COVID-19 Thread [V2.0]

[jerichoholicninja]

What exactly does the percentage of positive tests show? If all those tested were randomly selected then there would be some statical relevance but that's not what's happening. There are large testing centers where every hypochondriac goes probably daily that skew those numbers to useless. I read that the WI National Guard testing centers are reaching 1,000,000 tests collected. How many of those people that they tested had any real reason to get tested other than misplaced fear and curiosity? The sample is not at all representative of the population. I'm not downplaying anything or saying there's a conspiracy I'm just confused as to why people get so fixated on this. It's bad statistical gathering so I don't know what exactly you can glean from the information.

[tmwiese55]

Because if it's high it shows there is very high likelihood there is many more in the community who haven't been tested. Essentially it shows there is a lot of positive tests (not good) and/or there is not even testing being done to find them all. It's getting at how widespread it is within a specific region and if testing is keeping up with the levels of transmission.

 

Simplest way is probably, if the % is high it means more testing should be done and within that testing you're going to find a lot more positives. And if all those extra positives are out there and not tested/aware it means they won't be isolated and can contribute to further spread. Of course there is some gaps in and some other variables to consider but it's one indicator to factor in when looking at trends. For a baseball metaphor, batting average or ERA aren't perfect stats but they're ones to factor into the overall picture along with many other things.

[Machu Peach]

What exactly does the percentage of positive tests show? If all those tested were randomly selected then there would be some statical relevance but that's not what's happening. There are large testing centers where every hypochondriac goes probably daily that skew those numbers to useless. I read that the WI National Guard testing centers are reaching 1,000,000 tests collected. How many of those people that they tested had any real reason to get tested other than misplaced fear and curiosity? The sample is not at all representative of the population. I'm not downplaying anything or saying there's a conspiracy I'm just confused as to why people get so fixated on this. It's bad statistical gathering so I don't know what exactly you can glean from the information.

I agree completely. It maybe says something about the testing protocols in place, but even with that it's flawed. From my point of view it's a largely useless statistic.

[Machu Peach]

https://www.fda.gov/media/144673/download

That second round of injections has yet to begin in the US, and there are murmurs that it may be pushed out further and/or lowering the amount of vaccine administered due to a combo of the uneven initial rollout, concerns over a couple highly transmissive COVID variants recently detected that are pushing health officials to recommend using the available vaccine supply to give more people a 1st injection, and concerns of how the side effect profile will look following the 2nd dose - particularly with elderly (80+) and immunocompromised groups of people once they start getting vaccinated in any significant numbers. The prelim data from the studies points to this approach still being pretty effective and better than nothing to provide significant immunity after just one dose, but this altered approach would essentially be a study of its own since the vaccine wouldn't get administered to the level the studies were based upon that led to them being approved for widespread public distribution. Another thing to keep in mind is study groups mirrored age and general health profiles of medical staff much more than nursing home residents/immunocompromised - as very few people over 80 or who would be deemed the most at risk to COVID were part of the test groups (similar to pretty much all initial vaccine studies to determine efficacy/tolerance).

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, however I believe you are saying that there are concerns about side effects with older people and the immunocompromised. The data include a 65+ cohort segregated from the 18-65 population. The trends seen there are similar, but reduced. This makes sense as immunity generally wanes with age. Thus one would generally expect a vaccine to have reduced efficacy with the elderly, and also to have reduced side effects.

 

The effects of vaccination on the immunocompromised would depend greatly on the exact nature of their immunodeficiency so it's hard to draw conclusions. I suspect that most people with severe immunodeficiencies would not be eligible for the vaccine.

[reillymcshane]

My wife (works for a healthcare system - hate to always say that, but I just like to qualify what I'm saying) said that physical reactions of people getting the vaccine have been - thus far - minimal. Some headaches and stuff like that - but nothing bad - and not for any extended period.

 

Most tier 1 people have been thrilled to get the vaccine - and more people want it. Which I find it encouraging.

 

I should note that in the initial surveys sent out to staff, there was a significant number of people who did not want to get the vaccine right away.

 

I stress right away because many do want to get it. But they are just wary about being the first in line. They want to see how others react - see how it works, etc.

 

I suspect that if the vaccine proves effective, many of these fence sitters will be happy to get their shot(s). Again, just my thoughts.

[FVBrewerFan]

My wife (works for a healthcare system - hate to always say that, but I just like to qualify what I'm saying) said that physical reactions of people getting the vaccine have been - thus far - minimal. Some headaches and stuff like that - but nothing bad - and not for any extended period.

 

Most tier 1 people have been thrilled to get the vaccine - and more people want it. Which I find it encouraging.

 

I should note that in the initial surveys sent out to staff, there was a significant number of people who did not want to get the vaccine right away.

 

I stress right away because many do want to get it. But they are just wary about being the first in line. They want to see how others react - see how it works, etc.

 

I suspect that if the vaccine proves effective, many of these fence sitters will be happy to get their shot(s). Again, just my thoughts.

 

 

Yea, plus what I heard from a lot of people working in medical facilities, they didn't want to get immunized right before Christmas. Not sure why you wouldn't want it when you had the chance, but that's what I heard.

[Brewers Numbers]

My wife works for a VA hospital. She got her first shot today so we will see what happens.

[CheezWizHed]

FWIW, a friend of mine is a nurse who is about (today?) get her second shot. She posted on facebook asking her friends about reactions to the second shot. She had about 6 people mentioning bad bad headaches, stay in bed for a day, etc.. in response. None were sad that they took the second shot, but there were plenty of people experiencing the effects.

[Brewers Numbers]

She had 1 coworker who had a reaction to the first shot (sick-in-bed for 3 days). We haven't heard of any other reactions. The roll-out is f'd up but that's how that VA runs.

[LouisEly]

I have a friend who is a first responder in Hawaii who got vaccinated on NYE. Said one day of headaches/chills/body aches/soreness around the injection site, but the next day totally fine.

[stoutdude04]

My buddy just got his 2nd shot today. I'll have to ask how hes feeling.

[Daubs]

My wife received her first shot on NYE and only had a sore arm. She's set to get her next shot in two weeks (Pfizer vaccine) and we'll see how she feels after that one.

[homer]

My wife received her first shot on NYE and only had a sore arm. She's set to get her next shot in two weeks (Pfizer vaccine) and we'll see how she feels after that one.

 

Same with my wife. She gets her 2nd one next Tuesday.

[igor67]

Some updated data

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/cdc-chance-anaphylaxis-covid-19-vaccine-11-in-1-million-exceedingly-rare-225522117.html

Given that out of almost 2 million people hundreds of thousands are still going to have a history of allergies, only 17 reactions is a pretty small risk. Worth being informed about and certainly monitoring for but mercifully quite low.

[AKCheesehead]

Here's a little anecdote re: masks.

 

I decided not to go to WI for Christmas this year. My parents still had my sister's family over. Everyone wore masks, distanced etc. On the 26th my nephew was feeling a little sick, so of course he had been contagious on the 25th. Predictably, in a couple days both of my parents tested positive too. Thankfully they didn't/don't have severe cases. They are pretty healthy people and also they have been very diligent about resting, fluids, vitamins and all that.

 

I'm not saying masks and distance don't help, but I don't think they help as much as one might want to believe.

[PeaveyFury]

I decided not to go to WI for Christmas this year. My parents still had my sister's family over. Everyone wore masks, distanced etc.

 

Did they eat/drink? Anecdotally, people I know that have gotten the virus and are 'diligent mask wearers' usually come to the realization that they knew the person they got it from, and realized that they wore their masks most of the time... except for when they were all around the kitchen table eating.

 

Not saying that it happened in your case, but my personal opinion is that a lot of spread is happening in those types of moments when you hear about family events as causes.

 

Glad to hear that your parents made it through ok.

[AKCheesehead]

Certainly. They did spread out at mealtime, not congregated all around the table like normal. I too suspect that may have been the culprit. Or, heck, maybe even from serving utensils for all I know. Or from doing the dishes which no doubt Mom and Dad did since I wasn't there. Or, maybe breathed right through one mask and into another, we'll never know. I do know that there's really not a safe way to get together. I wasn't willing to take the chance. And the hell of it is, the reason I wasn't willing to go is because I was afraid I might pick it up on a plane or in an airport and get my parents sick with it.

[Baldkin]

Certainly. They did spread out at mealtime, not congregated all around the table like normal. I too suspect that may have been the culprit. Or, heck, maybe even from serving utensils for all I know. Or from doing the dishes which no doubt Mom and Dad did since I wasn't there. Or, maybe breathed right through one mask and into another, we'll never know. I do know that there's really not a safe way to get together. I wasn't willing to take the chance. And the hell of it is, the reason I wasn't willing to go is because I was afraid I might pick it up on a plane or in an airport and get my parents sick with it.

 

It's an airborne virus, they were in the same house & rooms for extended periods of time and they had masks off for extended periods of time.

 

None of this is surprising at all.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

And the hell of it is, the reason I wasn't willing to go is because I was afraid I might pick it up on a plane or in an airport and get my parents sick with it.

 

You very likely would have contracted it at your parents' house, then got on the plane to go home. Then who knows?

[AKCheesehead]

Likely I would have gotten it, and I'd still be there waiting until 14 days were up and I was symptom free before I could travel back here. I don't think I'd have been on a plane with it because when I do visit for the holidays I generally leave to come back on NYE. I'd have known about it and cancelled flights by then. Of course that's all assuming it would have affected me the same as them and not hit me like a ton of bricks instead.

 

I'm so glad I had enough sense not to go. I'm sure in retrospect my family wishes they'd have not gotten together.

 

I'm very concerned about the folks in my area right now. Many of them are Russian Orthodox, which I don't really have much of an understanding of, but it's the beginning of the week of Slaaviq holiday for them. Typically that means all week long several different families host a feast each night and people go from house to house, lots of singing and it goes on all night. If they don't just completely scrap it this year it's going to be an absolute nightmare.

[CheezWizHed]

Masks are still only meant to lower the virus load. Being in a house multiple days with people, masks really aren't going to do much. Limited airflow over numerous days... you are better off just assuming you need to quarantine at that point.

[logan82]

I do know that there's really not a safe way to get together.

 

That is kind of what it boils down to. Masks and distancing are so we can get out and do some normal things. Any gathering of people for an extend amount of time is a roll of the dice hoping no one is there to pass it on.

[JosephC]

I do know that there's really not a safe way to get together.

 

That is kind of what it boils down to. Masks and distancing are so we can get out and do some normal things. Any gathering of people for an extend amount of time is a roll of the dice hoping no one is there to pass it on.

 

That's right. You guys just remember that piling into a house with all your relatives for a celebration is near insane risk that very well could have catastrophic results. However, if you pile into a workplace with a whole bunch of other people (from literally hundreds of different households if the workplace if big enough) then there is no risk because you are generating revenue to pay for some jerk's million dollar salary AND generating tax dollars for your elected leaders.

 

At least that's what the science says!

[PeaveyFury]

 

At least that's what the science says!

 

I’m assuming you have links to show that anyone is actually saying this?

[JosephC]

 

At least that's what the science says!

 

I’m assuming you have links to show that anyone is actually saying this?

 

What? I need a link to show that pretty much every government official, elected or appointed bureaucrat, is saying that getting together for a family gathering is a really bad idea. But on the other hand, there isn't one peep from them saying that piling into a workplace, with 100 people from 100 different households, could be a significant risk? I really need a link for that? Last night on the way home from work I drove past one of the local steakhouses and the parking lot was jammed packed. So if I get together with 15 relatives from 5 different households for a Christmas dinner, that is a completely unnecessary risk, but the 100 people from 50 different households that were in the steakhouse last night does not present an unnecessary public risk?

 

Best part is that the people who make up all these rules are the first people to ignore their own rules.

 

Now shut up and get back to work, we need that tax revenue and you need to generate that revenue to line the pockets of the fat cats!