalization or emergency room visits in patients at high risk for disease progression within 28 days after treatment when compared to placebo." Many mainstream authorities seem at least optimistic about benefit, as balanced against their risk profile.
Dr. Oz also recommended hydroxychloroquine after health officials said otherwise. He'll jump on any bandwagon that will let him. :laugh:
Believe me, I'm no fan. I just wanted to be really clear that on this one thing he didn't seem to be out on his usual profit-seeking looney fringe (well, maybe the profit seeking part, somehow, dunno - but seemingly not fringe).
I'd hate to see people *turn down* monoclonal antibodies, or not seek them out, just because Oz recommended them.6 -
Personally, I found this rather appalling as the term “essential employee” has been left open to interpretation. That and the shifting directions on who to vaccinate.
https://apple.news/ApkRhyC0dRLKdXs-4jrDVog
Yeah but I also don't really agree with the consensus that teachers should be on the first priority list. I don't know why say a 32 year old teacher is a higher priority than a 62 year old factory worker, or postal sorter, or delivery person. I really think that they should be prioritizing by age and health, and not occupation (besides health care I guess where they are directly exposed to high doses.) Especially since people in those occupations are more likely to be members of low income vulnerable communities, which have been hit particularly hard.
It must be hard though to have to make those calls, because no matter who is left to the end you know at least someone in that group is going to die. There is also a mask mandate here so any teacher and all of their students are masked the same as every other workplace where you can't distance.
I think it depends on the work/circumstances. A senior staying at home versus a teacher required to go back in the classroom?
Taking the only resource out of a rural community hurts everyone. Including the people the health dept. wants to prioritize.
I agree. If you want teachers back in the classroom, give them priority. Otherwise, let them stay at home. Groups who can stay home don't need to get vaxxed first. Teachers are not martyrs who should be expected to sacrifice themselves for the good of other people's children. They have lives and families too. They aren't expendable. Either provide them with protection (vax) or keep doing this remotely. We've done this for almost a year to keep people safe. Now we're telling teachers we're over it. We could vaccinate you before sending you back but we won't. Is it suddenly less dangerous in the classroom than it has been this past year? I wouldn't go back without a vax.
On that note, I personally know several grocery workers (related to a few) who've been frontline in the danger zone all this time, thinking when the vax comes they'll be a priority. Not one of them has been able to get vaxxed. They've got 65 year olds who can stay home getting shots before them. At one store, the entire produce and meat department was sent home last week. They made it this whole time without a major outbreak, but it finally hit. Everybody needs groceries. Unvaxxed, sick grocery workers are a health hazard to the community. Why aren't they a priority?
I expect to have to stay home for a long time before my turn for a vax comes up. I think that if you can isolate, you shouldn't get priority. Save it for the people on the frontlines and for those stuck in facilities (nursing homes, etc.) Who can't isolate.18 -
Look folks, I support teachers having priority (and they do have priority in my state).
But this idea that seniors can all just stay home, be safe? No. We can't, entirely. Some risks must be taken, and if we get sick, the consequences can be dire. Further, how much we can do is very individual. In that sense, we're not all just undifferentiated "seniors".
I'm 65. Quite a few of my friends are my age and older. Many/most have health conditions that require in-person tests and treatments (so do I, sometimes, though I'm remarkably healthy). We can't get those delivered. We need to go out to health care environments where there are, not surprisingly, some sick people. There's probably a higher likelihood of people with Covid in those places - in denial about possible causes for their symptoms, or asymptomatic with other stuff going on - than in grocery stores.
Further, quite a fair fraction of my senior friends are single women, and some of them are in very difficult financial circumstances. They work, even though they're seniors. They may work in public-contact jobs, but ones that don't get priority for vaccination. In many places, grocery delivery has a higher cost. Some of them already have trouble covering food and rent, let alone paying more. Some of them don't have children (or others) to do things for them. (I don't, for example: Zero children, spouse, siblings, church folks, etc. This is not a complaint, and I'm fine getting out and getting things done, all masked up and such. I have very limited complicating health conditions, which is helpful to my risk, and that's nice. Not everyone is so lucky.)
I'm not screaming "put us oldies at the head of the line". I'm not saying we should be taking unnecessary risk. I think it's a good plan for people who are high risk, and can afford it, to stay home as much as possible, not see others, get things delivered.
