Coronavirus prep
Options
Replies
-
Chef_Barbell wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Was feeling really good yesterday so I decided to do my Zwift workout for my current 6 week training plan (FTP Builder). I'm already a week behind schedule for my event in May. It felt good and I felt good afterwards, but woke up this morning hacking up a lung and a headache that won't go away and my head feels full of snot again. My wife who had little to no symptoms also woke up feeling crummier than she has since we tested positive and has been in bed most of the morning and is taking a sick day rather than WFH day.
This is also how I'm still feeling almost 3 weeks later. So much fatigue 😩 😪
I tested positive at the end of October and the second week of December was the first week I didn’t need at least one solid 1-2 hour nap a day. Luckily I work from home so I had the flexibility to do that. The fatigue and body aches were unreal. Imagine how bad this could be for someone unvaccinated!
I fortunately never had the body aches. The fatigue isn't too terribly bad but I don't get pretty worn down by the afternoon. Seems to be improving though. I think I overdid it with my training ride the other day...so I'll be curious as to when a good training ride isn't going to leave me blah the next day.4 -
Anyone seen proof that Omicron stays airborne longer than previously thought. I think I saw something on Facebook that particles were still shown to be in the air two hours after an infected person left the area. That would be sort of scary if it was true.1
-
SummerSkier wrote: »Anyone seen proof that Omicron stays airborne longer than previously thought. I think I saw something on Facebook that particles were still shown to be in the air two hours after an infected person left the area. That would be sort of scary if it was true.
Interestingly I just read something today that says the opposite - it loses 90% of it's ability to infect within 20 mintues. I'll try to find it.
ETA - it is preliminary and not peer reviewed yet.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.08.22268944v1.full.pdf
6 -
@ChelzFit
I agree there are some that cannot handle the vaccine and I feel badly for those that truly can't or are afraid of having another vaccination after such terrible results from previous a one. My sister still refuses to take a flu shot because of some terrible reactions in the past.
But I wonder how many there really are out of all the people who've refused that have had real issues? How many are afraid of it? How many don't want to be told what to do; their rights are being taken away? How many still think it's all a political farce? Those are the ones that need to make a compromise.
My niece works in her dh's doctor's office and she's relayed stories you wouldn't believe, about just refusing to wear a mask.
IMO there are too many people in this world who feel it's all about them and don't think of the other guy. How about keeping as many people out of the hospital as possible? The hospitals should not have to be making choices about who to turn away or let die or not being able to see emergency patients because they're over worked, understaffed, etc., etc.
In at least some contexts, people who have a true medical contraindication to this vaccination (such as a serious allergy to one of the components) are able to get a medical exemption, not be penalized for being unvaccinated. (Yes, that does add to community risk. That there will be people like this, for any given vaccination, is one reason that herd immunity is important.)
The ones who sincerely believe this is a political farce, or a plot to control us (injectable microchips, or whatever) believe they are absolutely, righteously correct, and that those of us who believe the pandemic is real, and that the vaccine works, are dupes in a plot against us all. They tend to think that masks are dangerous. They see themselves as noble warriors in the good fight. I don't know what fraction of the population is firm in that type of belief, but it is a thing that some think (to be specific, a few people I know do clearly think that). They are not going to compromise.
Personally, I do think it's reasonable to keep increasing the constraints around unvaccinated people, through any legal, moral, ethical approach. It could include legal or social approaches, but I don't have specific suggestions. Quebec's proposed tax is one approach to this sort of thing, but it doesn't apply well in the US because of our different health care structure. The countries in Europe that are limiting access to services (restaurants, gyms, whatever) for the unvaccinated is another example. That won't happen in the US.
I think those who can (medically) be vaccinated should be vaccinated. I think people do have a choice in practice here in the US to not be vaccinated (I may wish it could be otherwise, but I don't see viable mechanisms to change that). I resent the idea that there should be no inconvenient or unpleasant consequences to them for that decision. That's not how choice works in all cases.11 -
Here in Australia access to restaraunts is not limited for unvaccinated people - not sure about gyms since I never go to them
There are some travel restrictions, and you cannot go to most crowded events - large sports events etc and many occupations (police, teachers, interstate truck drivers, all health service employees - that means all, cleaners, admin etc, not just the medical personell) require vaccination as does hospital access for non emergency patients and all visitors to hospital and aged care facilities.
You can get medical exemptions if you cannot have the vaccine due to severe allergy or temporary exemptions due to acute illness.
I know this wouldnt fly in US - but it does here and I am in perfect agreement with same.
You can choose to be unvaccinated but you cant choose to impact others by that choice.8 -
paperpudding wrote: »Here in Australia access to restaraunts is not limited for unvaccinated people - not sure about gyms since I never go to them
It is in some parts of the US currently, such as where I live. (Not complaining, just noting it.)2 -
I read this yesterday and it is still lingering with me. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/11/opinion/omicron-covid-biden.htmlBritain, Stephanie H. Murray points out in The Atlantic, is determined “to ask as little as possible of children,” imposing harsher restrictions on adults so that students can continue to go to school. “Even during the strictest portion of last year’s lockdown, when all pubs and restaurants were closed and sitting on a bench with someone you ran into at the park was illegal, in-person schooling remained available for vulnerable kids and children of essential workers,” she writes.
Americans, by contrast, “have accepted more harm to children in exchange for less harm to adults, often without acknowledging the dilemma or assessing which decisions lead to less overall harm,” The Times’s David Leonhardt writes.
Lamentable.
I mean the parents and teachers around here are never happy - they want the schools open, but also an online alternative for those who want it, and also a guarantee that their children won't get Covid.
Covid is everywhere now if you want to guarantee that your children won't be exposed then you'd just have to keep them home. I mean do people have so little faith in the vaccines they are taking, and giving to their children, that they are panicking about school exposures? I don't get it. Your double vaxx'd kid is going to be fine.
My reading of the piece is that they think closing in person school should be avoided (or a very last resort) as in Europe. I agree with you that at this point lockdowns or closing businesses makes no sense -- I don't think anywhere in the US is even considering that -- but that closing in person school before other options (like closing bars) is bad policy. I'm also against closing in person school and the impression I get (as it was a big issue where I live) is that most parents are too, it's mainly the teachers who were pushing for it.
I just read the Michael Lewis book on the lead up to covid (it's mostly about public health in the US in the years before) and one interesting thing is that they thought closing schools was one of the main things that would prevent spread, but although they didn't go into it I think that may have been less so here for various reasons. Also, once it's clear there's no covid zero and any closure seems like it just postpones things, I think the will to do any of it is gone. At least that's what seems true where I am, so the piece seems somewhat out of date -- a year ago I think it would have been more on point.2 -
Here (Michigan) there are increasing numbers of employers and large-event venues (sports arenas, for one example among others) that are requiring vaccination to attend their site in person. (Documented medical exemptions generally apply.)
In some states, and this is one, the state legislature or more-local governing bodies have attempted to restrict some entities (schools, businesses, etc.) from requiring vaccination, mandating masks, and that sort of thing. I haven't really kept up on the picture, as far as how successful that's been. Not completely successful yet, for sure, though.0 -
Just got off the phone with my sister the Oncologist. Yesterday, she had a meeting with a patient, her family members, and an interpreter. After an hour of going over everything and preparing to begin her chemo, someone in the group mentions how the patient's husband has COVID and that the patient has not gotten her test results back yet. Needless to say, starting chemo yesterday was cancelled and today the patient's positive COVID results came back.
My other sister's husband and two daughters have COVID.
