Coronavirus prep
Options
Replies
-
Apologies if this is a question that has been already covered, but I am wondering if anyone has stats for rate of "break through" infections vs second Covid infections. Basically, hubby and I are trying to assess the risk for my 82 year old vaccinated MIL by her being around a non-vaccinated person that tested positive for a COVID infection in May 2020. Is she really at more risk being with this person vs my husband and I, who are fully vaccinated with no known infection? My instinct is that it should be a draw, but I bet there is a more official answer. TIA3
-
Apologies if this is a question that has been already covered, but I am wondering if anyone has stats for rate of "break through" infections vs second Covid infections. Basically, hubby and I are trying to assess the risk for my 82 year old vaccinated MIL by her being around a non-vaccinated person that tested positive for a COVID infection in May 2020. Is she really at more risk being with this person vs my husband and I, who are fully vaccinated with no known infection? My instinct is that it should be a draw, but I bet there is a more official answer. TIA
My husband is in his early 70’s and has some significant health challenges. He didn’t have much of a reaction to either his first or second COVID shot. I am assuming this means he didn’t produce many antibodies.
So I am continuing to not allow him around anyone whose vaccine status is either unknown or has chosen not to be vaccinated.
If your MIL didn’t have much of a reaction to the vaccine, I personally would advise the same.2 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »Apologies if this is a question that has been already covered, but I am wondering if anyone has stats for rate of "break through" infections vs second Covid infections. Basically, hubby and I are trying to assess the risk for my 82 year old vaccinated MIL by her being around a non-vaccinated person that tested positive for a COVID infection in May 2020. Is she really at more risk being with this person vs my husband and I, who are fully vaccinated with no known infection? My instinct is that it should be a draw, but I bet there is a more official answer. TIA
My husband is in his early 70’s and has some significant health challenges. He didn’t have much of a reaction to either his first or second COVID shot. I am assuming this means he didn’t produce many antibodies.
So I am continuing to not allow him around anyone whose vaccine status is either unknown or has chosen not to be vaccinated.
If your MIL didn’t have much of a reaction to the vaccine, I personally would advise the same.
I don't think the level of reaction to the vaccine has anything to do with your immunity. Know I read that somewhere. Seems like older people had less of a reaction to the vaccine (and more to Covid) while last spring younger people pre -Delta had more of a reaction to the vaccines and less to Covid. Now the advice is to get a booster.
5 -
Yes, older persons have less of a reaction to the vaccine than they do to covid itself. The delta virus is "one of a kind" its more virulent. Vaccinated persons are less likely to get covid but if they do they are many times less likely to be taken into hospital with it, they are also times less likely not to recover.
I wish i could remember the process. The immune system had a memory, it tends to keep current antibodies it has not encountered so antibody if that is the right term, will seem to be less but when the system feels under threat, finds the virus to react to it builds up production of the antibodies again. My understanding is, just because antibody levels have dropped it does not mean the body will not react as after vaccination it is enabled. The exception is within the immunocompromised population who should be first in line for top up vaccines.5 -
I just saw this article in my newsfeed, and it's chilling how easily the delta variant spreads. I live in CA where we have a mask mandate for schools, and yet one teacher was able to spread the virus to half her class, and eventually a total of 26 children and adults. This happened in a small school about 60 miles away (Marin). The teacher was unvaccinated, went to class for two days while experiencing symptoms, and read to the class with her mask off both days. Otherwise she had her mask on per regulations. Every child in the front row tested positive, and most in the second row, as well as some others, and it spread from there.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/marin-california-elementary-unvaccinated-teacher-26-covid-19_n_61295b80e4b0231e369bd0bb9 -
I just saw this article in my newsfeed, and it's chilling how easily the delta variant spreads. I live in CA where we have a mask mandate for schools, and yet one teacher was able to spread the virus to half her class, and eventually a total of 26 children and adults. This happened in a small school about 60 miles away (Marin). The teacher was unvaccinated, went to class for two days while experiencing symptoms, and read to the class with her mask off both days. Otherwise she had her mask on per regulations. Every child in the front row tested positive, and most in the second row, as well as some others, and it spread from there.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/marin-california-elementary-unvaccinated-teacher-26-covid-19_n_61295b80e4b0231e369bd0bb
i saw that story on the news last night i believe.3 -
callsitlikeiseeit wrote: »I just saw this article in my newsfeed, and it's chilling how easily the delta variant spreads. I live in CA where we have a mask mandate for schools, and yet one teacher was able to spread the virus to half her class, and eventually a total of 26 children and adults. This happened in a small school about 60 miles away (Marin). The teacher was unvaccinated, went to class for two days while experiencing symptoms, and read to the class with her mask off both days. Otherwise she had her mask on per regulations. Every child in the front row tested positive, and most in the second row, as well as some others, and it spread from there.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/marin-california-elementary-unvaccinated-teacher-26-covid-19_n_61295b80e4b0231e369bd0bb
i saw that story on the news last night i believe.
My grandson is in third grade in a school that is very compliant with mask mandates and social distancing and the area has a high vaccine rate, but my daughter is still getting at least one notice every day about a positive test in the school. So far no problems with his class but it's only a matter of time. We're just barely hanging in on the anxiety scale even though we feel he's in the safest environment possible. I can't even imagine how parents are dealing with having to send their kids into an environment where it seems like the goal is to get as many people infected as possible.
I mean this as a sincere question and taking politics completely out of it:
Is it possible that states countries that ban mask mandates and downplay vaccines are gambling on getting to "herd immunity" through a combination of people willing to vaccinate plus natural infection, while having as little impact on the economy as possible?
edited to make the question less politically charged11 -
callsitlikeiseeit wrote: »I just saw this article in my newsfeed, and it's chilling how easily the delta variant spreads. I live in CA where we have a mask mandate for schools, and yet one teacher was able to spread the virus to half her class, and eventually a total of 26 children and adults. This happened in a small school about 60 miles away (Marin). The teacher was unvaccinated, went to class for two days while experiencing symptoms, and read to the class with her mask off both days. Otherwise she had her mask on per regulations. Every child in the front row tested positive, and most in the second row, as well as some others, and it spread from there.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/marin-california-elementary-unvaccinated-teacher-26-covid-19_n_61295b80e4b0231e369bd0bb
i saw that story on the news last night i believe.
My grandson is in third grade in a school that is very compliant with mask mandates and social distancing and the area has a high vaccine rate, but my daughter is still getting at least one notice every day about a positive test in the school. So far no problems with his class but it's only a matter of time. We're just barely hanging in on the anxiety scale even though we feel he's in the safest environment possible. I can't even imagine how parents are dealing with having to send their kids into an environment where it seems like the goal is to get as many people infected as possible.
I mean this as a sincere question and taking politics completely out of it:
Is it possible that states that ban mask mandates and downplay vaccines are gambling on getting to "herd immunity" through a combination of people willing to vaccinate plus natural infection, while having as little impact on the economy as possible?
I believe this question cannot be answered without bringing politics into it and so I won't.5 -
Apologies if this is a question that has been already covered, but I am wondering if anyone has stats for rate of "break through" infections vs second Covid infections. Basically, hubby and I are trying to assess the risk for my 82 year old vaccinated MIL by her being around a non-vaccinated person that tested positive for a COVID infection in May 2020. Is she really at more risk being with this person vs my husband and I, who are fully vaccinated with no known infection? My instinct is that it should be a draw, but I bet there is a more official answer. TIA
I share your curiosity. CDC is not collecting data on breakthrough infections (unless the breakthrough infection results in death or hospitalization, which because vaccines work, is small). Evidently some local/county health departments are. At best, data is incomplete.
There is data on the percent of all covid hospitalizations & deaths attributable to vaccinated patients (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/08/10/us/covid-breakthrough-infections-vaccines.html), but I have seen no data on the percent of vaccinated people who become infected, nor the percent of breakthrough infections resulting in hospitalization/death because the denominator (tot number of breakthroughs) is unknown.
Has anyone seen a reinfection rate anywhere-- vaxxed or not? I'm interested in that, too.1 -
edit: sorry, quoted the wrong person, I meant to respond to @kshama2001
Fair enough. I changed the original to refer to countries rather than states. I really am trying to work out how this could ultimately play out in terms of lives lost vs. economic impact, meaning will all countries in the end have a similar outcome over the long haul?4 -
Context: I'm having a heated discussion with a relative whose argument is that all countries with similar demographics will eventually have similar hospitalization and death statistics, and that those who take the hit in the beginning of a wave (Sweden for instance) by not imposing strict health mandates will get to endemic status much sooner through a combination of vaccines and natural infection.
I agree that pre-vaccination the natural infection rates would probably have evened out over time, but now that vaccines are in play, slow-rolling infections while letting the vaccine rate catch up as much as it's going to will result in much better outcomes, since more unvaccinated people will die if infected than vaccinated.
edit: meaning that delaying until there is a substantial majority of vaccinated people, plus those who survived the virus would greatly outnumber people who are unvaccinated.
They are arguing that not putting restrictions on businesses would lead to less impact on the economy but I think the economic impact wouldn't be much different, since the more people are infected, the fewer can work and that would probably cause a similar situation as intentionally restricting some business activities.5 -
Context: I'm having a heated discussion with a relative whose argument is that all countries with similar demographics will eventually have similar hospitalization and death statistics, and that those who take the hit in the beginning of a wave (Sweden for instance) by not imposing strict health mandates will get to endemic status much sooner through a combination of vaccines and natural infection.
I agree that pre-vaccination the natural infection rates would probably have evened out over time, but now that vaccines are in play, slow-rolling infections while letting the vaccine rate catch up as much as it's going to will result in much better outcomes, since more unvaccinated people will die if infected than vaccinated.
edit: meaning that delaying until there is a substantial majority of vaccinated people, plus those who survived the virus would greatly outnumber people who are unvaccinated.
They are arguing that not putting restrictions on businesses would lead to less impact on the economy but I think the economic impact wouldn't be much different, since the more people are infected, the fewer can work and that would probably cause a similar situation as intentionally restricting some business activities.
I was just a mid-level munchkin, but speaking as someone with some decades of management experience, if we're comparing disruptions of similar total magnitude, I would 100% prefer announced, scheduled shutdowns, with specific mitigation measures created by the government **, compared to random, episodic, unpredictable, probably repeated shutdowns without such mitigation measures.
I believe the total human impact of planned, scheduled shutdowns would be lower, including economic impacts.
The unpredictable ones are much more difficult to manage and stay profitable, through both impacts local to that specific business (like sick/dead/quarantined employees), and random, unpredictable supply chain disruptions that can mean that even if my business can run, it can't do what it does because it's lacking needed supplies/materials.
** Mitigation measures: For example, the loans to business who kept people on payroll; the provisions like mask mandates that protected essential in-person employees at least a little more protected from unpredictable infections and therefore shutdowns of individual business sites due to staff shortages; etc. Some will argue that these mitigation measures were imperfect, some very much so . . . but some of them were better than nothing at all.
Even with mitigation measures in both cases, I'd prefer the scheduled, predictable version, feeling like that creates more opportunities to plan, adjust, figure out how to make profits under the changed circumstances if at all possible, rather than lurching from one unpredictable crisis situation to another.11 -
Context: I'm having a heated discussion with a relative whose argument is that all countries with similar demographics will eventually have similar hospitalization and death statistics, and that those who take the hit in the beginning of a wave (Sweden for instance) by not imposing strict health mandates will get to endemic status much sooner through a combination of vaccines and natural infection.
I agree that pre-vaccination the natural infection rates would probably have evened out over time, but now that vaccines are in play, slow-rolling infections while letting the vaccine rate catch up as much as it's going to will result in much better outcomes, since more unvaccinated people will die if infected than vaccinated.
edit: meaning that delaying until there is a substantial majority of vaccinated people, plus those who survived the virus would greatly outnumber people who are unvaccinated.
They are arguing that not putting restrictions on businesses would lead to less impact on the economy but I think the economic impact wouldn't be much different, since the more people are infected, the fewer can work and that would probably cause a similar situation as intentionally restricting some business activities.
Yep, not putting restrictions on businesses doesn't really help the economy, between people choosing on their own to minimize their risk and employees getting sick, leading to work stoppages, and at least some of them ending up dead or with chronic health conditions that cause more permanent employee shortages.
I'm pretty sure Sweden changed their strategy after they initially fared worse than their neighbors and many businesses and people ended up choosing to use mitigations even if there weren't mandates, didn't they?
Another problem with just letting cases spike with no restrictions are health resources. Overwhelmed hospitals lead to more people dying not just from covid, but from all other conditions. It also can lead to increases in healthcare workers burning out and leaving the profession, and hcw suicides. Several nurses I know, who were already struggling with shortages of well trained nurses, are fed up and figuring out how they are going to get out of the field. I think we are going to pay the price in hcw shortages for a long time.
If you remove the human costs and just think about who gets out of this sooner, I don't think there's a clear answer to that. But is getting to "endemic" fast with a huge death toll better than getting there slower but with less casualties of the disease? Is the toll of mitigation restrictions worse than the toll of uncontrolled spread? I doubt that very much, and think there are ways to limit that toll, but I know not everyone agrees. I'm not really sure if there are countries out there that just let covid spike and everyone just kept living their lives as normal, did they? Watching your local hospital fill up with people who are struggling to breathe can be a pretty powerful motivator, even if you're technically allowed to carry on as if nothing is happening.7 -
As of yesterday, 68 Florida hospitals only had enough oxygen for 48 hours.
An army vet died of a treatable issue (gallstone pancreatitis) because he couldn't get an ICU bed because of the number of covid cases.
Louisiana and the Gulf Coast is about to be slammed by Hurricane Ida and hospitals in all surroundings states are full.
It is proven that the vaccinated make up a SUPER SMALL number of hospitalizations and deaths. Breakthrough cases happen with every vaccine so this is no different, but it is doing its job. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been sticking their heads in the sand. They don't care about proof or science. At this point, anyone not vaccinated by choice is signing their own death certificate.
And I don't feel bad about that.
This is the fault of the unvaccinated.25 -
Apologies if this is a question that has been already covered, but I am wondering if anyone has stats for rate of "break through" infections vs second Covid infections. Basically, hubby and I are trying to assess the risk for my 82 year old vaccinated MIL by her being around a non-vaccinated person that tested positive for a COVID infection in May 2020. Is she really at more risk being with this person vs my husband and I, who are fully vaccinated with no known infection? My instinct is that it should be a draw, but I bet there is a more official answer. TIA
My understanding based on current studies is that being vaccinated reduced the likelihood of being infected with Delta, compared to having had an earlier variant. Also, fully vaxxed people can pass on the virus, but are less likely to, especially if they are asymptomatic. The belief at the moment is that breakthrough infections which reside in the nasal cavity can be just as infectious, but because they are in the nasal cavity they also cause, well, runny noses. Apparently in the limited studies that have been done asymptomatic vaccinated people didn’t harbor as much virus.
I can tell you what I would do, in the case of my high-risk 84 year old mother - allow her to see this person but outdoors, distanced and masked. If the person really wants to see her without a mask, they can get vaxxed. At this point I have no kind feelings towards anyone refusing the vaccine for anything other than health reasons, and consider such a person to be likely to be careless in their behavior generally, and therefore unsafe to be around.9 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »SummerSkier wrote: »It's actually easy here in Tx to get a booster. I was just talking to one of my friends yesterday morning about it (she is immuno compromised) and got her 2nd shot in Feb I think. She was able to walk right in to the pharmacy and get her booster yesterday afternoon. It will be interesting to see if she has any reaction to the 3rd. So far all reports I have heard are just arm soreness and nothing like the 2nd shot. She got Moderna I think. (and looks like that poster was quite successful in getting the other thread shut down).
