Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

*** OFFICIAL *** COVID-19 CoronaVirus Thread


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Rhythmdoctor said:

I'll post this video again.  Saying something that goes against the mainstream narrative is not a crime and in fact is OUR RIGHT.  At the 5:30 mark you will hear Dr. Stella Immanuel talk about the 350 patients she treated and all of them are well.  Some in their 90s, some with asthma, some with high blood pressure. All lived.  There are other doctors taking too.  Her message: Nobody needs to die.  If you care about the truth, you will watch without bias.  Some of the greatest scientific discoveries were initially scoffed at and the scientists who made the discoveries were ridiculed and outcast.  Be wary of censorship.  Be wary of anyone telling you that your thoughts and ideas are not allowed.  Stop complying. Stop the obedience.  None of the actions being asked of us by our government makes sense. 

Does anyone remember when Fauci originally told the American public that masks would make Covid worse?  He then changed his position weeks later.  Everyone is wearing masks yet the numbers are 'spiking'.  Nothing makes complete sense.  There are doctors and scientists on both sides of this thing but we only hear one side from the media.  This isn't right.  Censoring people like me isn't right. I'm not a troll, I'm an American who isn't willing to give away my freedom.  

https://www.#####ute.com/video/PqqvcxdCGJo9/

This again? Is there like a reminder in people's calendars that prompts them to post this video every two weeks or something? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 52.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • shader

    2388

  • Doug B

    2280

  • parasaurolophus

    1420

  • Terminalxylem

    1216

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

My dad has been sick for a few weeks.  My mom called me today to say he was about to die.  I said some final words to him and he could hear me but was unable to respond.  He passed a short time later.

Not to derail anything, but we had our baby last night! She's doing amazingly well. Due to the hospital's pandemic policies, I had to leave her right after my wife was released from recovery. I can't

On a positive note, my wife gave birth to our first child this morning!! We were expecting our daughter to be born in the first week of April, which does not align very well if this hospital sees a ma

57 minutes ago, Rhythmdoctor said:

I'll post this video again.  Saying something that goes against the mainstream narrative is not a crime and in fact is OUR RIGHT.  At the 5:30 mark you will hear Dr. Stella Immanuel talk about the 350 patients she treated and all of them are well.  Some in their 90s, some with asthma, some with high blood pressure. All lived.  There are other doctors taking too.  Her message: Nobody needs to die.  If you care about the truth, you will watch without bias.  Some of the greatest scientific discoveries were initially scoffed at and the scientists who made the discoveries were ridiculed and outcast.  Be wary of censorship.  Be wary of anyone telling you that your thoughts and ideas are not allowed.  Stop complying. Stop the obedience.  None of the actions being asked of us by our government makes sense. 

Does anyone remember when Fauci originally told the American public that masks would make Covid worse?  He then changed his position weeks later.  Everyone is wearing masks yet the numbers are 'spiking'.  Nothing makes complete sense.  There are doctors and scientists on both sides of this thing but we only hear one side from the media.  This isn't right.  Censoring people like me isn't right. I'm not a troll, I'm an American who isn't willing to give away my freedom.  

https://www.#####ute.com/video/PqqvcxdCGJo9/

Stella Immanuel

To put it nicely, she's a quack.  I'm sorry you listen to that and believe it.  I already responded earlier and explained that the physicians in these videos are either not true physicians or have lost their licenses.  They are conspiracy theorists.  They don't believe viruses exist.  They don't believe AIDS exists.  They believe in witches and demons.

None of it is true science.  Yes, there are doctors and scientists on both sides, as you stated.  However, for every 1 doctor/scientist on one side (i.e. this video), there are 99 on the other side.  There's a reason for that.  If you truly want to be educated on what's going on, stop believing the fringe minority conspiracy folks.

ETA -- More on that video

America's Frontline Doctors

But none of the most vocal members have practices that would place them on the actual front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic. Some don't currently practice at all.

Two of those appearing at the Monday event are ophthalmologists, one of whom is no longer licensed.

Edited by gianmarco
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

For those of us who are not medical researchers or otherwise working on the very front lines of covid-related knowledge discovery, it's almost certainly best to tentatively operate under the assumption that covid behaves like other viruses are known to behave.  Obviously we can always update our priors as new information comes in, but taking as our starting point "this virus is different and probably worse than all other viruses that have come before" is most likely going to (1) lead you to believe things that turn out to be wrong (most things are normal, few things are abnormal, and betting on "abnormal" out of the gate in the absence of any special information will lead to error most of the time), and (2) unnecessarily freak people out (covid is bad and scary enough to without making things up). 

At one point, we had people cooking their mail.  We still have people wiping down their groceries and getting anxious about taking walks outdoors.  At one point, there was a mini-freak out over people possibly getting re-infected with covid, which we now know is extraordinarily rare, like winning the world's worst lottery.  We want people taking sensible precautions.  We don't want to mentally traumatize people, and we don't want to put them in a situation where they throw their hands up and say "#### it" either.  

Covid is a "novel" coronavirus in the sense that it is a new virus that humans haven't been exposed to before.  It's not an alien virus.  It took a grand total of one weekend to create a 95% effective vaccine, because it's a virus and we have a pretty good idea of how to deal with viruses.

Avoid other people, wear a mask, wash your hands, and get vaccinated at the first opportunity.  Don't get yourself or others worked up over a hypothetical Captain Tripps mutation that probably isn't going to happen.

 

So good.

Another common sense thing they should do is give everyone antibody tests before they get the vaccine. If they have antibodies, they don’t need the vaccine.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, shader said:

So good.

Another common sense thing they should do is give everyone antibody tests before they get the vaccine. If they have antibodies, they don’t need the vaccine.  

 

This is not true.  You said this once before and I tried correcting you about it already.

Edited by gianmarco
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, gianmarco said:

There are different levels of need, though, particularly if you're talking about a resource that is currently very scarce.  I read your link, and I'm curious as to your thoughts on prioritizing people at the same level who have not been infected.  The first two doctors mention something to that effect, and it makes sense to me as a layman.  Maybe there's something I'm not considering though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, gianmarco said:

 The reason is that natural infection immunity seems to wear out after two to three months

I dont have issues with the reco to still get the vaccine. There doesnt seem to be any evidence it is harmful. 

But that doctor shouldnt be saying that. That just isnt true. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dr_Zaius said:

There are different levels of need, though, particularly if you're talking about a resource that is currently very scarce.  I read your link, and I'm curious as to your thoughts on prioritizing people at the same level who have not been infected.  The first two doctors mention something to that effect, and it makes sense to me as a layman.  Maybe there's something I'm not considering though.

There's a difference in bumping priority and saying "you don't need the vaccine".  I agree with waiting longer if you are positive for antibodies or had known Covid if it's a scarce resource where you are.

Edited by gianmarco
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gianmarco said:

Thanks for the opinions from a couple doctors.  I disagree. Does that doctor have proof that natural immunity wears out after 2-3 months?  If he doesn’t, he shouldn’t spread rumors.

The goal here is to be as effective as possible with the vaccine and end the pandemic. Thus far 1 million people in the USA have received it.  If we deprioritized the 18 million people that have already had it, those that really need it could get it sooner.

Then when all those that actually need it are done, those that should have immunity wearing off can get theirs if they want to.

At least that’s how I’d design it.

And I certainly wouldn’t take a vaccine away from someone else that actually needed it, if I’d already had covid. 

Edited by shader
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can’t believe there are doctors spreading the 2-3 month immunity crap.  How dumb do they think we are? When I express frustration with the medical industry it’s because of silliness like this. A quick google search shows how absurd that idea is.  As does common sense. 

Edited by shader
Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, a non-medical-professional, my plan would be to mirror the tiers of those who are prioritized to get the vaccine. The second set would be those who have already had Covid. Then you place the mirrored set, in the same respective order, under the first set in the pecking order. 

 

ETA: def wouldn't argue against bumping the frontline workers (COVID unit workers in particular) from set 2 up the heirarchy into the set 1 list

Edited by Nathan R. Jessep
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, shader said:

Thanks for the opinions from a couple doctors.  I disagree.

Dr. Stephen Blatt, medical director for infectious diseases at TriHealth.
Dr. Stephen Feagins, chief clinical officer, Mercy Health–Cincinnati.
Dr. Robert Frenck, principal investigator of the National Institutes of Health-sponsored Vaccine Treatment and Evaluation Unit, director of Gamble Vaccine Research Center. He's leading the COVID-19 vaccine trials at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center.
Dr. Thomas Lamarre, infectious disease specialist, The Christ Hospital.

vs.

Shader from FBGs

 

I think I'm going with the former here.  You specifically stated "If they have antibodies, they don’t need the vaccine."  So, if you're going to make that kind of statement, I'd like to see some data behind you making that assertion that directly contradicts those who are directly in the field and have expertise to make those decisions. 

Of note, at my institution, it is recommended we all receive the vaccine as well regardless of previous infection or positive antibodies.  Once again, that decision is made from input from experts in the field.  And considering the size of our institution and the number of people involved, that's not a decision made lightly and is surely determined by data they have reviewed.  I'm pretty sure that's the case most everywhere else as well.

Here is the relevant info shared with us:

26.  Do I need a vaccine if I’ve already had COVID-19?

Yes. It’s unclear how long immunity lasts after COVID-19 infection and it may vary from individual to individual. It is likely that vaccination will ensure more consistent immunity across the population of recipients

So you can disagree as much as you want but that is NOT the current recommendation and you should not be posting that recommendation as a matter of opinion without credentials and data to back it up.

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, shader said:

I can’t believe there are doctors spreading the 2-3 month immunity crap.  How dumb do they think we are? When I express frustration with the medical industry it’s because of silliness like this. A quick google search shows how absurd that idea is.  As does common sense. 

Study from less than 1 month ago showing significant decline in antibodies after 60 days

Now, how it actually affects natural immunity is still unknown, but there is actual basis behind those comments.  It's not an absurd idea. 

This was also seen back in July

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, gianmarco said:

Study from less than 1 month ago showing significant decline in antibodies after 60 days

Now, how it actually affects natural immunity is still unknown, but there is actual basis behind those comments.  It's not an absurd idea. 

I had thought that the antibodies in the blood were supposed to decrease within a few months -- that the idea of immunity is that your body's immune system would "remember" how to make those antibodies later if faced with the same virus.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, gianmarco said:

Dr. Stephen Blatt, medical director for infectious diseases at TriHealth.
Dr. Stephen Feagins, chief clinical officer, Mercy Health–Cincinnati.
Dr. Robert Frenck, principal investigator of the National Institutes of Health-sponsored Vaccine Treatment and Evaluation Unit, director of Gamble Vaccine Research Center. He's leading the COVID-19 vaccine trials at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center.
Dr. Thomas Lamarre, infectious disease specialist, The Christ Hospital.

vs.

Shader from FBGs

 

I think I'm going with the former here.  You specifically stated "If they have antibodies, they don’t need the vaccine."  So, if you're going to make that kind of statement, I'd like to see some data behind you making that assertion that directly contradicts those who are directly in the field and have expertise to make those decisions. 

Of note, at my institution, it is recommended we all receive the vaccine as well regardless of previous infection or positive antibodies.  Once again, that decision is made from input from experts in the field.  And considering the size of our institution and the number of people involved, that's not a decision made lightly and is surely determined by data they have reviewed.  I'm pretty sure that's the case most everywhere else as well.

Here is the relevant info shared with us:

26.  Do I need a vaccine if I’ve already had COVID-19?

Yes. It’s unclear how long immunity lasts after COVID-19 infection and it may vary from individual to individual. It is likely that vaccination will ensure more consistent immunity across the population of recipients

So you can disagree as much as you want but that is NOT the current recommendation and you should not be posting that recommendation as a matter of opinion without credentials and data to back it up.

Although I personally wouldn’t get a vaccine if I had it, I’m not trying to imply people shouldn’t. They should listen to their own doctors and make that decision on their own.  
 

But in terms of designing a vaccine plan, we shouldn’t be using vaccines on those that should have immunity, imo, until everyone else has received one.
 

And whether I should or shouldn’t be posting it is a bit silly. I’m a poster on a message board that no one is listening to when deciding what to do. For the record I’ve been super strict and cautious throughout this thread.

A medical professional saying that immunity probably lasts 2-3 months is a much bigger issue, imo.  Because that’s frankly just not how immunity works and I can’t find any studies that imply this is the case. On the contrary most online sources are showing quite the opposite. So that doctors analysis is likely flawed, so your appeal to authority arguments are falling flat without data to back them up.

Edited by shader
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Doug B said:

I had thought that the antibodies in the blood were supposed to decrease within a few months -- that the idea of immunity is that your body's immune system would "remember" how to make those antibodies later if faced with the same virus.

I haven't fully reviewed the literature on this, but from what I've seen in the past and looking through stuff a bit just now, antibodies are 1) falling faster than typically seen and 2) falling faster and/or lower levels for those with mild disease compared to those with more severe disease. 

And since the vast majority of people that have had Covid have had mild or no symptoms, it is potentially significant in terms of natural immunity.

That's why the caveat that is generally stated is "we have no idea how long immunity lasts".

I will agree that her statement that natural immunity falls after 2-3 months isn't quite accurate as far as we know now. I would like to think she misspoke about antibodies instead of getting it wrong by saying natural immunity.  But it doesn't invalidate everything stated there by the others.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, shader said:

But in terms of designing a vaccine plan, we shouldn’t be using vaccines on those that should have immunity, imo, until everyone else has received one.

You can keep repeating this if you like. But, it is not supported by the "medical community" as they are recommending those currently eligible to receive the vaccine to get it despite previous infection.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, gianmarco said:
25 minutes ago, Doug B said:

I had thought that the antibodies in the blood were supposed to decrease within a few months -- that the idea of immunity is that your body's immune system would "remember" how to make those antibodies later if faced with the same virus.

I haven't fully reviewed the literature on this, but from what I've seen in the past and looking through stuff a bit just now, antibodies are 1) falling faster than typically seen and 2) falling faster and/or lower levels for those with mild disease compared to those with more severe disease. 

I didn't make clear: My post in red above was meant to be general comment about human immune response to viruses in general, not necessarily COVID-19. For instance: I don't expect that I still have varicella-zoster virus antibodies in my blood right now, 40+ years after recovering from chickenpox. But if I were exposed today -- if my understanding is correct -- my immune system would still produce varicella-zoster virus antibodies in response.

I do understand that it is known that not all viral immunity is lifelong. However, wouldn't a viral immunity of just a few months be decidedly unusual?

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, gianmarco said:

You can keep repeating this if you like. But, it is not supported by the "medical community" as they are recommending those currently eligible to receive the vaccine to get it despite previous infection.

Which is my entire point.  This is a bad decision, imo, if it comes at the expense of those that definitely need it.

Edited by shader
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Doug B said:

I didn't make clear: My post in red above was meant to be general comment about human immune response to viruses in general, not necessarily COVID-19. For instance: I don't expect that I still have varicella-zoster virus antibodies in my blood right now, 40+ years after recovering from chickenpox. But if I were exposed today -- if my understanding is correct -- my immune system would still produce varicella-zoster virus antibodies in response.

I do understand that it is known that not all viral immunity is lifelong. However, wouldn't a viral immunity of just a few months be decidedly unusual?

If the immunity only lasted 2-3 months we would be seeing thousands of reinfections in the US alone. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, shader said:

Which is my entire point.  This is a bad decision, imo, if it comes at the expense of those that definitely need it.

Sigh.

So you think it's a bad decision and the hundreds and/or thousands of doctors (most of whom are specialists in immunology and infectious disease) across the country who have decided to give the vaccine to frontline workers regardless of previous infection somehow are ALL getting it wrong and they aren't smart enough to see what you are seeing? Or is it possible that they are making an informed decision based on data they are seeing and interpreting that you aren't able to appreciate?

That's a special kind of hubris.

Edited by gianmarco
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Doug B said:

I didn't make clear: My post in red above was meant to be general comment about human immune response to viruses in general, not necessarily COVID-19. For instance: I don't expect that I still have varicella-zoster virus antibodies in my blood right now, 40+ years after recovering from chickenpox. But if I were exposed today -- if my understanding is correct -- my immune system would still produce varicella-zoster virus antibodies in response.

I do understand that it is known that not all viral immunity is lifelong. However, wouldn't a viral immunity of just a few months be decidedly unusual?

Here's a good reading on it

I don't remember fully, but I think coronaviruses in general don't typically stimulate any kind of long lasting immunity. I don't know how Covid compares to other coronaviruses in general.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Don Hutson said:

 

Great summary article.

I'm sure part of the thinking behind vaccinating all front line workers regardless of previous infection has to do with the ability to still spread disease. There is hope the vaccine will be more effective in preventing that than current natural immunity. 

However, I'm sure there will still be some who view that as a bad decision, of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

For those of us who are not medical researchers or otherwise working on the very front lines of covid-related knowledge discovery, it's almost certainly best to tentatively operate under the assumption that covid behaves like other viruses are known to behave.  Obviously we can always update our priors as new information comes in, but taking as our starting point "this virus is different and probably worse than all other viruses that have come before" is most likely going to (1) lead you to believe things that turn out to be wrong (most things are normal, few things are abnormal, and betting on "abnormal" out of the gate in the absence of any special information will lead to error most of the time), and (2) unnecessarily freak people out (covid is bad and scary enough to without making things up). 

At one point, we had people cooking their mail.  We still have people wiping down their groceries and getting anxious about taking walks outdoors.  At one point, there was a mini-freak out over people possibly getting re-infected with covid, which we now know is extraordinarily rare, like winning the world's worst lottery.  We want people taking sensible precautions.  We don't want to mentally traumatize people, and we don't want to put them in a situation where they throw their hands up and say "#### it" either.  

Covid is a "novel" coronavirus in the sense that it is a new virus that humans haven't been exposed to before.  It's not an alien virus.  It took a grand total of one weekend to create a 95% effective vaccine, because it's a virus and we have a pretty good idea of how to deal with viruses.

Avoid other people, wear a mask, wash your hands, and get vaccinated at the first opportunity.  Don't get yourself or others worked up over a hypothetical Captain Tripps mutation that probably isn't going to happen.

 

This is a reasonable post, though parasaurolophus’ point is also valid. Somebody posted an article a long time ago that espoused the theory viruses tend to mutate over time to less virulent forms. This idea has been taken as gospel by some, though it’s hardly reassurance SARS-CoV-2 will become less deadly. While it makes sense for a virus to mutate to spread as efficiently as possibly and keep its hosts alive as long as they can facilitate spread, evolution isn’t that deterministic.

Mutations occur randomly, period. There are plenty of examples of viruses becoming worse in response to selective pressure, including the flu pandemic of 1918, and HIV following exposure to antiretroviral therapy. Moreover, a more contagious virus will infect larger swaths of the population more quickly, before effective treatments can be developed and vaccines administered. Even if an individual virus is 10% less deadly, infecting 70% more people will cause more deaths, and be far more likely to overwhelm our healthcare resources.

I don’t think anybody is suggesting covid is the worst possible virus, or advocating a move away from sensible precautions to maximize public health. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it’s reasonable to assume SARS-CoV-2 will behave like related viruses, but we also need extra vigilance and an open mind to the possibility it won’t.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to vaccine prioritization, there are a number of reasonable ways to do this.  Everyone seems to agree that front-line medical workers need to be vaccinated first, which makes a ton of sense.  After that, there are good arguments to be made for prioritizing the elderly, people with multiple co-morbidities, and other (non-medical) essential workers.  I'm pretty much okay with any of those, in whatever order.  Just pick something sensible and go with it.  For the rest of us, our job is to be okay with any sensible approach and not nitpick whatever gets adopted.  

This is easy for me to say because I'm going to be a little ways down the vaccine list no matter what.  I'll go ahead of the general public because I work in education, but I'm not going to land in any especially high-priority tier regardless.  In general, it's good to have a nice, clean demarcation between "high-priority" and "low-priority" folks to reduce the incentive to game the system, so I would argue in favor of something fairly simple and straightforward.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

With regard to vaccine prioritization, there are a number of reasonable ways to do this.  Everyone seems to agree that front-line medical workers need to be vaccinated first, which makes a ton of sense.  After that, there are good arguments to be made for prioritizing the elderly, people with multiple co-morbidities, and other (non-medical) essential workers.  I'm pretty much okay with any of those, in whatever order.  Just pick something sensible and go with it.  For the rest of us, our job is to be okay with any sensible approach and not nitpick whatever gets adopted.  

This is easy for me to say because I'm going to be a little ways down the vaccine list no matter what.  I'll go ahead of the general public because I work in education, but I'm not going to land in any especially high-priority tier regardless.  In general, it's good to have a nice, clean demarcation between "high-priority" and "low-priority" folks to reduce the incentive to game the system, so I would argue in favor of something fairly simple and straightforward.  

Seems right now age vs comorbidity vs. exposure risk is a hot button topic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gianmarco said:

Here's a good reading on it

I don't remember fully, but I think coronaviruses in general don't typically stimulate any kind of long lasting immunity. I don't know how Covid compares to other coronaviruses in general.

This is a good article. Thanks. That old study seems not too unlike the way the vaccine could possibly work. You might still get it, even spread it, but not get sick. That seemed pretty encouraging to me, actually for long term "immunity". 

Edited by parasaurolophus
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Don Hutson said:

good read!

money quote, to me:

Quote

 

But even if antibodies disappear, then the cells that manufacture them, called B cells, may still be around. B cells for Spanish Flu have been found in people 90 years after that pandemic.

If the same is true with Covid, then a second infection would be milder than the first.

 

Didn't know that about Spanish Flu, that's crazy. And awesome.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gianmarco said:

Sigh.

So you think it's a bad decision and the hundreds and/or thousands of doctors (most of whom are specialists in immunology and infectious disease) across the country who have decided to give the vaccine to frontline workers regardless of previous infection somehow are ALL getting it wrong and they aren't smart enough to see what you are seeing? Or is it possible that they are making an informed decision based on data they are seeing and interpreting that you aren't able to appreciate?

That's a special kind of hubris.

I was simply responding to IvanK, saying that a good "common sense" measure would be to first vaccinate those that have NOT had covid-19. 

If all frontline workers need the vaccine, I have no problem with that.  I wasn't really talking about them, never have I said frontline workers shouldn't get it, and I'm well aware that they are first up on the list.  To be honest, I'd imagine most front-line workers have already been vaccinated?   They are battling covid day in and day out. I wish you'd look at the context and figure out that I'm looking at a larger strategy of prioritizing who gets the vaccine, rather than rush to claim that my opinions are opposite of all those in the entire medical field, which is a little thing you seem to enjoy doing, and in this case is flat out not true..

Look, if there are plenty of vaccines to go around and most people aren't lining up to get them, then I suppose I don't really care who gets them.  But I suspect everyone and their brother want to get vaccinated as quickly as possible.  I know my family and I would absolutely love to get a vaccine, but we are way down the list.

The goal here should be to end the pandemic as quickly as possible and turn this into a manageable situation, which it currently is NOT.  The quickest way to do that, imo, is to vaccinate as many people as possible, as quickly as possible.  

There are good debates to be had between vaccinating the super spreading age group of 20-50, and vaccinating the elderly and those with co-morbidities first.  I've seen good arguments for both but heavily lean towards vaccinating everyone with a high risk of dying first.

My point was that (aside from frontline workers who we all agree need it asap) we should strike those that have already gotten covid-19 off the list for the first few months, as they are LIKELY to have immunity.  It just makes sense.

Edited by shader
Link to post
Share on other sites

Went and got tested today for travel to Alaska (you need a  negative test taken within 72 hours of flying there now if you're a non-resident).   Quick and painless.  No more stabbing you in the brain with a q-tip.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone explain to me why the nursing home/older folks are first to get the vaccine?

It seems to me that they are a group less likely to travel/shop/expose others and we should be protecting them from others - not therm other way around.  Maybe the generation below that would be better.  The ones taking care of or checking up on the older folks.

Then it would be easier to even break those down by comorbitities or whatever for priority.  Just feels like we are rushing to protect the most susceptible without consideration for most likely to be infected.  Technically, nursing homes should be free of the virus (although I've been in a few homes and I understand that's not the case).

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mr. Ham said:

Had this discussion. Wife’s sister is obese and had to face that fact in realizing through state guidelines that’s she’s Stage 2. My comment is good. She can deal with implications later. I don’t care about fairness. I care about immunizing the most likely to die if infected. Hope rollouts are quick, but we’re in this together. Think of this as if everyone were in your immediate family and you’re protective. 

Regarding the bolded, regardless of age?  Not trying to be a d, but obviously an 83 year old grandma with no health issues is probably still more likely to die than a 55 yo with pre-diabetes (not an m.d.).  

I know it sucks to consider and in no way am I going down the "death panel" road but in reality, 83 yo grandma should be more protected if she's in a home.  We know now that that may not be the case but why not immunize everyone/anyone that may bring it to her 1st?  Healthcare workers 1.   Responsible kin 2.  

Edited by SpurrierisisGod
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mr. Ham said:

We’re an irresponsible country. 83 yo grandma is exposed to MAGA kid and grandkids who claim they’re totally safe, but were on Grindr.

Lol @ MAGA kids on grindr. Unless the G doesn't stand for what what I thought it did...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SpurrierisisGod said:

Can someone explain to me why the nursing home/older folks are first to get the vaccine?

It seems to me that they are a group less likely to travel/shop/expose others and we should be protecting them from others - not therm other way around.  Maybe the generation below that would be better.  The ones taking care of or checking up on the older folks.

Then it would be easier to even break those down by comorbitities or whatever for priority.  Just feels like we are rushing to protect the most susceptible without consideration for most likely to be infected.  Technically, nursing homes should be free of the virus (although I've been in a few homes and I understand that's not the case).

From what I understand, they’re not certain that the vaccine prevents you from spreading it. Vaccines can either just stop you from getting sick from a virus, or they can stop you from getting sick AND also prevent you from spreading it to others. If the vaccines just stop you from getting sick but don’t stop you from spreading it, then vaccinating those most likely to spread it doesn’t actually protect anyone else.

I could be wrong though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, GroveDiesel said:

From what I understand, they’re not certain that the vaccine prevents you from spreading it. Vaccines can either just stop you from getting sick from a virus, or they can stop you from getting sick AND also prevent you from spreading it to others. If the vaccines just stop you from getting sick but don’t stop you from spreading it, then vaccinating those most likely to spread it doesn’t actually protect anyone else.

When you say "stop you from getting sick," you mean it only reduce symptoms rather than prevent you from contracting it? Because in my mind (non-medical obviously), if it stops you from contracting the virus, then there would be nothing to spread. Whereas if it still allows you to contract it but reduces the symptoms, then I can see still being able to spread it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SpurrierisisGod said:

Can someone explain to me why the nursing home/older folks are first to get the vaccine?

It seems to me that they are a group less likely to travel/shop/expose others and we should be protecting them from others - not therm other way around.  Maybe the generation below that would be better.  The ones taking care of or checking up on the older folks.

Then it would be easier to even break those down by comorbitities or whatever for priority.  Just feels like we are rushing to protect the most susceptible without consideration for most likely to be infected.  Technically, nursing homes should be free of the virus (although I've been in a few homes and I understand that's not the case).

So they don’t die?  There are two groups to vaccinate if you want to stop people from dying in such large numbers.  Those with co-morbidities and the elderly.  Knock those two groups out and the death rate plummets.

Edited by shader
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DallasDMac said:

When you say "stop you from getting sick," you mean it only reduce symptoms rather than prevent you from contracting it? Because in my mind (non-medical obviously), if it stops you from contracting the virus, then there would be nothing to spread. Whereas if it still allows you to contract it but reduces the symptoms, then I can see still being able to spread it.

From everything I’ve read, asymptomatic spread is far rarer than symptomatic spread.  So a vaccine that keeps you from getting sick should reduce your chances of spreading it, but not eliminate them.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know my neighbors somewhat. We help each other with home projects, watching each others homes, hang out for a beer around a fire every once in a while,say hi in the street etc....

I would not say any of us are super close.

So I hear a knock at the door and its my neighbors wife with a home made pie she made us for Christmas. She is unmasked and obviously pretty happy to be giving away pies. I did not know what to do. I did not want to open the second door to take the pie but I also didn't want to hurt anyones feelings. I ended up opening the second door and taking the pie at arms distance. I think I was sort of obvious that I did not want to be close to her without being to rude. In my mind I was kind of upset. WTF brings home made pies unmasked to their neighbors during a pandemic?

I feel like I have four days to not catch this before my vaccination and I was forced into risking my health for a pie.

I think she said it was a cream cheese pie and I am not sure what that is. I see its a graham cracker crust and a cherry topping. It weighs about 5 lbs!!!!

Do I serve it? Do I throw it out?

I have reservations about this pie which has been made worse by my recent viewing of Fargo.

* Several months ago her husband told me he thought all this was made up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, prosopis said:

I know my neighbors somewhat. We help each other with home projects, watching each others homes, hang out for a beer around a fire every once in a while,say hi in the street etc....

I would not say any of us are super close.

So I hear a knock at the door and its my neighbors wife with a home made pie she made us for Christmas. She is unmasked and obviously pretty happy to be giving away pies. I did not know what to do. I did not want to open the second door to take the pie but I also didn't want to hurt anyones feelings. I ended up opening the second door and taking the pie at arms distance. I think I was sort of obvious that I did not want to be close to her without being to rude. In my mind I was kind of upset. WTF brings home made pies unmasked to their neighbors during a pandemic?

I feel like I have four days to not catch this before my vaccination and I was forced into risking my health for a pie.

I think she said it was a cream cheese pie and I am not sure what that is. I see its a graham cracker crust and a cherry topping. It weighs about 5 lbs!!!!

Do I serve it? Do I throw it out?

I have reservations about this pie which has been made worse by my recent viewing of Fargo.

* Several months ago her husband told me he thought all this was made up.

Do you like pie? Do they have cats? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DallasDMac said:

When you say "stop you from getting sick," you mean it only reduce symptoms rather than prevent you from contracting it? Because in my mind (non-medical obviously), if it stops you from contracting the virus, then there would be nothing to spread. Whereas if it still allows you to contract it but reduces the symptoms, then I can see still being able to spread it.

I’m a moron so I don’t know the answer to any of this stuff. I do know that the crux of it was the center of some controversy this week when Nate Silver (and some other guys like Matt Yglesias) called out a bunch of epidemiologists with the CDC because he said their own data didn’t support their recommendation to prioritize not just the elderly, but frontline workers and minority groups. He said the data was clear that the elderly should be vaccinated first, and they pushed back saying that Silver was only assuming that the vaccine prevented illness instead of also preventing transmission. I’m still not sure who was right, but the very next day the CDC revised their recommendation to almost exactly what Silver was arguing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, prosopis said:

I know my neighbors somewhat. We help each other with home projects, watching each others homes, hang out for a beer around a fire every once in a while,say hi in the street etc....

I would not say any of us are super close.

So I hear a knock at the door and its my neighbors wife with a home made pie she made us for Christmas. She is unmasked and obviously pretty happy to be giving away pies. I did not know what to do. I did not want to open the second door to take the pie but I also didn't want to hurt anyones feelings. I ended up opening the second door and taking the pie at arms distance. I think I was sort of obvious that I did not want to be close to her without being to rude. In my mind I was kind of upset. WTF brings home made pies unmasked to their neighbors during a pandemic?

I feel like I have four days to not catch this before my vaccination and I was forced into risking my health for a pie.

I think she said it was a cream cheese pie and I am not sure what that is. I see its a graham cracker crust and a cherry topping. It weighs about 5 lbs!!!!

Do I serve it? Do I throw it out?

I have reservations about this pie which has been made worse by my recent viewing of Fargo.

* Several months ago her husband told me he thought all this was made up.

I’m guessing it’s basically a cheesecake pie. That means only the crust was probably baked. I think the risk is probably very low of transmission, but I would definitely assume that she exhaled droplets onto the top of that pie that were not then baked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...