But this idea that all people over 65, the ones who are at highest risk of severe complications and death, can just all stay home all the time and avoid risk of infection? That's naive.21 -
...I'm not screaming "put us oldies at the head of the line". I'm not saying we should be taking unnecessary risk. I think it's a good plan for people who are high risk, and can afford it, to stay home as much as possible, not see others, get things delivered.
But this idea that all people over 65, the ones who are at highest risk of severe complications and death, can just all stay home all the time and avoid risk of infection? That's naive.
Well, I never said ALL people over 65 should get to the back of the line and hole up at home forever. What I said was that people who can stay home should not have priority over people who are on the frontlines. Some of the frontline workers I know ARE over 65 or they are under 65 but with health problems like diabetes or cancer. But there are so many people trying to get appointments and not enough supply, that frontline 65+ people are not getting vaxxed while stay-at-home 65+ people have been able to get in. It feels like a random free-for-all where I live. Like a lottery.
I totally think that 65+ and people with high risk medical problems who are on the frontlines should go first. But when my sister's healthy and well-off 68 year old MIL who has been staying home this whole time is bragging that she just got her shot so she "can travel again and have fun" while people who have no choice but be exposed at their low paying retail jobs are still waiting is just uncool.11 -
...I'm not screaming "put us oldies at the head of the line". I'm not saying we should be taking unnecessary risk. I think it's a good plan for people who are high risk, and can afford it, to stay home as much as possible, not see others, get things delivered.
But this idea that all people over 65, the ones who are at highest risk of severe complications and death, can just all stay home all the time and avoid risk of infection? That's naive.
Well, I never said ALL people over 65 should get to the back of the line and hole up at home forever. What I said was that people who can stay home should not have priority over people who are on the frontlines. Some of the frontline workers I know ARE over 65 or they are under 65 but with health problems like diabetes or cancer. But there are so many people trying to get appointments and not enough supply, that frontline 65+ people are not getting vaxxed while stay-at-home 65+ people have been able to get in. It feels like a random free-for-all where I live. Like a lottery.
I totally think that 65+ and people with high risk medical problems who are on the frontlines should go first. But when my sister's healthy and well-off 68 year old MIL who has been staying home this whole time is bragging that she just got her shot so she "can travel again and have fun" while people who have no choice but be exposed at their low paying retail jobs are still waiting is just uncool.
Not arguing with any of that. I didn't quote any particular person, because I wasn't replying to any particular person. I just keep seeing things here (various threads), on FB, hearing interviews, that talk about the over-65 age cohort as if we were all retired, well-off people with children who can do things for us, and who - in some very rare but horrifying cases - really ought to be willing to die off anyway, because we've had our chance.
Everyone who's not vaccine-hesitant seems to be vaccine eager, which I also understand; many are making arguments why their group should get higher priority than it got in their location. That's only human. I get it. But I'm tired of the so-frequent generalizations about over-65s.
I haven't had my vaccination yet. I'm on two waiting lists (legit ones, for me) waiting for my turn to come up on either one of them, in the proper priority. I haven't been going around signing up in every random place farther away that didn't prohibit me. I didn't include COPD on my application, though I do have early COPD, because I think for someone of my overall health (and as a short-endurance athlete still, in terms of health markers, though no longer competing), I don't feel like I should play that card to move up the line. I'm isolating, though still grocery shopping in person in very selective places, and only about every 3 weeks, seeing no one indoors other than that and required health care that can't be telehealth. I'm tired of it, just like everyone else is. Once I get vaccinated, I will still isolate and distance, for a long time to come.
I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm asking people to think, with nuance, about priorities (and, though I didn't mention it before, encouraging all of us to consider how difficult these priority decisions are, how it's not realistic to base them on hyper-individualized criteria vs. broad-block groups). I think your sister's MIL is being jerky, but lots of people are being jerky.14 -
I don't know about teachers getting a big priority. Seems to me that it's not going to lead to fewer classroom outbreaks unless the 20-30 students are getting vaccinated too. I just don't see why it would make a difference. If you have a classroom outbreak and the teacher isn't vaccinated, the entire class isolates for two+ weeks. If you have a classroom outbreak and the teacher is vaccinated, the entire class isolates for two+ weeks. The only difference is that 1 in 20 or more people of the exposed group is vaccinated. Seems like the limited supply of vaccines would be better prioritized elsewhere.8
-
stevehenderson776 wrote: »I don't know about teachers getting a big priority. Seems to me that it's not going to lead to fewer classroom outbreaks unless the 20-30 students are getting vaccinated too. I just don't see why it would make a difference. If you have a classroom outbreak and the teacher isn't vaccinated, the entire class isolates for two+ weeks. If you have a classroom outbreak and the teacher is vaccinated, the entire class isolates for two+ weeks. The only difference is that 1 in 20 or more people of the exposed group is vaccinated. Seems like the limited supply of vaccines would be better prioritized elsewhere.
Perhaps the point is primarily to protect the teachers, whose choice is to quit their jobs, or take the risk . . . and their risk of serious disease can be quite high - they're of all ages, health statuses. Children are less at risk, though they have some risk, and it's true that they can carry disease back to their families . . . but the families may have other education options (some schools offer virtual + in person, some areas have school districts with different options, etc.).
We're asking teachers to perform a vital service, in person. Quarantine/isolation is not what we're trying to protect against when we vaccinate teachers or students.15 -
stevehenderson776 wrote: »I don't know about teachers getting a big priority. Seems to me that it's not going to lead to fewer classroom outbreaks unless the 20-30 students are getting vaccinated too. I just don't see why it would make a difference. If you have a classroom outbreak and the teacher isn't vaccinated, the entire class isolates for two+ weeks. If you have a classroom outbreak and the teacher is vaccinated, the entire class isolates for two+ weeks. The only difference is that 1 in 20 or more people of the exposed group is vaccinated. Seems like the limited supply of vaccines would be better prioritized elsewhere.
Perhaps the point is primarily to protect the teachers, whose choice is to quit their jobs, or take the risk . . . and their risk of serious disease can be quite high - they're of all ages, health statuses. Children are less at risk, though they have some risk, and it's true that they can carry disease back to their families . . . but the families may have other education options (some schools offer virtual + in person, some areas have school districts with different options, etc.).
We're asking teachers to perform a vital service, in person. Quarantine/isolation is not what we're trying to protect against when we vaccinate teachers or students.
This is true of many types of workplaces that wouldn't receive the same type of priority. Every essential business/service has people of many ages and health conditions. And they all have the same option: quit or risk it. That's not unique to teachers. I just don't see how you can justify vaccinating this group ahead of others with similar exposure to the public and where there would be better chances of limiting large outbreaks elsewhere. Prioritization is about where the vaccine is going to do the most good to prevent outbreaks amongst the most susceptible. Giving it to 1 in 30 people at a public school doesn't really help with that at this point.8 -
stevehenderson776 wrote: »I don't know about teachers getting a big priority. Seems to me that it's not going to lead to fewer classroom outbreaks unless the 20-30 students are getting vaccinated too. I just don't see why it would make a difference. If you have a classroom outbreak and the teacher isn't vaccinated, the entire class isolates for two+ weeks. If you have a classroom outbreak and the teacher is vaccinated, the entire class isolates for two+ weeks. The only difference is that 1 in 20 or more people of the exposed group is vaccinated. Seems like the limited supply of vaccines would be better prioritized elsewhere.
Wow, so, just like, line the teachers up and shoot them, then?
Teachers are being forced to work in person with large groups of people whether they want to or not, whether they have health conditions or sick family members or not. It’s about not killing them.10 -
My friend recommended this to me so I thought I'd share it with this thread in case anyone wants to watch it. I haven't seen it yet, but he said it is very interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzbcG7CRYgQ 0 -
stevehenderson776 wrote: »stevehenderson776 wrote: »I don't know about teachers getting a big priority. Seems to me that it's not going to lead to fewer classroom outbreaks unless the 20-30 students are getting vaccinated too. I just don't see why it would make a difference. If you have a classroom outbreak and the teacher isn't vaccinated, the entire class isolates for two+ weeks. If you have a classroom outbreak and the teacher is vaccinated, the entire class isolates for two+ weeks. The only difference is that 1 in 20 or more people of the exposed group is vaccinated. Seems like the limited supply of vaccines would be better prioritized elsewhere.
Perhaps the point is primarily to protect the teachers, whose choice is to quit their jobs, or take the risk . . . and their risk of serious disease can be quite high - they're of all ages, health statuses. Children are less at risk, though they have some risk, and it's true that they can carry disease back to their families . . . but the families may have other education options (some schools offer virtual + in person, some areas have school districts with different options, etc.).
We're asking teachers to perform a vital service, in person. Quarantine/isolation is not what we're trying to protect against when we vaccinate teachers or students.
This is true of many types of workplaces that wouldn't receive the same type of priority. Every essential business/service has people of many ages and health conditions. And they all have the same option: quit or risk it. That's not unique to teachers. I just don't see how you can justify vaccinating this group ahead of others with similar exposure to the public and where there would be better chances of limiting large outbreaks elsewhere. Prioritization is about where the vaccine is going to do the most good to prevent outbreaks amongst the most susceptible. Giving it to 1 in 30 people at a public school doesn't really help with that at this point.
OK, but people don't get as upset when a convenience store worker or an assembly line worker quits. They usually can't afford to quit and they don't have much power as a group, so society tends to overlook them. But when they do quit, you can usually find someone who needs the money to step in. They are easily replaced.
You can't just stick anybody in the classroom, though. Just like you can't stick just anybody in the ICU to fill in for a nurse. These people (teachers) have advanced educations and training, are licensed and often specialized. If enough teachers quit, that's a problem. I know teachers who are close enough to retirement who say they will just take early retirement rather than come back without a vaccination. My own sister says she'll quit if she has to, and she's no where near retirement. She has other options besides teaching, which she does mostly because she enjoys it. I guess if you have a whole bunch of extra teachers laying around to plug the holes for those who refuse to go back, then you CAN just say screw you and send them back. But in some places, there were already teacher shortages before COVID. Good luck plugging the holes.
If you don't think teachers are that important, then you probably don't care if they come back to the classroom or not. If the priority is to get them back in the classroom because you think children are actually suffering without them, then you need the teachers to feel safe.
P.S. Sorry if anybody thinks I'm mad or upset when I write my responses. I'm actually not at all. I'm a chill person. I'm just very straightforward in my communication.12 -
rheddmobile wrote: »stevehenderson776 wrote: »I don't know about teachers getting a big priority. Seems to me that it's not going to lead to fewer classroom outbreaks unless the 20-30 students are getting vaccinated too. I just don't see why it would make a difference. If you have a classroom outbreak and the teacher isn't vaccinated, the entire class isolates for two+ weeks. If you have a classroom outbreak and the teacher is vaccinated, the entire class isolates for two+ weeks. The only difference is that 1 in 20 or more people of the exposed group is vaccinated. Seems like the limited supply of vaccines would be better prioritized elsewhere.
Wow, so, just like, line the teachers up and shoot them, then?
Wow. Yes. You read right through my subtext and correctly surmised that I think school teachers should all be shot in the head because I hate them so much. My point wasn't about how I thought the vaccines could be better utilized. It was actually that I'm a teacher hating maniac.
But you missed the part about how I'm actually Hitler, so you're only getting partial marks.
I'm sorry I'm such a horrible monster, guys. I'll try not to kick any puppies on my way out of the thread.8 -
Personally, I found this rather appalling as the term “essential employee” has been left open to interpretation. That and the shifting directions on who to vaccinate.
https://apple.news/ApkRhyC0dRLKdXs-4jrDVog
Yeah but I also don't really agree with the consensus that teachers should be on the first priority list. I don't know why say a 32 year old teacher is a higher priority than a 62 year old factory worker, or postal sorter, or delivery person. I really think that they should be prioritizing by age and health, and not occupation (besides health care I guess where they are directly exposed to high doses.) Especially since people in those occupations are more likely to be members of low income vulnerable communities, which have been hit particularly hard.
It must be hard though to have to make those calls, because no matter who is left to the end you know at least someone in that group is going to die. There is also a mask mandate here so any teacher and all of their students are masked the same as every other workplace where you can't distance.
I think it depends on the work/circumstances. A senior staying at home versus a teacher required to go back in the classroom?
Taking the only resource out of a rural community hurts everyone. Including the people the health dept. wants to prioritize.
I agree. If you want teachers back in the classroom, give them priority. Otherwise, let them stay at home. Groups who can stay home don't need to get vaxxed first. Teachers are not martyrs who should be expected to sacrifice themselves for the good of other people's children. They have lives and families too. They aren't expendable. Either provide them with protection (vax) or keep doing this remotely. We've done this for almost a year to keep people safe. Now we're telling teachers we're over it. We could vaccinate you before sending you back but we won't. Is it suddenly less dangerous in the classroom than it has been this past year? I wouldn't go back without a vax.
On that note, I personally know several grocery workers (related to a few) who've been frontline in the danger zone all this time, thinking when the vax comes they'll be a priority. Not one of them has been able to get vaxxed. They've got 65 year olds who can stay home getting shots before them. At one store, the entire produce and meat department was sent home last week. They made it this whole time without a major outbreak, but it finally hit. Everybody needs groceries. Unvaxxed, sick grocery workers are a health hazard to the community. Why aren't they a priority?
I expect to have to stay home for a long time before my turn for a vax comes up. I think that if you can isolate, you shouldn't get priority. Save it for the people on the frontlines and for those stuck in facilities (nursing homes, etc.) Who can't isolate.
Here in California, our agricultural workers are also priorities after healthcare workers. But you’re dealing with many barriers: status, language, isolation in rural areas to name a few. We have not been successful in vaccinating them yet and outbreaks remain rampant. Same thing for our frontline grocery workers. And teachers. It’s a big group. I’m hopeful the J&J will have doses available in a month or so. It’s just so difficult when it’s different in every state. And sometimes within each state.
I am grateful our on-site staff were prioritized. I’ve been darting in and out of quarantine/isolation areas to deliver things to students since September. And getting belongings to people that realize they forgot when they got to isolation (we use ambulances to transport them). Almost always phone/laptop chargers. It’s winter, their windows are shut, we have no circulating air in the rooms (everyone is in a single). Our climate is pretty moderate year-round (we do have heat in “winter”). I typically throw on some garbage bags in addition to gloves and face coverings. I can always be counted on to class it up! 😂 I learned early on I often had to reach across stuff like beds (covered in cooties) to unplug things. One the symptomatic students (there have been blessedly few positives who have felt sick) wanted her quilt her grandma made off her bed. So I went and got it.
We set aside times when everyone must be in their room (8am every morning) so custodial can come in and get the trash and sanitize. In and out really quickly.
Every thing possible to maintain safe distances, but the risk is still high. And we have people to take care of. Just like the other “essentials.”
Remote learning has not been ideal for many college students. And I hear from my colleagues how hard this is on their kids. If we want teachers in the classroom with them, we should vaccinate them. And, while it’s far from ideal, their job can be done remotely. Not so for grocery workers, delivery folks, etc. I would like to see the people who have to work on-site to provide a service the rest of us need get vaccinated before people who have the option of working remotely.
8 -
RetiredAndLovingIt wrote: »Dr. Oz (I know people think he's a quack) was talking about those monoclonal antibodies the other day and he said everyone should try to get them if they have Covid, especially if they meet the qualifications.
Even a broken quack -- er, clock -- is right twice a day. Although it would more correct to say that those who fall into the disease stage for which it is recommended should try to get the antibodies.3 -
stevehenderson776 wrote: »stevehenderson776 wrote: »I don't know about teachers getting a big priority. Seems to me that it's not going to lead to fewer classroom outbreaks unless the 20-30 students are getting vaccinated too. I just don't see why it would make a difference. If you have a classroom outbreak and the teacher isn't vaccinated, the entire class isolates for two+ weeks. If you have a classroom outbreak and the teacher is vaccinated, the entire class isolates for two+ weeks. The only difference is that 1 in 20 or more people of the exposed group is vaccinated. Seems like the limited supply of vaccines would be better prioritized elsewhere.
Perhaps the point is primarily to protect the teachers, whose choice is to quit their jobs, or take the risk . . . and their risk of serious disease can be quite high - they're of all ages, health statuses. Children are less at risk, though they have some risk, and it's true that they can carry disease back to their families . . . but the families may have other education options (some schools offer virtual + in person, some areas have school districts with different options, etc.).
We're asking teachers to perform a vital service, in person. Quarantine/isolation is not what we're trying to protect against when we vaccinate teachers or students.
This is true of many types of workplaces that wouldn't receive the same type of priority. Every essential business/service has people of many ages and health conditions. And they all have the same option: quit or risk it. That's not unique to teachers. I just don't see how you can justify vaccinating this group ahead of others with similar exposure to the public and where there would be better chances of limiting large outbreaks elsewhere. Prioritization is about where the vaccine is going to do the most good to prevent outbreaks amongst the most susceptible. Giving it to 1 in 30 people at a public school doesn't really help with that at this point.
The difference is that business can enforce mask-wearing by employees and even customers, who are adults. Many schools aren't requiring students to mask and maintain adequate, even though exposure is much longer than 15 minutes, and it's unrealistic to expect children to consistently abide by masking and social distancing rules even if they are in place.
I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not a teacher and I don't have school-age children.7
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions