COVID-19 Thread [V2.0]

[Machu Peach]

His wife was out for a weekend with friends and one of the friends informed them that she had COVID after the fact. When his wife tested positive, then he did a test and tested positive.

Didn't they originally say she got it from their nanny but now it's a friend? This is why anecdotes are so unreliable. It's impossible to know what really occurred.

 

Regardless, the articles I've read just talk in generalities about "should reduce" or "make it rare to spread", but don't quote any actual studies or evidence (sorry - I'm an engineer and critical thinker... Show me the numbers! [smile] ).

The studies are helpfully summarized here. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html

 

Notably, you will often see non-absolute language like "should reduce" or "make it rare to spread" in preliminary studies. Average peer review for a large study in a major journal is 2 years (and that's after all the data is collected, analyzed, and written up (a process that routinely takes over 5 years for these types of studies)), so expecting to see fully fleshed out, definitive studies on anything COVID related at this point is not realistic. Every study you've read to date would be considered preliminary

 

As pointed out several times in this thread, all data to date show an ~90% reduction in infections in vaccinated individuals (for the two mRNA vaccines). Would you agree that a if a person is not infected they are not going to spread disease? Thus, even with this very simple analysis, it is safe to say that vaccinated people are at least 90% less likely to spread disease?

 

Frankly, I expect to see the reduction, but find it a bit hypocritical that we suddenly unmask vaccinated people without being able to cite those studies (and after 6 months, I'd be surprised if we don't have something by now).

You've used the word "hypocritical" twice and I apologize, but I think I'm missing the point. Who do you think is hypocritical? What actions/advice are they doing/giving that are hypocritical?

[CheezWizHed]

His wife was out for a weekend with friends and one of the friends informed them that she had COVID after the fact. When his wife tested positive, then he did a test and tested positive.

Didn't they originally say she got it from their nanny but now it's a friend? This is why anecdotes are so unreliable. It's impossible to know what really occurred.

 

Imagine if you will a world where a couple's nanny is also their friend....[sarcasm]in the Twilight zone[/sarcasm]. They didn't suddenly change their story. His wife was out of town with their nanny and some other friends for the weekend.

 

Regardless, the articles I've read just talk in generalities about "should reduce" or "make it rare to spread", but don't quote any actual studies or evidence (sorry - I'm an engineer and critical thinker... Show me the numbers! [smile] ).

The studies are helpfully summarized here. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html

 

Notably, you will often see non-absolute language like "should reduce" or "make it rare to spread" in preliminary studies. Average peer review for a large study in a major journal is 2 years (and that's after all the data is collected, analyzed, and written up (a process that routinely takes over 5 years for these types of studies)), so expecting to see fully fleshed out, definitive studies on anything COVID related at this point is not realistic. Every study you've read to date would be considered preliminary

 

As pointed out several times in this thread, all data to date show an ~90% reduction in infections in vaccinated individuals (for the two mRNA vaccines). Would you agree that a if a person is not infected they are not going to spread disease? Thus, even with this very simple analysis, it is safe to say that vaccinated people are at least 90% less likely to spread disease?

 

Thanks for the link and the clarification for the studies. I figured if they can say it was 90% effective (on data less than 2 years old) that they could have actual data on its spread by vaccinated people (even prelim data) by now, but I guess not. It would be helpful if they did.

 

We are agreed that vaccinated people are X% (whatever the particular vaccine they used) less likely to spread the vaccine.

 

Would you agree that unmaking people when COVID rates are high is unsafe?

 

Frankly, I expect to see the reduction, but find it a bit hypocritical that we suddenly unmask vaccinated people without being able to cite those studies (and after 6 months, I'd be surprised if we don't have something by now).

You've used the word "hypocritical" twice and I apologize, but I think I'm missing the point. Who do you think is hypocritical? What actions/advice are they doing/giving that are hypocritical?

 

The hypocrisy can come direct from the CDC article you posted:

 

Modeling studies suggest that preventive measures such as mask use and social distancing will continue to be important during vaccine implementation. However, there are ways to take a balanced approach by allowing vaccinated people to resume some lower-risk activities.

vs this one:

Taking steps towards relaxing certain measures for vaccinated people may help improve COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake.

