Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
*** OFFICIAL *** COVID-19 CoronaVirus Thread. Fresh epidemic fears as child pneumonia cases surge in Europe after China outbreak. NOW in USA (18 Viewers)
- Thread starter Big League Chew
- Start date
- Status
Yambag
Footballguy
Just passing along info for those interested:
15 yo daughter (vax+booster) came up positive, was in bed for 3-4 days, varying symptoms (headache, congestion, cough, fatigue, aches, sore throat). Took about a week to feel better. Wife (vax+booster) tested positive a week later with just about the same set of symptoms. She is on day 7 today, still not feeling great, but slowly improving.
15 yo daughter (vax+booster) came up positive, was in bed for 3-4 days, varying symptoms (headache, congestion, cough, fatigue, aches, sore throat). Took about a week to feel better. Wife (vax+booster) tested positive a week later with just about the same set of symptoms. She is on day 7 today, still not feeling great, but slowly improving.
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
A week later until the positive test? Ugh.
My 7yr old is doing well. His symptoms ramped up fast though. He was basically fine Saturday, then started complaining of an ear ache and sore throat. Tested positive and then his fever spiked to 102 and he was congested and coughing. Rough first night, had 102 fever again at midnight and then again in the morning yesterday. Gave Advil/Tylenol for fevers, but no fever since yesterday morning. Today he has a lingering cough and diarrhea and not much else. The rest of us are still negative -- my wife and I aren't feeling 100%, but allergies are really bad here right now too, so hard to determine anything -- but again, she testing negative today so far and I will test later.
I want us to either all get it now, or just not get it and let it run its course in my son this week and not have to worry about it again. At risk for another week is not fun.
Last edited by a moderator:
Scoresman
Footballguy
Any of our medical folks or anyone else know whatever happened with the studies on the xylitol/xlear nasal sprays and how they may help reduce transmission? I think the theory is they supposedly hinder COVID's ability to develop in the sinus passageways. Google turns up a bunch of incomplete studies and articles that aren't super clear.
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
Not sure; I'll let the science types on here get into that. My impression has been that it's mostly a function of the fact that the intramuscular vaccines were already well on their way by the time SARS-CoV2 hit, whereas the intranasal ones were starting from scratch. It also seems like there's been a lack of urgency ever since the Pfizer/Moderna shots hit the market. But I could be wrong on both counts.
Nathan R. Jessep
Footballguy
https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/draft-landscape-of-covid-19-candidate-vaccines
You can download and filter that Excel (it's virus free btw lol). None of the nasal ones are currently beyond Stage 3 trials, many of them still in Stage 1.
Yeah, I'm hopeful they can develop but thus far the news doesn't give you the warm and fuzzies...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nose-spray-vaccines-could-quash-covid-virus-variants/
Developing a nasal vaccine is tricky, however, because scientists know relatively little about the machinations of mucosal immunity. “While the human immune system is a black box, the mucosal immune system is probably the blackest of the black boxes,” says epidemiologist Wayne Koff, CEO and founder of the Human Vaccines Project, a public-private partnership aimed at accelerating vaccine development. What scientists do know is making them tread cautiously. Because of the nose’s proximity to the brain, substances squirted up the nasal passages could raise the risk of neurological complications. In the early 2000s, a nasal flu vaccine licensed and used in Switzerland was linked to Bell’s palsy, a temporary facial paralysis. “Since then, people have become a little bit nervous about a nasal vaccine,” Iwasaki says.
And although a spray seems like an easier delivery method than a shot, in practice, that is not the case. With intramuscular injections, a needle delivers the vaccine ingredients directly into the muscle, where they quickly encounter resident immune cells. Sprays, in contrast, must make their way into the nasal cavity without being sneezed out. Then those ingredients have to breach a thick barrier gel of mucus and activate the immune cells locked within. Not all do. One company, Altimmune, stopped development of its COVID nasal vaccine AdCOVID after disappointing early trial results.
Scoresman
Footballguy
This appears to be for the nasal vaccines. I'm talking about the use of xylitol OTC nose sprays to use for example when you know you're going to be in a high risk environment like a crowded airport or restaurant. You take a couple sprays beforehand and in theory it helps reduce chance of picking anything up. Initial studies appear to show it's effective in mice, but I can't find anything beyond this.
Nathan R. Jessep
Footballguy
Oh.
apologies! So I knew Xylitol rung a bell for me. It's in some toothpastes and sugar-free gums, etc. and is good for fighting tooth decay (or so I've read and heard). Had no clue there was a nasal spray form and makes me wonder what purpose it might serve. Looks like it's just an additive in regular saline nasal spray? And agreed, I can't find anything beyond 2020. So I'd take that to mean it likely wasn't effective for COVID defense. ProstheticRGK
Footballguy
It's a sugar-esther or sugar-alcohol, I think. Used a lot in sugar-free candies. It will also cause no small amount of gastrointestinal distress (think buttermilk through a goose) if one were to eat an entire pound of sugar-free gummy bears.
nirad3
Footballguy
ProstheticRGK
Footballguy
Now, imagine the narrator did not have such an immediate reaction. Instead, he kept munching handfuls until an entire pound of those malevolent fecomancers disappeared from their Winco bulk foods baggie. The effect cannot be explained in normal terms, but I imagine it is akin to trying to deliver a baby, rectally and via c-section, simultaneously.
Last edited by a moderator:
Nathan R. Jessep
Footballguy
As reports of ‘Paxlovid rebound’ increase, Covid researchers scramble for answers
Almost 90% effective at preventing hospitalizations from Covid-19, Pfizer’s antiviral pill has quickly become one of the most powerful additions to the pandemic arsenal since the advent of mRNA vaccines. But as it’s become more widely available, a growing number of people have found the drug only temporarily effective.
In these cases, a patient diagnosed with Covid-19 was typically prescribed Paxlovid, took it, felt better, perhaps even tested negative, and then suddenly tested positive days or even more than a week later. For some, the resurgences were asymptomatic. But for others, they were as bad or worse than the original illness.
---
Already, there’s been debate over how to address a rebound. Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, has suggested that patients who experience one take another course of the drug, while the Food and Drug Administration has put out guidance telling physicians the opposite.
On Tuesday morning, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued its first official guidance, reiterating the FDA’s advice against re-treatment and telling rebounding patients to isolate for at least five days and mask for at least 10, as the agency currently advises for new infections.
And yet, nearly a month after National Institute of Health officials said they needed to get “an urgent handle on the issue,” researchers are still struggling to understand the phenomenon, largely because no one has any idea how common it is or any way to track it.
---
And in the absence of data, Kalil and others fear that officials or the public may jump to conclusions. It’s possible, he points out, that the virus has been doing this all along. And more people are only noticing now because they take a pill that they expect will make them better.
“There’s no question rebound happens — we’ve seen it since the beginning of the pandemic,” he said. “Is the rebound related to infection itself? Is the rebound related to the administration of drugs like Paxlovid, or is a rebound related to neither? That’s the question.”
--
Rebounds don’t appear to have undermined that efficacy (referring to the 88% from clinical trials). Although there’s no comprehensive data, none of the documented cases so far have resulted in severe illness. But even before the CDC’s new guidance, some physicians started cautioning that renewed symptoms could mean renewed infectiousness.
“If you get symptoms again, and you are testing yourself and you’re positive again, on the antigen tests, you should consider yourself infectious,” said Paul Sax, an infectious disease physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. “Start the clock over on your isolation.”
---
The most common (theory) is that Paxlovid is, in a way, too effective. It quashes the virus immediately, before the pathogen has had time to trigger the body’s full suite of alarms and send B and T immune cells into formation.
In some patients, there are bound to be little pockets where the virus has managed to survive. Once the five-day course of Paxlovid is done, the surviving virions can start repopulating, free of therapeutic or immunological predators.
The theory has a major flaw, though: Pfizer’s clinical trial data. If that was the case, why didn’t more patients in the study experience rebound?
Researchers have pointed to many hypothetical mechanisms. The population Pfizer studied in its clinical trial looked very different from the patients Paxlovid is generally being prescribed to. The former were unvaccinated, met specific high-risk criteria, and were infected with the Delta variant. The latter are generally vaccinated, fit a looser criteria for high-risk, and are infected with Omicron.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and that last excerpt above is related to this article, an opinion piece but food for thought:
Does Paxlovid help people who have been vaccinated against Covid-19?
Among antiviral agents for Covid-19, Pfizer’s Paxlovid has emerged as the clear winner for two reasons: First, as a pill, Paxlovid is easy to administer, compared to the infusions required for monoclonal antibodies and remdesivir. Second, Paxlovid appears to be highly effective, with a clinical trial showing an 89% relative reduction in hospitalizations or death among high-risk patients who receive it.
I say “appears to be” because there’s a problem: The single trial supporting the FDA’s emergency use authorization of Paxlovid included only unvaccinated people who had never previously had Covid-19. Since 76% of U.S. adults are now vaccinated, and an estimated 58% of Americans have already had Covid, the trial supporting Paxlovid is not directly applicable to a majority of Americans. This means that doctors treating people with the disease don’t know to what degree — if any — Paxlovid will benefit their vaccinated patients. I am left hoping and guessing, and continue to prescribe Paxlovid to my high-risk Covid-19 patients without being sure if I am helping them.
Almost 90% effective at preventing hospitalizations from Covid-19, Pfizer’s antiviral pill has quickly become one of the most powerful additions to the pandemic arsenal since the advent of mRNA vaccines. But as it’s become more widely available, a growing number of people have found the drug only temporarily effective.
In these cases, a patient diagnosed with Covid-19 was typically prescribed Paxlovid, took it, felt better, perhaps even tested negative, and then suddenly tested positive days or even more than a week later. For some, the resurgences were asymptomatic. But for others, they were as bad or worse than the original illness.
---
Already, there’s been debate over how to address a rebound. Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, has suggested that patients who experience one take another course of the drug, while the Food and Drug Administration has put out guidance telling physicians the opposite.
On Tuesday morning, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued its first official guidance, reiterating the FDA’s advice against re-treatment and telling rebounding patients to isolate for at least five days and mask for at least 10, as the agency currently advises for new infections.And yet, nearly a month after National Institute of Health officials said they needed to get “an urgent handle on the issue,” researchers are still struggling to understand the phenomenon, largely because no one has any idea how common it is or any way to track it.
---
And in the absence of data, Kalil and others fear that officials or the public may jump to conclusions. It’s possible, he points out, that the virus has been doing this all along. And more people are only noticing now because they take a pill that they expect will make them better.
“There’s no question rebound happens — we’ve seen it since the beginning of the pandemic,” he said. “Is the rebound related to infection itself? Is the rebound related to the administration of drugs like Paxlovid, or is a rebound related to neither? That’s the question.”
--
Rebounds don’t appear to have undermined that efficacy (referring to the 88% from clinical trials). Although there’s no comprehensive data, none of the documented cases so far have resulted in severe illness. But even before the CDC’s new guidance, some physicians started cautioning that renewed symptoms could mean renewed infectiousness.
“If you get symptoms again, and you are testing yourself and you’re positive again, on the antigen tests, you should consider yourself infectious,” said Paul Sax, an infectious disease physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. “Start the clock over on your isolation.”
---
The most common (theory) is that Paxlovid is, in a way, too effective. It quashes the virus immediately, before the pathogen has had time to trigger the body’s full suite of alarms and send B and T immune cells into formation.
In some patients, there are bound to be little pockets where the virus has managed to survive. Once the five-day course of Paxlovid is done, the surviving virions can start repopulating, free of therapeutic or immunological predators.
The theory has a major flaw, though: Pfizer’s clinical trial data. If that was the case, why didn’t more patients in the study experience rebound?
Researchers have pointed to many hypothetical mechanisms. The population Pfizer studied in its clinical trial looked very different from the patients Paxlovid is generally being prescribed to. The former were unvaccinated, met specific high-risk criteria, and were infected with the Delta variant. The latter are generally vaccinated, fit a looser criteria for high-risk, and are infected with Omicron.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and that last excerpt above is related to this article, an opinion piece but food for thought:
Does Paxlovid help people who have been vaccinated against Covid-19?
Among antiviral agents for Covid-19, Pfizer’s Paxlovid has emerged as the clear winner for two reasons: First, as a pill, Paxlovid is easy to administer, compared to the infusions required for monoclonal antibodies and remdesivir. Second, Paxlovid appears to be highly effective, with a clinical trial showing an 89% relative reduction in hospitalizations or death among high-risk patients who receive it.
I say “appears to be” because there’s a problem: The single trial supporting the FDA’s emergency use authorization of Paxlovid included only unvaccinated people who had never previously had Covid-19. Since 76% of U.S. adults are now vaccinated, and an estimated 58% of Americans have already had Covid, the trial supporting Paxlovid is not directly applicable to a majority of Americans. This means that doctors treating people with the disease don’t know to what degree — if any — Paxlovid will benefit their vaccinated patients. I am left hoping and guessing, and continue to prescribe Paxlovid to my high-risk Covid-19 patients without being sure if I am helping them.
Enjoy. https://twitter.com/RMConservative/status/1529139479730081794
https://twitter.com/johnrobertsFox/status/1526886678153072640
Looks like John Roberts of Fox has had & seen enough of the BS.
https://twitter.com/johnrobertsFox/status/1526886678153072640
Looks like John Roberts of Fox has had & seen enough of the BS.
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
As reports of ‘Paxlovid rebound’ increase, Covid researchers scramble for answers
Almost 90% effective at preventing hospitalizations from Covid-19, Pfizer’s antiviral pill has quickly become one of the most powerful additions to the pandemic arsenal since the advent of mRNA vaccines. But as it’s become more widely available, a growing number of people have found the drug only temporarily effective.
In these cases, a patient diagnosed with Covid-19 was typically prescribed Paxlovid, took it, felt better, perhaps even tested negative, and then suddenly tested positive days or even more than a week later. For some, the resurgences were asymptomatic. But for others, they were as bad or worse than the original illness.
---
Already, there’s been debate over how to address a rebound. Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, has suggested that patients who experience one take another course of the drug, while the Food and Drug Administration has put out guidance telling physicians the opposite.
And yet, nearly a month after National Institute of Health officials said they needed to get “an urgent handle on the issue,” researchers are still struggling to understand the phenomenon, largely because no one has any idea how common it is or any way to track it.
---
And in the absence of data, Kalil and others fear that officials or the public may jump to conclusions. It’s possible, he points out, that the virus has been doing this all along. And more people are only noticing now because they take a pill that they expect will make them better.
“There’s no question rebound happens — we’ve seen it since the beginning of the pandemic,” he said. “Is the rebound related to infection itself? Is the rebound related to the administration of drugs like Paxlovid, or is a rebound related to neither? That’s the question.”
--
Rebounds don’t appear to have undermined that efficacy (referring to the 88% from clinical trials). Although there’s no comprehensive data, none of the documented cases so far have resulted in severe illness. But even before the CDC’s new guidance, some physicians started cautioning that renewed symptoms could mean renewed infectiousness.
“If you get symptoms again, and you are testing yourself and you’re positive again, on the antigen tests, you should consider yourself infectious,” said Paul Sax, an infectious disease physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. “Start the clock over on your isolation.”
---
The most common (theory) is that Paxlovid is, in a way, too effective. It quashes the virus immediately, before the pathogen has had time to trigger the body’s full suite of alarms and send B and T immune cells into formation.
In some patients, there are bound to be little pockets where the virus has managed to survive. Once the five-day course of Paxlovid is done, the surviving virions can start repopulating, free of therapeutic or immunological predators.
The theory has a major flaw, though: Pfizer’s clinical trial data. If that was the case, why didn’t more patients in the study experience rebound?
Researchers have pointed to many hypothetical mechanisms. The population Pfizer studied in its clinical trial looked very different from the patients Paxlovid is generally being prescribed to. The former were unvaccinated, met specific high-risk criteria, and were infected with the Delta variant. The latter are generally vaccinated, fit a looser criteria for high-risk, and are infected with Omicron.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and that last excerpt above is related to this article, an opinion piece but food for thought:
Does Paxlovid help people who have been vaccinated against Covid-19?
Among antiviral agents for Covid-19, Pfizer’s Paxlovid has emerged as the clear winner for two reasons: First, as a pill, Paxlovid is easy to administer, compared to the infusions required for monoclonal antibodies and remdesivir. Second, Paxlovid appears to be highly effective, with a clinical trial showing an 89% relative reduction in hospitalizations or death among high-risk patients who receive it.
I say “appears to be” because there’s a problem: The single trial supporting the FDA’s emergency use authorization of Paxlovid included only unvaccinated people who had never previously had Covid-19. Since 76% of U.S. adults are now vaccinated, and an estimated 58% of Americans have already had Covid, the trial supporting Paxlovid is not directly applicable to a majority of Americans. This means that doctors treating people with the disease don’t know to what degree — if any — Paxlovid will benefit their vaccinated patients. I am left hoping and guessing, and continue to prescribe Paxlovid to my high-risk Covid-19 patients without being sure if I am helping them.
Does the rebound potentially allow for a "super-bug" to be created, similar to when someone does not finish their anti-biotic which allows for some evolution of resistant pathogens?
Nathan R. Jessep
Footballguy
Interesting question. Not sure if the medication could cause mutations or not. Maybe some of our HCPs can speak to that.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
From the article:
That's a fifteen-fold difference across states. That could be because of random chance, but my admittedly uninformed guess is that it's way more likely to be the kind of reporting error that you mentioned.
Another good data point to keep in mind before getting anxious parents all worked up:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Here are some CDC data on deaths, broken out by age. Notice that there are so few deaths among kids that you can't even see them on the graph because of how the X-axis is scaled. I had to download the raw data to confirm that those columns were actually populated and not simply zeros or missing data.
But yeah, definitely reason for parents to panic.
But yeah, definitely reason for parents to panic.
Keep in mind, over 50% of children hospitalized with COVID are actually hospitalized for something else and happened to test positive for COVID.
Nathan R. Jessep
Footballguy
The low death rate is awesome of course but death is not the only bad outcome of Covid. Do you guys not remember all the pediatric ICU's being full this past fall, and just how unusual (and dire, as reported from the physicians working those wings at the time) the situation was?? Are you arguing that was that just bad luck and coincidental timing with the Covid wave at the time? I don't get the continued conflation of "parents panicking" with simply keeping a watchful an eye on things and learning from data and history. Arguing extremes of either is basically pointless (and incorrect in most cases).
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
[icon]
Insoxicated
Some folks' minds are only capable of concepts once distilled down to 2 dimensions / black & white.
Nuance and a Grey area isn't something they're capable of seeing. Been on display for the last couple years... I think expecting that to change at this point is unwise.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Keeping a watchful eye on things is great. Why my kids got sick, we (well, really my wife) would sit up with them just to make sure they were basically okay. That's normal parenting.
What is not normal is having the same six people bouncing doom and gloom off one another non-stop for two years. Especially when doom and gloom is absolutely not at all warranted by the data.
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
I think the ones more, or at least as, guilty of this black and white thinking are those that think the only acceptable level of infection/death is zero.
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
Notice how the numbers of deaths are multiples higher than from the flu, and essentially infinitely higher than from a cold. Also, it's already been said over and over, but death isn't the only bad result from covid.
You're an introverted empty nester living in flyover country, correct? Not sure your perspective on this is all that relevant to be honest.
This seems to be your schtick- you hop in here every now and then, without catching up on the thread, and make a strawman argument.
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
Kind of, yeah. But my if my responses seem the same it's because the arguments never seem to change.This seems to be your schtick- you hop in here every now and then, without catching up on the thread, and make a strawman argument.
And you're tacitly saying that nobody has advocated for zero or pushed back against the idea of "acceptable levels". That's not arguing in good faith. Not remotely.
Nathan R. Jessep
Footballguy
Wow. lol. I post a lot of links in here so I guess I'm classified as a "doomsdayer"??
Serious question. Why do you still read the thread?
ETA: you didn't answer my previous question either
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for admitting it at least, but if you actually read through the thread, you'd see that this discussion has been had multiple times and essentially no one has advocated for a "zero tolerance" policy. Not sure how you can possibly say that they have, but it's pretty much impossible to argue in good faith without reading first.
Says the guy who calls it a 1 night tummy ache. Get a clue.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tummy ache, sniffles, a cold, etc
That's what it is for 99.9% of kids. Sorry if that is bad news to you doomsdayer.
Amazing isn't it? Reading the thread is one thing, but these guys have been calling it a non-issue and saying it's over for the longest time, yet they can't help but come in here and post a bunch of nonsense and strawmen. Weird.Wow. lol. I post a lot of links in here so I guess I'm classified as a "doomsdayer"??
Serious question. Why do you still read the thread?
ETA: you didn't answer my previous question either
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
Okay, I've posted articles in here from people stating exactly that. But if you prefer then I'll state it as some are black and white against the concept that we're going to have to live with an annual "acceptable" number of infections/deaths. Which is what icon and Ivan were discussing.
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
Seriously, what are you guys even arguing over at this point?
Desert_Power
Footballguy
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
They probably need to do a trial on vaccinated, omicron-infected patients, including follow up with immunologic correlates of exposure (ie., antibodies). In the meantime, people given paxlovid should probably err on the side of longer isolation (10 vs. 5 days) imo.As reports of ‘Paxlovid rebound’ increase, Covid researchers scramble for answers
Almost 90% effective at preventing hospitalizations from Covid-19, Pfizer’s antiviral pill has quickly become one of the most powerful additions to the pandemic arsenal since the advent of mRNA vaccines. But as it’s become more widely available, a growing number of people have found the drug only temporarily effective.
In these cases, a patient diagnosed with Covid-19 was typically prescribed Paxlovid, took it, felt better, perhaps even tested negative, and then suddenly tested positive days or even more than a week later. For some, the resurgences were asymptomatic. But for others, they were as bad or worse than the original illness.
---
Already, there’s been debate over how to address a rebound. Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, has suggested that patients who experience one take another course of the drug, while the Food and Drug Administration has put out guidance telling physicians the opposite.
And yet, nearly a month after National Institute of Health officials said they needed to get “an urgent handle on the issue,” researchers are still struggling to understand the phenomenon, largely because no one has any idea how common it is or any way to track it.
---
And in the absence of data, Kalil and others fear that officials or the public may jump to conclusions. It’s possible, he points out, that the virus has been doing this all along. And more people are only noticing now because they take a pill that they expect will make them better.
“There’s no question rebound happens — we’ve seen it since the beginning of the pandemic,” he said. “Is the rebound related to infection itself? Is the rebound related to the administration of drugs like Paxlovid, or is a rebound related to neither? That’s the question.”
--
Rebounds don’t appear to have undermined that efficacy (referring to the 88% from clinical trials). Although there’s no comprehensive data, none of the documented cases so far have resulted in severe illness. But even before the CDC’s new guidance, some physicians started cautioning that renewed symptoms could mean renewed infectiousness.
“If you get symptoms again, and you are testing yourself and you’re positive again, on the antigen tests, you should consider yourself infectious,” said Paul Sax, an infectious disease physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. “Start the clock over on your isolation.”
---
The most common (theory) is that Paxlovid is, in a way, too effective. It quashes the virus immediately, before the pathogen has had time to trigger the body’s full suite of alarms and send B and T immune cells into formation.
In some patients, there are bound to be little pockets where the virus has managed to survive. Once the five-day course of Paxlovid is done, the surviving virions can start repopulating, free of therapeutic or immunological predators.
The theory has a major flaw, though: Pfizer’s clinical trial data. If that was the case, why didn’t more patients in the study experience rebound?
Researchers have pointed to many hypothetical mechanisms. The population Pfizer studied in its clinical trial looked very different from the patients Paxlovid is generally being prescribed to. The former were unvaccinated, met specific high-risk criteria, and were infected with the Delta variant. The latter are generally vaccinated, fit a looser criteria for high-risk, and are infected with Omicron.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and that last excerpt above is related to this article, an opinion piece but food for thought:
Does Paxlovid help people who have been vaccinated against Covid-19?
Among antiviral agents for Covid-19, Pfizer’s Paxlovid has emerged as the clear winner for two reasons: First, as a pill, Paxlovid is easy to administer, compared to the infusions required for monoclonal antibodies and remdesivir. Second, Paxlovid appears to be highly effective, with a clinical trial showing an 89% relative reduction in hospitalizations or death among high-risk patients who receive it.
I say “appears to be” because there’s a problem: The single trial supporting the FDA’s emergency use authorization of Paxlovid included only unvaccinated people who had never previously had Covid-19. Since 76% of U.S. adults are now vaccinated, and an estimated 58% of Americans have already had Covid, the trial supporting Paxlovid is not directly applicable to a majority of Americans. This means that doctors treating people with the disease don’t know to what degree — if any — Paxlovid will benefit their vaccinated patients. I am left hoping and guessing, and continue to prescribe Paxlovid to my high-risk Covid-19 patients without being sure if I am helping them.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
Good lord.
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
Kids get hospitalized much less frequently than adults for all causes. Should be pretty easy to tease out for- vs. with-Covid.
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
Any selective pressure from the environment (including drugs and vaccines) facilitates escape mutants. But to be clear, the medication isn’t causing the mutations. Viruses mutate regardless, and variants most fit to proliferate emerge.
This is why many viral treatments are “cocktails” of several drugs, to minimize the likelihood multiple mutations simultaneously develop, causing treatment failure - this is the paradigm for HIV and hepatitis C, for example. We probably should consider a combo of paxlovid + molnupiravir for covid, but the logistics of combining two meds from different companies and collecting clinical data to establish safety and efficacy make it unlikely to happen anytime soon.
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Just curiosity mostly. People occasionally post articles here that I wouldn't see otherwise.
And besides, this thread was a must-read for about a year and a half. It used to be one of the higher-traffic threads outside the SP, or at least it seemed that way. It was chock full of posters who brought a bunch of different experiences and points of view to the table, and it generated pretty good discussion. Now it mostly lives on page 2, and when I see it bumped I always wonder what's going on over there now, kind of like how you might wonder how things are going in your childhood home town.
Obviously a lot has changed. There's only about half a dozen people or so who post regularly in here anymore, and this thread has become weird and sort of toxic. I post a lot in a lot of threads, and I can't even think of any PSF threads that are this weird. Some of you guys are extremely committed to a very particular narrative about the pandemic, and you react like you're defending the hive from an intruder every time somebody posts something that sounds like it might sort of deviate from that narrative.
This little dust-up is a great example. I started this by pointing out that (1) kids can infected by SARS-CoV-2 and (2) it doesn't pose a serious threat to them. Both of those statements are accurate, extremely well-supported by 2+ years worth of data, are not actually disputed by anybody as far as I know, and have no political or ideological overtones whatsoever. You might stop and ask yourself what it says about this little community that you felt the need to go to the mattresses over that.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Yes, that's right. On the other hand,
a) I'm introverted, but that doesn't mean I'm never around people. Next week, my university starts its orientation program for incoming students -- I'm one of the people that assists with registration. That means about a solid of month of spending every afternoon in a closed room with 75 or so people whose vaccination status I don't know, almost none of whom will be wearing a mask. I expect to be exposed to whatever variant is going around multiple times in the very near future. Not worried about it.
b) I'm an empty nester, but I did raise two kids. You won't find any Father of the Year trophies on my mantle, but I do have a #1 Dad mug to show for my troubles. Sorry, I'm not impressed by "My kid got covid and puked a couple of times and now she's okay" stories. No other parents are impressed by that either. We all lived through much worse. I hate to break this to you, but if you are the parent of a five year old (say), you can reasonably expect that you will encounter some sort of serious issue with your kid by the time they graduate from college: serious acute illness, chronic illness, an accident, school problems, social problems, a run-in with law enforcement, etc. A 24-48 hour illness doesn't register, and you'll agree with me when you're my age.
c) Not sure why "flyover country" is relevant. We had the pandemic here too, just like you guys did. I don't know where you live, but my part of the country featured a large number of anti-mask people who made a smooth transition to becoming anti-vaccine. My community's cumulative pandemic-related metrics probably compare unfavorably to yours.
And besides, this is a message board about magic football. This is the forum where people talk about random things that interest them. The pandemic is one of the biggest events in all of our lives, and it's kind of normal for people to have thoughts about it that they'd like to share. I don't think my perspective is any less relevant than yours. My thoughts and opinions are based on the same data that everybody else is looking at.
Nathan R. Jessep
Footballguy
belljr
Footballguy
Thanks - I'm not overly concerned about it but there is that little part of you thats like OH ####!!!!!!
They have taken all the right precautions but still stinks.
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
Curious what people are doing these days when they have a close contact. I went into the office yesterday and had a 5-10m conversation with a colleague. Today he told me he tested positive. I took a rapid (negative) and then got a PCR (pending, will probably get it tomorrow morning). Later this afternoon I had been planning on going to an industry event; it's not absolutely required for me to go, but I'd like to. Should I, or should I just stay home?
On the one hand, it wasn't all that close of a contact, so odds are nothing comes of this. Still, it's one thing to decide on my own risk tolerance, it's another to impose it on others, ya know? It just feels ... rude. And it's not like I'm considering locking myself in the basement and quarantining from my family. The question is whether to attend a non-essential event.
On the one hand, it wasn't all that close of a contact, so odds are nothing comes of this. Still, it's one thing to decide on my own risk tolerance, it's another to impose it on others, ya know? It just feels ... rude. And it's not like I'm considering locking myself in the basement and quarantining from my family. The question is whether to attend a non-essential event.
the moops
Footballguy
Our family has had myriad close contacts over the past several months. More than half of the kids in one of my kids class were out one week, plus both teachers. My wife attended a conference, 4 of the 5 people she went with tested positive the day after. I go into a cesspool of a work place (I say that gently, but it is a childrens museum with upwards of 3000 kids a day) and have gotten word numerous times about close contact.
All that to say, 1) we always test after getting word of a close contact, 2) none of us (me, wife, two young kids) have tested positive yet, 3) we don't/won't do anything different in our life unless we feel sick or test positive
- Status