My house is OK as it is me and the cats until hubby flies home from florida on saturday. He is still negative as of today (home test). I am halfway assuming that he will get COVID on the plane despite his masking and that this time next week I will have it as well. Crossing my fingers that I am wrong.17 -
paperpudding wrote: »Here in Australia access to restaraunts is not limited for unvaccinated people - not sure about gyms since I never go to them
Unvaccinated people can not eat in restaurants in Queensland.3 -
smithker75 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Here in Australia access to restaraunts is not limited for unvaccinated people - not sure about gyms since I never go to them
Unvaccinated people can not eat in restaurants in Queensland.
I read that WA is bringing that in soon too.
Not the case in SA where I live - sorry, wasn't aware it was already so in any other states.
1 -
In Italy you must have a Green Pass (downloaded after complete vaccination) to access any closed space--including public transportation and schools. Masks are required everywhere and in schools and public transport-- pff2. Schools must be "aired" and since most schools here in Central Rome are very old, that means opening a window. We're having a cold snap (for us) and the poor kids are freezing with coats, hats, gloves, and blankets. I can't even imagine going to school under these conditions. I'm glad my kids are grown.
PS: For my disagree fairy--just reporting the facts.18 -
with the latest US decision for the workforce by the supreme court yesterday, My company is now pivoting. Last week we had the mandatory testing in place for unvaccinated employees. Going forward it is now optional for them but still available. Our workplace is seeing the largest spike in folks isolating and folks positive since the pandemic began. HR is struggling to keep up.
PS: for my disagree fairy - just reporting the facts.
14 -
The CDC recommendations are now optional for cruises. I can't imagine taking a cruise now or in the near future.13
-
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »allother94 wrote: »@allother94,
It's mind boggling that people are still not choosing to get vaccinated. They must be seeing all of this play out?? But instead of turning unvaccinated people away at the hospitals, why don't they turn them away everywhere else? Maybe it'd force their hand a bit more. JMO
They say the problem with the spread is overcrowding hospitals. If that really is the problem, then that is what they should address…
When someone says "They say" or "They should", without further amplifying, I wonder who the heck "they" are.
So, who is the "they" who should address the overcrowding of hospitals, and how should they do that, specifically - what are your ideas?
I suspect that public health authorities and governmental officials - here in the US, dunno where you are - believe that they are trying to address the overcrowding of hospitals by forming support teams of military members and sending them out to help staff hospitals, helping to build/equip auxiliary facilities where staffing is less the constraint, trying to limit exposures in less economically vital sectors or in less economically destructive ways (mask mandates, vaccination requirements, limiting crowding in social situations, etc.) . . . and telling people who aren't vaccinated to get vaccinated so they stop being the overwhelmingly largest group now overcrowding the hospitals.
If it's hospital administrators who are "they", I suspect they believe they're trying to address the overcrowding by converting wards that aren't usually infectious disease wards to wards for Covid patients, hiring traveling staff at exorbitant pay rates, eliminating elective surgeries (which aren't all trivial things!) to free up staff and space, requiring staff to be vaccinated to avoid further short-staffing from more-rampant sickness and the resulting absenteeism among staff, rededicating administrative staff to things like cleaning duties (yes, that's happening, in some places near me), and much more.
What are your ideas for what more "they" should do, to address hospital overcrowding, that's actionable and realistic?
Shouldn't "we" do our part, by getting vaccinated, avoiding truly unnecessary ER visits, and that sort of thing?
My suggestion is that hospital administrators make a policy that no unvaccinated Covid patients are accepted once the ICU or the hospital as a whole are at 90% capacity. That's generous, tbh... Probably should just be no unvaccinated patients at all (even non-Covid patients).
Edit: Is that specific enough?!rheddmobile wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »Here's something that I do not understand... An employee where I work was sick and took a home test on Fri., Came up positive. He was very sick on Mon. and went to the Dr. where he tested positive and was given a note saying he can go back to work in 3 days. When did the standard become 3 days?! It is 5 days for positive when asymptomatic, but this person is NOT asymptomatic at all. WTF?!
I can do you one better. California, due to nursing shortages, has just said that nurses who test positive can still work if they wear masks. Not nurses who are EXPOSED, nurses who actually have covid. Caring for patients, who might or might not have covid.
I agree with this.
And it is true. Doctors are also working with Covid because otherwise there won’t be any left to work. What alternative is there?
Yes, my sister is an RN and has had symptoms for the last week. She thought she maybe something else, but was going to go in to work again last night despite still feeling sick (but not bad enough to stay home, I guess). Anyway, she got a rapid test and came up positive... So now they tell her she can go back to work on Sun. How did we go from 2 weeks to 10 days to 3 days even if symptomatic?10 -
Wow that seems ridiculously inadequate length of time.
here in Australia isolation if positive has gone from 10 days to 7 days - one can come out of isolation after 7 days if asymptomatic by day 62 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »allother94 wrote: »@allother94,
It's mind boggling that people are still not choosing to get vaccinated. They must be seeing all of this play out?? But instead of turning unvaccinated people away at the hospitals, why don't they turn them away everywhere else? Maybe it'd force their hand a bit more. JMO
They say the problem with the spread is overcrowding hospitals. If that really is the problem, then that is what they should address…
When someone says "They say" or "They should", without further amplifying, I wonder who the heck "they" are.
So, who is the "they" who should address the overcrowding of hospitals, and how should they do that, specifically - what are your ideas?
I suspect that public health authorities and governmental officials - here in the US, dunno where you are - believe that they are trying to address the overcrowding of hospitals by forming support teams of military members and sending them out to help staff hospitals, helping to build/equip auxiliary facilities where staffing is less the constraint, trying to limit exposures in less economically vital sectors or in less economically destructive ways (mask mandates, vaccination requirements, limiting crowding in social situations, etc.) . . . and telling people who aren't vaccinated to get vaccinated so they stop being the overwhelmingly largest group now overcrowding the hospitals.
If it's hospital administrators who are "they", I suspect they believe they're trying to address the overcrowding by converting wards that aren't usually infectious disease wards to wards for Covid patients, hiring traveling staff at exorbitant pay rates, eliminating elective surgeries (which aren't all trivial things!) to free up staff and space, requiring staff to be vaccinated to avoid further short-staffing from more-rampant sickness and the resulting absenteeism among staff, rededicating administrative staff to things like cleaning duties (yes, that's happening, in some places near me), and much more.
What are your ideas for what more "they" should do, to address hospital overcrowding, that's actionable and realistic?
Shouldn't "we" do our part, by getting vaccinated, avoiding truly unnecessary ER visits, and that sort of thing?
My suggestion is that hospital administrators make a policy that no unvaccinated Covid patients are accepted once the ICU or the hospital as a whole are at 90% capacity. That's generous, tbh... Probably should just be no unvaccinated patients at all (even non-Covid patients).
Edit: Is that specific enough?!rheddmobile wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »Here's something that I do not understand... An employee where I work was sick and took a home test on Fri., Came up positive. He was very sick on Mon. and went to the Dr. where he tested positive and was given a note saying he can go back to work in 3 days. When did the standard become 3 days?! It is 5 days for positive when asymptomatic, but this person is NOT asymptomatic at all. WTF?!
I can do you one better. California, due to nursing shortages, has just said that nurses who test positive can still work if they wear masks. Not nurses who are EXPOSED, nurses who actually have covid. Caring for patients, who might or might not have covid.
I agree with this.
And it is true. Doctors are also working with Covid because otherwise there won’t be any left to work. What alternative is there?
Yes, my sister is an RN and has had symptoms for the last week. She thought she maybe something else, but was going to go in to work again last night despite still feeling sick (but not bad enough to stay home, I guess). Anyway, she got a rapid test and came up positive... So now they tell her she can go back to work on Sun. How did we go from 2 weeks to 10 days to 3 days even if symptomatic?
Would it be better to empty the hospital of most nurses? That's the stage we're at, in many parts of the US, unfortunately. No good decision available, all of the actually achievable ones utterly stink.7 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »allother94 wrote: »@allother94,
It's mind boggling that people are still not choosing to get vaccinated. They must be seeing all of this play out?? But instead of turning unvaccinated people away at the hospitals, why don't they turn them away everywhere else? Maybe it'd force their hand a bit more. JMO
They say the problem with the spread is overcrowding hospitals. If that really is the problem, then that is what they should address…
When someone says "They say" or "They should", without further amplifying, I wonder who the heck "they" are.
So, who is the "they" who should address the overcrowding of hospitals, and how should they do that, specifically - what are your ideas?
I suspect that public health authorities and governmental officials - here in the US, dunno where you are - believe that they are trying to address the overcrowding of hospitals by forming support teams of military members and sending them out to help staff hospitals, helping to build/equip auxiliary facilities where staffing is less the constraint, trying to limit exposures in less economically vital sectors or in less economically destructive ways (mask mandates, vaccination requirements, limiting crowding in social situations, etc.) . . . and telling people who aren't vaccinated to get vaccinated so they stop being the overwhelmingly largest group now overcrowding the hospitals.
If it's hospital administrators who are "they", I suspect they believe they're trying to address the overcrowding by converting wards that aren't usually infectious disease wards to wards for Covid patients, hiring traveling staff at exorbitant pay rates, eliminating elective surgeries (which aren't all trivial things!) to free up staff and space, requiring staff to be vaccinated to avoid further short-staffing from more-rampant sickness and the resulting absenteeism among staff, rededicating administrative staff to things like cleaning duties (yes, that's happening, in some places near me), and much more.
What are your ideas for what more "they" should do, to address hospital overcrowding, that's actionable and realistic?
Shouldn't "we" do our part, by getting vaccinated, avoiding truly unnecessary ER visits, and that sort of thing?
My suggestion is that hospital administrators make a policy that no unvaccinated Covid patients are accepted once the ICU or the hospital as a whole are at 90% capacity. That's generous, tbh... Probably should just be no unvaccinated patients at all (even non-Covid patients).
Edit: Is that specific enough?!rheddmobile wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »Here's something that I do not understand... An employee where I work was sick and took a home test on Fri., Came up positive. He was very sick on Mon. and went to the Dr. where he tested positive and was given a note saying he can go back to work in 3 days. When did the standard become 3 days?! It is 5 days for positive when asymptomatic, but this person is NOT asymptomatic at all. WTF?!
I can do you one better. California, due to nursing shortages, has just said that nurses who test positive can still work if they wear masks. Not nurses who are EXPOSED, nurses who actually have covid. Caring for patients, who might or might not have covid.
I agree with this.
And it is true. Doctors are also working with Covid because otherwise there won’t be any left to work. What alternative is there?
Yes, my sister is an RN and has had symptoms for the last week. She thought she maybe something else, but was going to go in to work again last night despite still feeling sick (but not bad enough to stay home, I guess). Anyway, she got a rapid test and came up positive... So now they tell her she can go back to work on Sun. How did we go from 2 weeks to 10 days to 3 days even if symptomatic?
Would it be better to empty the hospital of most nurses? That's the stage we're at, in many parts of the US, unfortunately. No good decision available, all of the actually achievable ones utterly stink.
That statement is the one thing that I've been thinking since Day One of this thing. Nature is always going to have its way with us. We can bob and weave and mitigate but we aren't going to control it.
7 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »allother94 wrote: »@allother94,
It's mind boggling that people are still not choosing to get vaccinated. They must be seeing all of this play out?? But instead of turning unvaccinated people away at the hospitals, why don't they turn them away everywhere else? Maybe it'd force their hand a bit more. JMO
They say the problem with the spread is overcrowding hospitals. If that really is the problem, then that is what they should address…
When someone says "They say" or "They should", without further amplifying, I wonder who the heck "they" are.
So, who is the "they" who should address the overcrowding of hospitals, and how should they do that, specifically - what are your ideas?
I suspect that public health authorities and governmental officials - here in the US, dunno where you are - believe that they are trying to address the overcrowding of hospitals by forming support teams of military members and sending them out to help staff hospitals, helping to build/equip auxiliary facilities where staffing is less the constraint, trying to limit exposures in less economically vital sectors or in less economically destructive ways (mask mandates, vaccination requirements, limiting crowding in social situations, etc.) . . . and telling people who aren't vaccinated to get vaccinated so they stop being the overwhelmingly largest group now overcrowding the hospitals.
If it's hospital administrators who are "they", I suspect they believe they're trying to address the overcrowding by converting wards that aren't usually infectious disease wards to wards for Covid patients, hiring traveling staff at exorbitant pay rates, eliminating elective surgeries (which aren't all trivial things!) to free up staff and space, requiring staff to be vaccinated to avoid further short-staffing from more-rampant sickness and the resulting absenteeism among staff, rededicating administrative staff to things like cleaning duties (yes, that's happening, in some places near me), and much more.
What are your ideas for what more "they" should do, to address hospital overcrowding, that's actionable and realistic?
Shouldn't "we" do our part, by getting vaccinated, avoiding truly unnecessary ER visits, and that sort of thing?
My suggestion is that hospital administrators make a policy that no unvaccinated Covid patients are accepted once the ICU or the hospital as a whole are at 90% capacity. That's generous, tbh... Probably should just be no unvaccinated patients at all (even non-Covid patients).
Edit: Is that specific enough?!rheddmobile wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »Here's something that I do not understand... An employee where I work was sick and took a home test on Fri., Came up positive. He was very sick on Mon. and went to the Dr. where he tested positive and was given a note saying he can go back to work in 3 days. When did the standard become 3 days?! It is 5 days for positive when asymptomatic, but this person is NOT asymptomatic at all. WTF?!
I can do you one better. California, due to nursing shortages, has just said that nurses who test positive can still work if they wear masks. Not nurses who are EXPOSED, nurses who actually have covid. Caring for patients, who might or might not have covid.
I agree with this.
And it is true. Doctors are also working with Covid because otherwise there won’t be any left to work. What alternative is there?
Yes, my sister is an RN and has had symptoms for the last week. She thought she maybe something else, but was going to go in to work again last night despite still feeling sick (but not bad enough to stay home, I guess). Anyway, she got a rapid test and came up positive... So now they tell her she can go back to work on Sun. How did we go from 2 weeks to 10 days to 3 days even if symptomatic?
Would it be better to empty the hospital of most nurses? That's the stage we're at, in many parts of the US, unfortunately. No good decision available, all of the actually achievable ones utterly stink.
In CA, asymptomatic COVID positive nurses are now continuing to work in hospitals due to staffing shortages.
At my work, over 1/4 of all of our cases since the start of the pandemic have been within the last several weeks. Although folks are faring well without being hospitalized or ending up in the ICU, It's beginning to takes it's tole with the number of people out sick.9 -
Hubby made it home from Florida yesterday. My opinion is that he would have been logically exposed to COVID on they flight.
If he remains asymptomatic, on what day post flight would you use up a precious home Rapid test to see if he is carrying the virus? There are family members that we are trying hard to not expose to COVID.4 -
They're saying Omicron is symptomatic in one or two days. If he isn't symptomatic I wouldn't test until you're going to visit with family members.3
-
@ChelzFit
I agree there are some that cannot handle the vaccine and I feel badly for those that truly can't or are afraid of having another vaccination after such terrible results from previous a one. My sister still refuses to take a flu shot because of some terrible reactions in the past.
But I wonder how many there really are out of all the people who've refused that have had real issues? How many are afraid of it? How many don't want to be told what to do; their rights are being taken away? How many still think it's all a political farce? Those are the ones that need to make a compromise.
My niece works in her dh's doctor's office and she's relayed stories you wouldn't believe, about just refusing to wear a mask.
IMO there are too many people in this world who feel it's all about them and don't think of the other guy. How about keeping as many people out of the hospital as possible? The hospitals should not have to be making choices about who to turn away or let die or not being able to see emergency patients because they're over worked, understaffed, etc., etc.
I hadn't had a flu shot since I had a bad reaction in 1990. But in 2020, I decided to get one, because medical professionals were encouraging it and I didn't want to have the flu, seek medical care, and contract COVID.
Pre-COVID, I wouldn't necessarily seek medical care for the flu, but in 2020 I definitely would for potentential COVID, and wouldn't know which it was. I wanted to be able to rule out the flu, so I got the shot. No reaction other than a sore arm for a few days
8 -
@ChelzFit
I agree there are some that cannot handle the vaccine and I feel badly for those that truly can't or are afraid of having another vaccination after such terrible results from previous a one. My sister still refuses to take a flu shot because of some terrible reactions in the past.
But I wonder how many there really are out of all the people who've refused that have had real issues? How many are afraid of it? How many don't want to be told what to do; their rights are being taken away? How many still think it's all a political farce? Those are the ones that need to make a compromise.
My niece works in her dh's doctor's office and she's relayed stories you wouldn't believe, about just refusing to wear a mask.
IMO there are too many people in this world who feel it's all about them and don't think of the other guy. How about keeping as many people out of the hospital as possible? The hospitals should not have to be making choices about who to turn away or let die or not being able to see emergency patients because they're over worked, understaffed, etc., etc.
In at least some contexts, people who have a true medical contraindication to this vaccination (such as a serious allergy to one of the components) are able to get a medical exemption, not be penalized for being unvaccinated. (Yes, that does add to community risk. That there will be people like this, for any given vaccination, is one reason that herd immunity is important.)
The ones who sincerely believe this is a political farce, or a plot to control us (injectable microchips, or whatever) believe they are absolutely, righteously correct, and that those of us who believe the pandemic is real, and that the vaccine works, are dupes in a plot against us all. They tend to think that masks are dangerous. They see themselves as noble warriors in the good fight. I don't know what fraction of the population is firm in that type of belief, but it is a thing that some think (to be specific, a few people I know do clearly think that). They are not going to compromise.
Personally, I do think it's reasonable to keep increasing the constraints around unvaccinated people, through any legal, moral, ethical approach. It could include legal or social approaches, but I don't have specific suggestions. Quebec's proposed tax is one approach to this sort of thing, but it doesn't apply well in the US because of our different health care structure. The countries in Europe that are limiting access to services (restaurants, gyms, whatever) for the unvaccinated is another example. That won't happen in the US.
I think those who can (medically) be vaccinated should be vaccinated. I think people do have a choice in practice here in the US to not be vaccinated (I may wish it could be otherwise, but I don't see viable mechanisms to change that). I resent the idea that there should be no inconvenient or unpleasant consequences to them for that decision. That's not how choice works in all cases.
My aunt is in this camp. She's not going to compromise. I'm ok with there being unpleasant consequences for that.
My partner's nephew was in the "I'm young and invulnerable" camp. We saw him (outdoors and masked) on Christmas Eve. He'd finally received his first shot. Restrictions DID persuade him, albeit lamentably slowly.
People like my aunt are a lost cause; people like the nephew are not. Let's hope there are enough of those for us to reach herd immunity.7 -
Hubby made it home from Florida yesterday. My opinion is that he would have been logically exposed to COVID on they flight.
If he remains asymptomatic, on what day post flight would you use up a precious home Rapid test to see if he is carrying the virus? There are family members that we are trying hard to not expose to COVID.cmriverside wrote: »They're saying Omicron is symptomatic in one or two days. If he isn't symptomatic I wouldn't test until you're going to visit with family members.
Nothing new to add other than the above sounds good.
My sister, husband, and two boys flew from MA to UT after Christmas. My BIL contracted COVID; the rest did not. He thinks it likely it happened in a restaurant rather than the plane. He was vaxxed and boosted and symptoms were mild enough that he would have gone to work had it not been contagious. He isolated at home, and the rest of the family did not get it.9 -
@kshama2001 @cmriverside Thanks for the input. It will be interesting to see what does or does not transpire this week.4
-
Personally, I do think it's reasonable to keep increasing the constraints around unvaccinated people, through any legal, moral, ethical approach. It could include legal or social approaches, but I don't have specific suggestions. Quebec's proposed tax is one approach to this sort of thing, but it doesn't apply well in the US because of our different health care structure. The countries in Europe that are limiting access to services (restaurants, gyms, whatever) for the unvaccinated is another example. That won't happen in the US
That is exactly the rules in Washington State.
We have to show vax cards to enter any restaurant. I believe all the major sports teams also require it at their venues. Admittedly it's difficult to enforce against the restaurants and people will use fake cards, but there is a website and phone number to report violations and there have been quite a few reports and fines issued. I'm not sure about gyms or theaters, but I haven't been to a gym or theater. I know in New York vax proof is required in theaters.
We're trying. I'm in a Blue state so any and all regulations are fair game. The governor just called up some National Guard to help at the swamped hospitals.
6 -
@kshama2001 I was exactly the same. I had the flu shot in the military back in the 80's and had a horrific reaction. So much that I refused to take the shot for decades. However when I got the flu in Jan 2018 it was pretty durn bad. Even lost my sense of taste for a couple of days. I decided to try the flu shot that fall and except for sometimes a sore arm, I have had zero of the same reaction that I had in the 80's.
@SModa61 I am not sure how accurate the quick tests are if you do not have any symptoms. fingers crossed that hubby is OK and you can visit the elders soon. I agree with 3 or 4 days.2 -
SummerSkier wrote: »@kshama2001 I was exactly the same. I had the flu shot in the military back in the 80's and had a horrific reaction. So much that I refused to take the shot for decades. However when I got the flu in Jan 2018 it was pretty durn bad. Even lost my sense of taste for a couple of days. I decided to try the flu shot that fall and except for sometimes a sore arm, I have had zero of the same reaction that I had in the 80's.
@SModa61 I am not sure how accurate the quick tests are if you do not have any symptoms. fingers crossed that hubby is OK and you can visit the elders soon. I agree with 3 or 4 days.
I was also in the military when I had the bad reaction in 1990. Hmm...0 -
SummerSkier wrote: »@kshama2001
@SModa61 I am not sure how accurate the quick tests are if you do not have any symptoms. fingers crossed that hubby is OK and you can visit the elders soon. I agree with 3 or 4 days.
Good point on accuracy with lack of symptoms. But using that concept, I think I recall hearing that if the home quick test does not come up positive, then at that moment in time you are not contagious. Have no idea that is BS, but I heard that referenced a lot in December when we were all trying to see people for the holidays.
As for who I am trying to be careful around, two are my parents, but I also have my grandson, who technically should fair well. But I would hate to be the one that "gives it to him". Daughter is being extremely cautious.2 -
SummerSkier wrote: »@kshama2001
@SModa61 I am not sure how accurate the quick tests are if you do not have any symptoms. fingers crossed that hubby is OK and you can visit the elders soon. I agree with 3 or 4 days.
Good point on accuracy with lack of symptoms. But using that concept, I think I recall hearing that if the home quick test does not come up positive, then at that moment in time you are not contagious. Have no idea that is BS, but I heard that referenced a lot in December when we were all trying to see people for the holidays.
As for who I am trying to be careful around, two are my parents, but I also have my grandson, who technically should fair well. But I would hate to be the one that "gives it to him". Daughter is being extremely cautious.
I am not sure that is true. It may be part of the reason why this variant has spread so quickly is people who were nonsymptomatic and tested negative felt like they could go to get together’s safely.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 396.5K Introduce Yourself
- 44.2K Getting Started
- 260.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 449 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.7K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.3K Motivation and Support
- 8.3K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.5K Chit-Chat
- 2.6K Fun and Games
- 4.5K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 18 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions