Coronavirus prep

Options
1…533534536538539…747

Replies

  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,160 Member
    Options
    https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/other/539323-genetic-mutation-inherited-from-neanderthals-could-help-protect

    Sounds like long term immunity perhaps?
  • T1DCarnivoreRunner
    T1DCarnivoreRunner Posts: 11,502 Member
    Options
    SuzySunshine99 wrote: »
    paperpudding wrote: »
    Theo166 wrote: »
    paperpudding wrote: »
    Yes being an island helps.

    But UK is an island too - and nobody would be pleased with the covid situation there.

    Low population density helps too and I'm sure all countries, just like here, have worse outbreaks in cities.

    But border closures weren't just international - state borders closing was also crucial in containment.

    Being an island simply helps you restrict travel, something AUS, NZ, Taiwan, etc did to contain the spread. As I recall, the UK felt it was inconvenient.

    I think the conclusion of last year will be that lock downs without also restricting travel doesn't work.


    It helps you cut international travel but Internal or state borders closing isnt an issue of being an island or not.

    Yes I agree lockdowns and travel restrictions were both crucial.

    You have mentioned the interstate travel restrictions. How did this work in Australia? Was it the "honor system", just essentially asking people not to cross state borders, or were there actual checkpoints set up?

    I ask because it simply wouldn't be feasible in the U.S. to close state borders. There are no real border crossings, just tourism signs that say "Welcome to Iowa" or wherever. As an example, my state, Illinois, borders 5 other states. For just one of those borders, there are 83 roads that cross from Illinois into Wisconsin (I looked at a map and counted). Most people cross that border using two interstate highways, but there's no way you could stop traffic on a 8-lane interstate to check IDs. It's just not possible.

    With 48 states that share borders with other states, it's not even a serious topic of discussion from a logistical sense.

    I've driven in 48 states and crossed a lot of borders. The one state that is setup for this is California. They stop all traffic coming in and have done so for years. This includes 4 lane divided interstates.
  • SuzySunshine99
    SuzySunshine99 Posts: 2,984 Member
    Options
    T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »
    SuzySunshine99 wrote: »
    paperpudding wrote: »
    Theo166 wrote: »
    paperpudding wrote: »
    Yes being an island helps.

    But UK is an island too - and nobody would be pleased with the covid situation there.

    Low population density helps too and I'm sure all countries, just like here, have worse outbreaks in cities.

    But border closures weren't just international - state borders closing was also crucial in containment.

    Being an island simply helps you restrict travel, something AUS, NZ, Taiwan, etc did to contain the spread. As I recall, the UK felt it was inconvenient.

    I think the conclusion of last year will be that lock downs without also restricting travel doesn't work.


    It helps you cut international travel but Internal or state borders closing isnt an issue of being an island or not.

    Yes I agree lockdowns and travel restrictions were both crucial.

    You have mentioned the interstate travel restrictions. How did this work in Australia? Was it the "honor system", just essentially asking people not to cross state borders, or were there actual checkpoints set up?

    I ask because it simply wouldn't be feasible in the U.S. to close state borders. There are no real border crossings, just tourism signs that say "Welcome to Iowa" or wherever. As an example, my state, Illinois, borders 5 other states. For just one of those borders, there are 83 roads that cross from Illinois into Wisconsin (I looked at a map and counted). Most people cross that border using two interstate highways, but there's no way you could stop traffic on a 8-lane interstate to check IDs. It's just not possible.

    With 48 states that share borders with other states, it's not even a serious topic of discussion from a logistical sense.

    I've driven in 48 states and crossed a lot of borders. The one state that is setup for this is California. They stop all traffic coming in and have done so for years. This includes 4 lane divided interstates.

    California has 16 agricultural checkpoints at certain borders. The infrastructure and staffing are already there, including ways to efficiently move traffic through. It's not feasible for other states to try to create and staff checkpoints like that on the fly.
  • T1DCarnivoreRunner
    T1DCarnivoreRunner Posts: 11,502 Member
    edited February 2021
    Options
    SuzySunshine99 wrote: »
    T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »
    SuzySunshine99 wrote: »
    paperpudding wrote: »
    Theo166 wrote: »
    paperpudding wrote: »
    Yes being an island helps.

    But UK is an island too - and nobody would be pleased with the covid situation there.

    Low population density helps too and I'm sure all countries, just like here, have worse outbreaks in cities.

    But border closures weren't just international - state borders closing was also crucial in containment.

    Being an island simply helps you restrict travel, something AUS, NZ, Taiwan, etc did to contain the spread. As I recall, the UK felt it was inconvenient.

    I think the conclusion of last year will be that lock downs without also restricting travel doesn't work.


    It helps you cut international travel but Internal or state borders closing isnt an issue of being an island or not.

    Yes I agree lockdowns and travel restrictions were both crucial.

    You have mentioned the interstate travel restrictions. How did this work in Australia? Was it the "honor system", just essentially asking people not to cross state borders, or were there actual checkpoints set up?

    I ask because it simply wouldn't be feasible in the U.S. to close state borders. There are no real border crossings, just tourism signs that say "Welcome to Iowa" or wherever. As an example, my state, Illinois, borders 5 other states. For just one of those borders, there are 83 roads that cross from Illinois into Wisconsin (I looked at a map and counted). Most people cross that border using two interstate highways, but there's no way you could stop traffic on a 8-lane interstate to check IDs. It's just not possible.

    With 48 states that share borders with other states, it's not even a serious topic of discussion from a logistical sense.

    I've driven in 48 states and crossed a lot of borders. The one state that is setup for this is California. They stop all traffic coming in and have done so for years. This includes 4 lane divided interstates.

    California has 16 agricultural checkpoints at certain borders. The infrastructure and staffing are already there, including ways to efficiently move traffic through. It's not feasible for other states to try to create and staff checkpoints like that on the fly.

    Yes, as stated:
    the one state that is setup for this

    one meaning that nobody else is setup for that.
  • baconslave
    baconslave Posts: 6,954 Member
    Options
    kimny72 wrote: »
    Just a PSA reminder that (just like with weight loss articles) just because a news or tabloid website posts an article and references a study, or even a statement by a scientific org, doesn't mean that the article is drawing the correct conclusion.

    I just saw people on the tweeter loosing their crap because "eggs are bad again" because of some dumb self-reported correlation study that was inadequately reported on news sites. They are doing that with covid too, so if you don't feel like parsing the scientific language of the actual study, just keep distancing, wearing your mask(s), and looking for the darn vaccine and dont get lost in the weeds. The apocalypse has been stressful enough. :heart:

    Exactly. I always sift through the article and find the actual study and look at it. I don't need a possibly dirty or twisted lens to look at it through TYVM. I can do it myself. I'm a big girl. :smirk:
    People on the tweeter (I will forever call it that now, so hilarious!) excel at losing their crap aren't they.
  • baconslave
    baconslave Posts: 6,954 Member
    Options
    kimny72 wrote: »
    baconslave wrote: »
    ReenieHJ wrote: »
    I couldn't find any information on this question but I'm curious, maybe someone here knows. Concerning receiving the Moderna vaccine, are recipients under age 55 known to have a tougher time with side effects than other age categories?

    From what I have read it is more common of recipients under 55 to have a more robust response to vaccines. Vaccines have a substance called an "adjuvant" that is designed to alert the body that there is an invader to provoke a response. As older people have less energetic immune systems, their response is less pronounced. It just doesn't pounce as hard. The Covid vax acts the same. So I imagine that if that is the case for Modern, they used a more provocatory adjuvant. My Dad is 76, and he got severe aches and chills the night after the vaccine. And soreness at the injection site and that was all. He'll get his second tomorrow. So we shall see how he weathers that.

    So the 2nd dose tends to overall provoke more severe reactions than the first across both, but according to this source, Moderna's overall side effects are worse than Pfizer's. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/heres-why-your-second-dose-of-covid-19-vaccine-will-likely-have-stronger-side-effects#Millions-of-doses,-few-problems

    EDIT: Being the shameless nerd that I am, I couldn't let this go. According one study, neither use a separate adjuvant, but "BioNTech/Pfizer and Moderna do not explicitly state the use of an adjuvant within their vaccines, but RNA already contains immunostimulatory properties and signals through pathogen recognition receptors.72 It remains to be seen whether the immunostimulation from RNA is strong enough to confer full protection against SARS-CoV-2. There is also a possibility that the LNP carriers they utilize confer adjuvant properties themselves." Super neat. So if this is true, than the lipsomes and mRNA formulations in the Moderna are more naturally rowdy than the ones Pfizer uses.
    (This source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7553041/)

    This exactly they talked about on TWIV. They supposed that older immune systems slowly react over time while younger immune systems just bang it right out. They also joked that older people might simply be more used to being tired and achy and don't notice it :smile:

    My Dad has said that.
    I need to add that podcast to my queue.
  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,160 Member
    Options
    https://bnonews.com/index.php/2021/02/russia-first-human-cases-of-h5n8-bird-flu/

    Maybe thanks to Covid-19 learning experience over the last year things like h5n8 can be nipped in the bud to reduce the risk of another pandemic.
  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,160 Member
    edited February 2021
    Options
    https://www.mediaite.com/news/johns-hopkins-doctor-predicts-covid-will-be-mostly-gone-by-april/

    Sounds like high rates of Covid-19 may be finally winding down the pandemic.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,013 Member
    Options
    baconslave wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    baconslave wrote: »
    ReenieHJ wrote: »
    I couldn't find any information on this question but I'm curious, maybe someone here knows. Concerning receiving the Moderna vaccine, are recipients under age 55 known to have a tougher time with side effects than other age categories?

    From what I have read it is more common of recipients under 55 to have a more robust response to vaccines. Vaccines have a substance called an "adjuvant" that is designed to alert the body that there is an invader to provoke a response. As older people have less energetic immune systems, their response is less pronounced. It just doesn't pounce as hard. The Covid vax acts the same. So I imagine that if that is the case for Modern, they used a more provocatory adjuvant. My Dad is 76, and he got severe aches and chills the night after the vaccine. And soreness at the injection site and that was all. He'll get his second tomorrow. So we shall see how he weathers that.

    So the 2nd dose tends to overall provoke more severe reactions than the first across both, but according to this source, Moderna's overall side effects are worse than Pfizer's. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/heres-why-your-second-dose-of-covid-19-vaccine-will-likely-have-stronger-side-effects#Millions-of-doses,-few-problems

    EDIT: Being the shameless nerd that I am, I couldn't let this go. According one study, neither use a separate adjuvant, but "BioNTech/Pfizer and Moderna do not explicitly state the use of an adjuvant within their vaccines, but RNA already contains immunostimulatory properties and signals through pathogen recognition receptors.72 It remains to be seen whether the immunostimulation from RNA is strong enough to confer full protection against SARS-CoV-2. There is also a possibility that the LNP carriers they utilize confer adjuvant properties themselves." Super neat. So if this is true, than the lipsomes and mRNA formulations in the Moderna are more naturally rowdy than the ones Pfizer uses.
    (This source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7553041/)

    This exactly they talked about on TWIV. They supposed that older immune systems slowly react over time while younger immune systems just bang it right out. They also joked that older people might simply be more used to being tired and achy and don't notice it :smile:

    My Dad has said that.
    I need to add that podcast to my queue.

    It can be dense, prob two thirds of it goes over my head lol but it's so reassuring. When they get really technical, I kind of zone out and drift back when it starts to sound like it's back on my level :blush:

Categories