On another note maybe MORE people will be encouraged to and will be able to get the antibodies now that our Governor has made them more in the news again.
I don't think that was a "booster". I think she got a regular shot which are widely available to walk into any pharmacy and get. So she got herself a third shot, but not necessarily a "booster". Per the CDC, boosters won't be available until the fall after full FDA approval (which happened yesterday August 23). From what I've read, these won't be just walk in and get...you will get a notification that you are eligible as per the date of your 2nd shot. It will go in the same order that the original shots were prioritized.
This is per the CDC on 8/20/21...so not really sure what your friend got here...maybe it was a booster and they were just starting before the official announcement of FDA approval or something. I won't be eligible to get mine until Dec as my 2nd shot was April 2 per the CDC.
I'm not sure how those notifications will work since that data isn't always in a single place (aside from the paper vaccine card).
I got my 1st dose of Moderna in TN, then moved to TX and got my 2nd dose at a pharmacy here. In May, the county where I lived in TN called me wanting to know if I was going to schedule my 2nd shot. There is no single national / international database with all of those records for each individual.
ETA: The original shots were also not prioritized in a uniform fashion. This was also a state decision. This is part of the reason I was able to get it in TN in March. I knew I would be moving soon and TX considered Type 1 Diabetics in the "healthy" group while TN put us in the "comorbidity" group. I agreed with TN and made sure to get my first when able. I got it the same week they opened it up to residents with 1 comorbidity. I was able to schedule a 2nd dose in TX only because I had already received my 1st dose.
In my state, those records are held by our state DOH and we will be notified by our DOH when we are eligible and that record will have to be provided to the pharmacy. This is to avoid a run on vaccine and vaccine shortfalls. Our state is simply following the 8 month CDC guidance for when to send notifications. This keeps everyone in the same order as the first go around.
That's great for people who got both doses in the same state and there are consistent records. For those of us who got our 2 doses in 2 different states, the systems you described functions to prevent me from ever receiving a booster.
In your situation, someone here would simply contact the DOH and explain that they received their first two vaccines in another state which is easy for them to verify. If you have your vax card, even easier and then they just register you using the date of your 2nd shot. If you had your first shot somewhere else, and your 2nd shot in state, the DOH would have on record that you received your second dose here, so you would already be in the database and get your notification 8 months after the 2nd dose on record.
Your vax card can also be used at the pharmacy here to indicate whether or not you're eligible for a booster as per the dates on the card.
Yea, the vax card is the only thing that helps me. Both TN and TX each think I got a 1st dose and skipped the 2nd dose. Although I don't know that the state of TX actually has any records.2 -
I still don't see how wearing a mask hurts the economy. We have to wear shirts and shoes when we go inside a business. What's one more item of clothing?22
-
-
LiveOnceBeHappy wrote: »
If the whole country had a mandate how would a different business or state provide a different option?
While some people would drive to a different state, per your above, *I* chose to walk out of a place where employees (and of course customers) were not wearing a mask and go to a grocery store that DID require them for their employees and where at least some of the customers were wearing one.
And walked away from a hair cutting place where people were using them for props and went to one where they had them on their face instead. And tipped them 25% even though they don't know that this was why I tipped.
With the government backing (or at least providing lip service even with no enforcement) at least SOME people will wear one and effectively reduce SOME level of transmission.
Once the government doesn't even bother to implement a zero cost to them "indoor masks are mandated" policy, then they are **effectively** saying "masks are no longer allowed"
You can mandate and enforce. You can mandate and not bother to enforce which still results into SOME level of compliance and reduction of transmission. Or you can state that there exists no mandate, guaranteeing that no one will wear one except for a very few.11 -
LiveOnceBeHappy wrote: »
Going to another state every time you want a coffee at a Cafe or items from the supermarket seems a tad impractical.10
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions