COVID-19 Thread [V2.0]

[PeaveyFury]

If people actually choose not to get vaccinated to reduce their risk of severe symptomatic COVID, which is the strongest scientifically-based action they can take to protect themselves selfishly, people are going to then want to have indefinite and largely unenforceable mask/gathering restrictions many of those same folks won't adhere to anyway? Why not just get vaccinated and not worry about those that can't be persuaded to take advantage of it?

 

That's basically what's happening and going to happen further. They'll wait a reasonable amount of time now that everyone has the ability to receive the vaccine, then they'll continue to loosen guidelines and restrictions beyond that.

[homer]

One of the main reasons they aren't saying "If you're vaccinated, you can do whatever" is because they aren't 100% that you can't transmit the virus after vaccination. They're pretty sure you can't but not 100% sure. I don't know what peer review or additional research needs to happen for them to be 100% - or if not 100% at least confident enough to let people do their thing.

[Machu Peach]

By any reasonable standard it is safe to say that the risk of a fully vaccinated individual acquiring and then transmitting the virus to a new host is very low. Any health official that argues otherwise is just gaslighting at this point.

[homer]

By any reasonable standard it is safe to say that the risk of a fully vaccinated individual acquiring and then transmitting the virus to a new host is very low. Any health official that argues otherwise is just gaslighting at this point.

 

I am simply going off the latest from the CDC:

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated.html

 

- We know that COVID-19 vaccines are effective at preventing COVID-19 disease, especially severe illness and death.

- We’re still learning how effective the vaccines are against variants of the virus that causes COVID-19. Early data show the vaccines may work against some variants but could be less effective against others.

- We know that other prevention steps help stop the spread of COVID-19, and that these steps are still important, even as vaccines are being distributed.

- We’re still learning how well COVID-19 vaccines keep people from spreading the disease.

- Early data show that the vaccines may help keep people from spreading COVID-19, but we are learning more as more people get vaccinated.

- We’re still learning how long COVID-19 vaccines can protect people.

 

Until we know more about those questions, everyone—even people who’ve had their vaccines—should continue taking steps to protect themselves and others when recommended.

 

Background Rationale (from April 2):

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html

[Machu Peach]

Yea, I can see why one would trust the CDC's summary/recommendations over a random person on the internet. However, the data in links in the background rational show a greatly reduced risk of vaccinated individuals spreading disease. The CDC summary does not match the data.

 

Addendum:

I guess these statements are technically correct, but they are somewhat misleading. The question is not if the vaccines reduce spread of the disease, but how much they reduce the spread. The answer is between "a lot" or "almost all."

"- We’re still learning how well COVID-19 vaccines keep people from spreading the disease.

- Early data show that the vaccines may help keep people from spreading COVID-19, but we are learning more as more people get vaccinated."

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Yea, I can see why one would trust the CDC's summary/recommendations over a random person on the internet. However, the data in links in the background rational show a greatly reduced risk of vaccinated individuals spreading disease. The CDC summary does not match the data.

 

Addendum:

I guess these statements are technically correct, but they are somewhat misleading. The question is not if the vaccines reduce spread of the disease, but how much they reduce the spread. The answer is between "a lot" or "almost all."

"- We’re still learning how well COVID-19 vaccines keep people from spreading the disease.

- Early data show that the vaccines may help keep people from spreading COVID-19, but we are learning more as more people get vaccinated."

 

This really isn't surprising, though. Basically the whole point of the CDC is to err on the side of caution. I think at this point they go out of their way to be very conservative (the word, not the political leaning) in their recommendations, knowing a large portion of the population is already going to either toe the line, gradually take larger steps over the line, or ignore the line completely.

[homer]

For the record, I am supremely confident that a vaccinated person does not spread and I look forward to my 2nd shot on Friday.

[Outlander]

The CDC is in a tough spot because once they say vaccinated people don't have to wear masks then that is pretty much the end of mask wearing. I really hope a kids vaccine come soon.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

The CDC is in a tough spot because once they say vaccinated people don't have to wear masks then that is pretty much the end of mask wearing. I really hope a kids vaccine come soon.

 

OK, but so what? The Venn diagram of people vaccinated by, say, June 1, and people who actually wear a mask, is a circle. The rest of the folks are probably staunchly opposed to getting a vaccine and never going to get it, and also already refusing to wear a mask.

 

In my view, the "still distance and wear a mask after you're fully vaccinated" isn't really helping anything. You at least have a chance to persuade people to get the shot if they think it's going to change something. The messaging right now is that it changes very little for you. What kind of incentive is that?

 

Also, you can bet good money that whatever reluctance there is for adults getting vaccinated, multiply that by about 50 for children. With whatever vaccine there is, there will be a ton of kids not getting it. I'm trying to be as kind as possible with this part, but I don't know what anyone thinks we're achieving with masks at this point. Almost any place they are required is incredibly lax with enforcement. I am really, really skeptical that they are doing absolutely anything at this stage of the game.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

The CDC is in a tough spot because once they say vaccinated people don't have to wear masks then that is pretty much the end of mask wearing. I really hope a kids vaccine come soon.

 

In my experience, the anti-vax crowd and the anti-mask crowd are pretty much one in the same. They are already ignoring pretty much everything the CDC says.

[Machu Peach]

Since the start of the pandemic, the number of kids under 18 dying from COVID isn't much higher than that of influenza (with a bizarrely mild flu season). https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#SexAndAge

[PeaveyFury]

I think there's additional concern regarding the significant increase in transmission to children from the British variant. Even if the death rate remains the same, numerically there will be additional children's deaths vs. the original strain.

[igor67]

This is not a disagreement with anyone, more of a deliberate topic shift. Especially with younger people death probably really isn't the most important drawback to Covid. As we wind down the school year with all that entails I would be very worried about how a relatively normal bout of symptomatic covid can easily push students into failing a course. In normal years the big marker in education is students who miss more than 2 days/ month are dramatically more likely to fail. A 2 week bout of covid where they are just sick enough they can't really do school is more than half the total days they can miss for the year, all concentrated at the end. All kinds of individual students could pull that off, but as a group that is a real negative and frankly all the spiraling effects that tends to have on students going forward.

For the 20 something crowd how many of them can really afford to again just miss 2 weeks of work? Probably a fair number, but knowing the statistics and reality of just getting started in the job market it has the potential to have a rather nasty hang over on long term wealth.

[Hopper]

Why is it acceptable terminology to call the "British variant" the BRITISH variant?

It is considered poor taste to call COVID the "Chinese Virus," or mention China in any way connected to the virus, yet it seems perfectly fine to label it British when talking about the variant.

Or what about the South African variant?

Same thing.

I don't understand the difference.

Are the British up in arms being attached to the variant?

Are the South Africans upset?

[homer]

Why is it acceptable terminology to call the "British variant" the BRITISH variant?

It is considered poor taste to call COVID the "Chinese Virus," or mention China in any way connected to the virus, yet it seems perfectly fine to label it British when talking about the variant.

Or what about the South African variant?

Same thing.

I don't understand the difference.

Are the British up in arms being attached to the variant?

Are the South Africans upset?

 

Probably should not refer to them that way. CDC calls them B.1.1.7, B.1.351 etc. and so do the epidemiologists I work with.

[PeaveyFury]

Since that was clearly meant as a response to my post, I'll note that it was used in this context to easily identify which variant is of concern in that respect in a conversational way. From a scientific standpoint, homer has identified the actual naming convention being used. Until there's a universally understood identifier ala COVID19 to identify each strain, I find it easier to identify which strain I was referring to by origin. Clearly, no offense intended to the fine folks in the British Isles. Which I'm not sure is entirely accurate in your comparative.

[Hopper]

Wasn't meant as a criticism or attack in any way.

Was a serious question.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Why is it acceptable terminology to call the "British variant" the BRITISH variant?

It is considered poor taste to call COVID the "Chinese Virus," or mention China in any way connected to the virus, yet it seems perfectly fine to label it British when talking about the variant.

Or what about the South African variant?

Same thing.

I don't understand the difference.

Are the British up in arms being attached to the variant?

Are the South Africans upset?

 

I think in the end it all comes down to context. Typically when COVID has been referred to as the "Chinese Virus", or other terms like "China Flu" or the despicable "Kung Flu", it was said in an insulting and purposely derogatory manner. I haven't seen those referring to the variant origins from Great Britain or South Africa use that terminology in the same mocking, insulting manner, though.

[PeaveyFury]

Wasn't meant as a criticism or attack in any way.

Was a serious question.

 

That's fair enough. My response remains the same though- it's a quick conversational way to identify the variant, with no malice intended. If they had called it something like 'COVID19-B' instead of the very scientific B.1.1.7, it would probably be used more than 'British variant'.

[MrTPlush]

Allowing vaccinated people to not wear a mask is a free pass for the anti-mask (and probably anti-vaccine crowd) to not wear their mask. I mean think about it, are you going to have a vaccine card checker at Walmart like you are getting into a movie?

I specifically stated that I don't see a scientific justification. I did not comment on social, political, or enforcement justifications.

 

I also did not quote your post nor refer to your post. It was not in response to you.

[Machu Peach]

Allowing vaccinated people to not wear a mask is a free pass for the anti-mask (and probably anti-vaccine crowd) to not wear their mask. I mean think about it, are you going to have a vaccine card checker at Walmart like you are getting into a movie?

I specifically stated that I don't see a scientific justification. I did not comment on social, political, or enforcement justifications.

 

I also did not quote your post nor refer to your post. It was not in response to you.

My apologies, people occasionally response to the post immediately before them without quoting and I was mistaken.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Nobody needs a pass to be mask-free. They are already doing that. The CDC is like a United Nations of viruses. They just say stuff and the only people listening are the ones who don't need to.

[reillymcshane]

Had my 2nd dose of Pfizer yesterday. Went better than the first. Very mild soreness in the arm - gone within 24 hours. A little fatigue. I even spent two hours working in the yard this morning. Took an hour nap after that - but that's the extent of any side effects for me.

 

Good to be done with it for now.

 

Looks like I'll need another shot in a year - but that's for later...

[Thurston Fluff]

Nobody needs a pass to be mask-free. They are already doing that. The CDC is like a United Nations of viruses. They just say stuff and the only people listening are the ones who don't need to.

 

It does give cover for businesses and people who want to do the right thing. Nobody complains too much if you just say your following CDC guidelines. Well nobody is an overstatement. There are buttheads but there is little anyone can do about them.

It's also something one can go to for accurate up to date advice. They also have a lot of good advice on how to safely reopen and signs you can copy for your business. Basically it's a good tool to have at your disposal. But you're right it's not legally binding.

[homer]

Had my 2nd dose of Pfizer yesterday. Went better than the first. Very mild soreness in the arm - gone within 24 hours. A little fatigue. I even spent two hours working in the yard this morning. Took an hour nap after that - but that's the extent of any side effects for me.

 

Good to be done with it for now.

 

Looks like I'll need another shot in a year - but that's for later...

 

I had my 2nd on Friday. Sore arm but that went away with Tylenol. The lymph nodes on one side of my neck became pretty tender yesterday evening and into today. But that's more annoying than debilitating.