 

The hypocrisy is simple. The main reason for the reduction in masks is to gain acceptance of the vaccine, not reduction of the virus spread. That is manipulative.

 

Both masking and the vaccine are methods to reduce the spread of COVID. If the end goal was the eliminate or greatly reduce COVID spread (thus eliminating the deaths caused by it), the metrics of infection rates should be the determination on dropping masks. Both vaccines and mask wearing should speed us to that goal.

[MrTPlush]

Both vaccines and mask wearing should speed us to that goal.

 

Right, in a perfect world of responsible people. However, we are very far from that world.

 

The determination should be:

If saying people can unmask when fully vaccinated leads to increased vaccinations that outweigh the added infections from unmasked people....then we should say fully vaccinated people can unmask. It isn't about what, in theory, should reduce spread/infection. It should be what, in real world practice, will actually lead to the least amount of spread/infection.

 

Now will that actually lead to more vaccinations that outweigh increased infections from lack of masks? I would probably lean towards no because of the massive increase of non vaccinated people now unmasking because no one will ask them if they have actually been vaccinated.

[PeaveyFury]

Both vaccines and mask wearing should speed us to that goal.

 

Right, in a perfect world of responsible people. However, we are very far from that world.

 

The determination should be:

If saying people can unmask when fully vaccinated leads to increased vaccinations that outweigh the added infections from unmasked people....then we should say fully vaccinated people can unmask. It isn't about what, in theory, should reduce spread/infection. It should be what, in real world practice, will actually lead to the least amount of spread/infection.

 

Now will that actually lead to more vaccinations that outweigh increased infections from lack of masks? I would probably lean towards no because of the massive increase of non vaccinated people now unmasking because no one will ask them if they have actually been vaccinated.

 

I agree with all of this, save for the fact that your equation has to also account for the fact that many of those now unmasked, unvaccinated people were already unmasked in most situations.

[Machu Peach]

Didn't they originally say she got it from their nanny but now it's a friend? This is why anecdotes are so unreliable. It's impossible to know what really occurred.

Imagine if you will a world where a couple's nanny is also their friend....[sarcasm]in the Twilight zone[/sarcasm]. They didn't suddenly change their story. His wife was out of town with their nanny and some other friends for the weekend.

You'll have to forgive my confusion. "Out with friends" and "From my childcare provider" are very different types of interactions. I'm not sure that sarcasm adds much to an otherwise respectful discussion.

 

The studies are helpfully summarized here. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html

 

Notably, you will often see non-absolute language like "should reduce" or "make it rare to spread" in preliminary studies. Average peer review for a large study in a major journal is 2 years (and that's after all the data is collected, analyzed, and written up (a process that routinely takes over 5 years for these types of studies)), so expecting to see fully fleshed out, definitive studies on anything COVID related at this point is not realistic. Every study you've read to date would be considered preliminary

 

As pointed out several times in this thread, all data to date show an ~90% reduction in infections in vaccinated individuals (for the two mRNA vaccines). Would you agree that a if a person is not infected they are not going to spread disease? Thus, even with this very simple analysis, it is safe to say that vaccinated people are at least 90% less likely to spread disease?

Thanks for the link and the clarification for the studies. I figured if they can say it was 90% effective (on data less than 2 years old) that they could have actual data on its spread by vaccinated people (even prelim data) by now, but I guess not. It would be helpful if they did.

 

We are agreed that vaccinated people are X% (whatever the particular vaccine they used) less likely to spread the vaccine.

 

Would you agree that unmaking people when COVID rates are high is unsafe?

No, I disagree. Masks are unnecessary for vaccinated individuals and masking vaccinated people does little to nothing to improve safety. Claiming otherwise is greatly overestimating the efficacy of masks and greatly underestimating the efficacy of vaccination.

 

You've used the word "hypocritical" twice and I apologize, but I think I'm missing the point. Who do you think is hypocritical? What actions/advice are they doing/giving that are hypocritical?

The hypocrisy can come direct from the CDC article you posted:

Modeling studies suggest that preventive measures such as mask use and social distancing will continue to be important during vaccine implementation. However, there are ways to take a balanced approach by allowing vaccinated people to resume some lower-risk activities.

vs this one:

Taking steps towards relaxing certain measures for vaccinated people may help improve COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake.

The hypocrisy is simple. The main reason for the reduction in masks is to gain acceptance of the vaccine, not reduction of the virus spread. That is manipulative.

You claim it is the "main reason" yet the quote you cite only says "may help." Those are two very different things. Why do you feel it is the "main reason"?

 

I feel it is very important to state that "gain[ing] acceptance of the vaccine" is single most important thing that can be done to "[reduce] virus spread."

 

Furthermore, I must apologize again but I don't see how those two statements are in conflict with one another.

 

Both masking and the vaccine are methods to reduce the spread of COVID. If the end goal was the eliminate or greatly reduce COVID spread (thus eliminating the deaths caused by it), the metrics of infection rates should be the determination on dropping masks. Both vaccines and mask wearing should speed us to that goal.

With respect, the premise that masking vaccinated people will significantly further reduce viral spread is incorrect.

 

You're also ignoring human nature. If dropping the mask requirement for vaccinated individuals does actually increase vaccine acceptance by the general population the CDC should absolutely should be doing so. The vaccines are a highly effective method for greatly reducing or eliminating viral spread. Masks, at best, have a modest impact in comparison.

[CheezWizHed]

Didn't they originally say she got it from their nanny but now it's a friend? This is why anecdotes are so unreliable. It's impossible to know what really occurred.

Imagine if you will a world where a couple's nanny is also their friend....[sarcasm]in the Twilight zone[/sarcasm]. They didn't suddenly change their story. His wife was out of town with their nanny and some other friends for the weekend.

You'll have to forgive my confusion. "Out with friends" and "From my childcare provider" are very different types of interactions. I'm not sure that sarcasm adds much to an otherwise respectful discussion.

 

Go watch the beginning of any Twilight zone show and you will understand the sarcasm. I was mimicking the beginning line. Their nanny is also a friend of the family. It happens. The story didn't change.

 

For the rest. I agree to disagree.

[nodakfan17]

Apparently, ‘vaccine shopping’ is a thing and we’re all entitled.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/canada-covid19-vaccines-moderna-pfizer-vaccine-shopping-173906735.html

[jerichoholicninja]

Apparently, ‘vaccine shopping’ is a thing and we’re all entitled.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/canada-covid19-vaccines-moderna-pfizer-vaccine-shopping-173906735.html

 

"Leaders" and the media had to drive a wedge between people over quarantining or not last spring, then wearing masks or not, then getting the vaccine or not, so it only makes sense they had to find something else to make people hate each other over.

[homer]

Just as an aside....vaccines are really amazing. Science is cool.

[igor67]

They are one of my more favorite historical nuggets you can think about the next time you are grabbing $0.99 eggs at Kwik Trip is that this is only possible because of a vaccine, and the same scientist who developed that vaccine led the development of most of the commonly used childhood vaccines today, David Hilleman. The 1918 flu epidemic had a significant impact on his life.

[Machu Peach]

I assume you mean Maurice Hilleman, but yes he was an amazing individual. Most estimates credit his work and that of his colleagues with saving hundreds of millions of lives.

[igor67]

Yes I meant Maurice, my goodness. I used to be really good at names when I started teaching.

[Hopper]

Apparently, ‘vaccine shopping’ is a thing and we’re all entitled.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/canada-covid19-vaccines-moderna-pfizer-vaccine-shopping-173906735.html

 

"Leaders" and the media had to drive a wedge between people over quarantining or not last spring, then wearing masks or not, then getting the vaccine or not, so it only makes sense they had to find something else to make people hate each other over.

 

Interesting my response to this post was removed, but this one stayed.

Basically, I just agreed, yet mine was taken away.

I didn't realize censoring posts was a thing here.

[homer]

Apparently, ‘vaccine shopping’ is a thing and we’re all entitled.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/canada-covid19-vaccines-moderna-pfizer-vaccine-shopping-173906735.html

 

"Leaders" and the media had to drive a wedge between people over quarantining or not last spring, then wearing masks or not, then getting the vaccine or not, so it only makes sense they had to find something else to make people hate each other over.

 

Interesting my response to this post was removed, but this one stayed.

Basically, I just agreed, yet mine was taken away.

I didn't realize censoring posts was a thing here.

 

The original post had something to do with Covid. Yours had nothing to do with Covid.

[Hopper]

Mod edit: Stop posting about the thing you keep posting about. When we delete a post it's time to move on.

[MrTPlush]

So Krispy Kreme gives a free donut every day away so here me out:

 

Wisconsin partners with a beer company and gives a free beer away each day! 100% vaccinated!

 

Not sure if it should be in blue or not.

[LouisEly]

So Krispy Kreme gives a free donut every day away so here me out:

 

Wisconsin partners with a beer company and gives a free beer away each day! 100% vaccinated!

 

Not sure if it should be in blue or not.

Already offered by Sam Adams and Anheuser-Busch.

[RobertR]

So Krispy Kreme gives a free donut every day away so here me out:

 

Wisconsin partners with a beer company and gives a free beer away each day! 100% vaccinated!

 

Not sure if it should be in blue or not.

 

WOAH SOLVDD!

[jjgott]

 

Paul Sullivan

@PWSullivan

Jed hopes fans don’t judge unvaxxed Cubs who’ve “built up incredible equity in the community... and are making a personal choice they’re probably not going to choose to articulate to the fans. It would be a shame if fans decided to take all that equity and get rid of it.”

 

Have the Cubs reached the threshold where they can be more independent on road trips or are the stuck like teams were pre-vaccine?

[MrTPlush]

No they are below 85%, Rizzo is apart of the percentage holding them back.

[TURBO]

This might be a silly question, but it seems there are people here with answers.

 

I have been carpooling with a fellow teacher for about 20 minutes each day, each way, the last 6 or 7 school years. (Except for this year of course, we did not feel comfortable carpooling during covid)

 

My question is this:

 

I have been fully vaccinated. She has not, and has no plans to do so. That is her choice, so selfishly, if that is her choice, I can't be concerned for her.

 

My concern is for myself in this case. Am I safe driving in a car with an unvaccinated person for 20 mintes a day? (actually 40 minutes total)

 

My gut tells me to opt out of the carpooling for the next school year since she has chosen not to get the shots. Am I off base, or is it pretty risk free for me to start the carpool back up in the fall since I am vaccinated?

 

Thanks in advance!

[homer]

You should be totally fine if fully vaccinated. But....you can wear a mask and open the window and pretty much remove all doubt.

[TURBO]

You should be totally fine if fully vaccinated. But....you can wear a mask and open the window and pretty much remove all doubt.

 

yeah, I don't want to make it into a big deal with her. I think that would be worse than just not driving together. lol

[Fear The Chorizo]

This might be a silly question, but it seems there are people here with answers.

 

I have been carpooling with a fellow teacher for about 20 minutes each day, each way, the last 6 or 7 school years. (Except for this year of course, we did not feel comfortable carpooling during covid)

 

My question is this:

 

I have been fully vaccinated. She has not, and has no plans to do so. That is her choice, so selfishly, if that is her choice, I can't be concerned for her.

 

My concern is for myself in this case. Am I safe driving in a car with an unvaccinated person for 20 mintes a day? (actually 40 minutes total)

 

My gut tells me to opt out of the carpooling for the next school year since she has chosen not to get the shots. Am I off base, or is it pretty risk free for me to start the carpool back up in the fall since I am vaccinated?

 

Thanks in advance!

 

You were probably at a higher risk of dying in the daily 40 miles of car rides to/from school with your carpool partner all through 2019 than from covid 2020-2021, vaccinated or not. You're fully vaccinated, so don't worry about it - i'm sure she isn't. Also, ask yourself if you are just as worried sharing an indoor space for an entire school day with many more people who aren't vaccinated...or a grocery store...or anything else you do indoors. After that, stop worrying about who is and isn't jabbed yet.

 

For what its worth, both of my fully vaccinated parents have now had covid since they were arbitrarily deemed vaccinated - one was totally asymptomatic while the other had mild symptoms similar to an annoying sniffle. Anecdotal yes, but neither would have ever known they had covid if it weren't for contact tracing requests for them to get tested.

[igor67]

Risk-wise it seems to be pretty small for anything severe, it might be worth figuring out what your schools isolation policy is going to be in the fall for vaccinated individuals just to see if that might be a big inconvenience if she tests positive at some point.

 

In other news my 15 year old daughter completed shot 2 a couple of weeks ago no side affects beyond the standard slightly sore arm from a shot.