Coronavirus prep

1442443445447448498

Replies

  • Redordeadhead
    Redordeadhead Posts: 1,188 Member
    https://youtu.be/yPvUb9jo-Pw

    This news out of Europe is stressful. I expect there may be a new variant. China Covid-19 news is also stressful. Thankfully USA numbers are looking better but we are about to head into winter.

    I'm afraid it's coming your way too. Winter and next wave approaching.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    debtay123 wrote: »
    I just got my Pfizer booster shot yesterday and I did pretty good. My arm is just a little sore(like a three out of ten) in pain-- but nothing I can not easily deal with. I had more of a reaction with my second Pfizer because I did have to lay down that night nd felt a little sick-- but this time(third- booster) went well-- Just wanted to let others know

    Yeah, I got a booster (Moderna) plus flu together this past Saturday, and had no side effects beyond a similarly sore arm and feeling a little tired the next day. It was less than with the second shot for me too (and even that was pretty mild--felt a little headachy the next day).
  • missysippy930
    missysippy930 Posts: 2,577 Member
    I heard on the news that they may recommend a 4th shot post 6 months the 3rd shot, for immunocompromised people (my husband is in this category). We are a little over post 6 months our 2nd, and have not had our 3rd. Both over 65, and husband has health issues. My husband has an appointment with his primary 11/8. We were going to wait until then, to find out which shot his doctor recommends, for our 3rd. We had Moderna, but maybe we should just get it done, but which one? We had our flu shots in mid September. Any opinions/suggestions?
  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,159 Member
    https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/579068-vaccinated-just-as-likely-to-spread-delta-variant-as-unvaccinated-study

    Scientific reports like this is not helping convince those in opposition to the vaccine for one reason or another.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,011 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    It's fascinating to me how the myth that a vaccine that doesn't stop infection isn't worth taking has come about. Almost none of the childhood vaccines we get prevent infection; they prevent illness.

    As Anne notes, studies by good actors aren't released to sway public opinion - they are released to add to the available data and hopefully move us closer to the actual truth.

    Also, one study isn't the be all and end all, especially before peer review.

    Ditto to the idea that vaccinated people can still spread the virus . . . not all vaccines are disinfecting, and we know this virus can be asymptomatic, so why wouldn't vaccinated people be able to spread it? That they can is part of the reasoning behind continued masking and other precautions.

    One of my vaccine skeptic friends** asserted in conversation that vaccinated people are more likely to spread the virus than unvaccinated people are . . . I haven't seen any evidence that that's true, but I've seen the claim more than once from the anti-vaccine side of the argument. I'd say - and did during the conversation - that IMU the vaccinated may be more likely to be asymptomatic, may have a similar viral load, but I believe maintain the viral load for a shorter time period, so would be overall somewhat less likely to spread the virus, but I'm no expert.

    (** Yeah, we're still friends. She 'does her own research'.)

    I think that is related to the initial article about that bear week over the summer where they said everyone was vaccinated and there was a lot of spread, which played fast and loose with the numbers and the variables. No reports since then have suggested any such thing. I tend to agree with your idea, I've heard from multiple places that the viral load drops much quicker in vaxxed people.

    Considering it still isn't clear how to test for immunity level, I'd guess the experts are still not sure what that viral load really signifies. I wonder if the viral particles are weaker in an immune person who gets infected, if that's a thing?
  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,159 Member
    https://youtu.be/1Hfq9gBkwBE

    Eastern Europe vaccinated rate may be lower as well.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,620 Member
    Theo166 wrote: »
    https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/579068-vaccinated-just-as-likely-to-spread-delta-variant-as-unvaccinated-study

    Scientific reports like this is not helping convince those in opposition to the vaccine for one reason or another.

    Our leaders have consistently messed up with their COVID messaging.

    The Vaxx reduces your risk of hospitalization and death, which also frees up our ICU capacity.
    This is a powerful enough message by itself, without the prior pretending it makes you immune/bulletproof.

    I think the problem that a lot of people have now is more with the vaccine passport than the vaccine itself.

    Here in Ontario you can not dine indoors, watch your kid play hockey, go to a wedding, funeral or go to the gym, etc. without showing your papers. Since the vaccine is not stopping transmission (but certainly helping reduce the chance of hospitalization and death), this does not make sense to a lot of people. Even more so that people have offered to show a negative covid test to do the above - but that is not accepted - papers only.

    (I'm double vaccinated by the way - but do have questions about the logic of this system).

    Because the other thing the vaccine dies is greatly reduce the chance of transmission. We want this thing to end, don’t we? We need to get everyone vacc’d, and if that means heavy pressure, so be it.

    I read a case of a woman who refused to get vacc’d, was loudly against it, til she got the chance to go to a Justin Bieber concert. (Vacc only) She got vacc’d

    right - but if someone is willing to show a negative test that shows that they do not have covid as of that time - should that not be as good (if not better?) than someone who is vaccinated, but could be carrying the virus?

    Public policy ought to have a foundation of science.

    But public policy is sometimes trying to do things pure science wouldn't try to do, like influence people's behavior.

    I don't like to see public servants (including politicians) misrepresent scientific facts. But I do think there are times that public policy can have aims that pure science can't really reach.

    Is this one of those times? That's a good debate.

    P.S. Yes, scientific findings do influence some people's behavior, of course. But that's not their purpose or central aim. Sometimes the findings are just not what anyone might prefer them to be, but they're still the facts. I'm also aware that science is carried out by humans, which means it isn't always completely pure.