Covid II: Medical Info and Implications

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

So, that debunks all the other studies?

No, but it implies to me the other studies could be quite weak if they thought they were helping their argument by including it. They include three studies, one isn’t even a study and is a lacking credibility video. That is sloppy work.  They have demonstrated we shouldn’t take their word for anything given they misrepresented their reference. 

Edited December 17, 2020 by Calm

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

What are those? Stage one treatments are vital for preventing hospitalization. Regeneron is stage one. What others do average people have access to? Regeneron has a limited supply.

if you’re 70 or high risk and get Covid, what will the doctors do for you immediately? Are we still waiting for people to get really sick before we treat.

 

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapeutic-management/

The drugs Regeneron supplies are in there. The Regeneron therapeutics have shown signs of helping and are available but back in October they had an issue in their trials where they had to stop giving it to critically ill patients due to safety concerns. The data is still pending on them. As of right now they are available but are recommended to be used only in non-hospitalized cases where it is believed the disease has a high probability of getting much worse.

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

So, that debunks all the other studies?

If it is the largest and most comprehensive study? Yes. The early studies were too small to draw conclusions. When you only use 20 people (one of the early ones) the risk of random results makes the study very dubious.

[pogi]

We can't trust the AMA, we can't trust the CDC, we can't trust the FDA, We can't trust the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, but we should trust politicians and right-wing media sources with our health care recommendations?  Which is more likely to be playing politics with your health here?  

Do you think the AMA considered the evidence on both sides before making their recommendation?  Of course there are going to be dissenting opinions with different doctors and studies.  What else is new?  I place my trust in the consensus of the experts whose job it is to weigh these things.  They may not always be perfect in what they do, and their recommendations may evolve with time and evidence, but it is the safest approach to medicine that we have.  

[Thinking]

If I understand the news reports correctly, as an educator in Utah, I am designated as an essential worker and will be one of the first to receive the vaccine after the health care workers. Having had Covid-19 already I wonder if I could defer until later and allow somebody else to move up in line? If everybody who has had Covid-19 and gave up their place in line, a lot of people could move up and get the vaccine earlier.

FWIW: I don't consider myself to be anymore essential than any other worker. I have hated that designation from the beginning of the pandemic. IMO all businesses/workers are essential.

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

If it is the largest and most comprehensive study? Yes. The early studies were too small to draw conclusions. When you only use 20 people (one of the early ones) the risk of random results makes the study very dubious.

Again this study was in sick, hospitalized patients.

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, Thinking said:

If I understand the news reports correctly, as an educator in Utah, I am designated as an essential worker and will be one of the first to receive the vaccine after the health care workers. Having had Covid-19 already I wonder if I could defer until later and allow somebody else to move up in line? If everybody who has had Covid-19 and gave up their place in line, a lot of people could move up and get the vaccine earlier.

FWIW: I don't consider myself to be anymore essential than any other worker. I have hated that designation from the beginning of the pandemic. IMO all businesses/workers are essential.

Do people who just had it and recovered need to have the vaccine? Isn't catching and recovering the best form of vaccine there is? Yet another counter-intuitive contradiction with this. 

As the goalposts have moved, the ultimate end was supposed to be "This will all go away when there's a vaccine . . ."

I'm not volunteering for a vaccine, and I hope they aren't required for teachers in Arizona. People who really want it are more than welcome to take my spot in line.
 

[The Nehor]

24 minutes ago, Thinking said:

If I understand the news reports correctly, as an educator in Utah, I am designated as an essential worker and will be one of the first to receive the vaccine after the health care workers. Having had Covid-19 already I wonder if I could defer until later and allow somebody else to move up in line? If everybody who has had Covid-19 and gave up their place in line, a lot of people could move up and get the vaccine earlier.

FWIW: I don't consider myself to be anymore essential than any other worker. I have hated that designation from the beginning of the pandemic. IMO all businesses/workers are essential.

As of right now vaccine distribution is being done on a state by state basis. There are some advantages and disadvantages to this approach but the guidelines coming from federal agencies are only recommendations. If your state government decides to give them all to zoo animals to see what happens that will be what happens. If your state has made that decision you will have to wait for them to contact you. It will probably be a while.

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

Do people who just had it and recovered need to have the vaccine? Isn't catching and recovering the best form of vaccine there is? Yet another counter-intuitive contradiction with this. 

As the goalposts have moved, the ultimate end was supposed to be "This will all go away when there's a vaccine . . ."

I'm not volunteering for a vaccine, and I hope they aren't required for teachers in Arizona. People who really want it are more than welcome to take my spot in line.
 

We don't know. The longest anyone has ever gone after a case is just over a year. We don't know for sure how long immunity will last. If it doesn't last there will probably be boosters. Something like tetanus where you get it once a decade or longer or shorter. We can say that it is likely that post-infection immunity almost always lasts at least 5-7 months based on statistical studies. There may be differences based on age or severity of the infection.

[The Nehor]

28 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Again this study was in sick, hospitalized patients.

Those studies also showed no statistically significant benefit. Why are you holding on to this one drug so desperately? It doesn't seem to help. Doing more studies just means fewer studies of stuff that might actually help.

Or is this really about prominent people recklessly guessing that it would help?

Edited December 17, 2020 by The Nehor

[strappinglad]

HIV is treated with a cocktail of several drugs. Do these studies about hydroxycl just look at the effectiveness of that one drug alone or do they look at the combination of hydroxycl and zinc or others ? 

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

We don't know. The longest anyone has ever gone after a case is just over a year. We don't know for sure how long immunity will last. If it doesn't last there will probably be boosters. Something like tetanus where you get it once a decade or longer or shorter. We can say that it is likely that post-infection immunity almost always lasts at least 5-7 months based on statistical studies. There may be differences based on age or severity of the infection.

We need to add another verse to "If You Could Hie to Kolob" in the new hymn book. And yes, "Hie to Kolob" is staying.

"There is no end to Covid, there is no end to masks

There is no end to shutdowns, there is no point to vax*

Do you think that you could ever, through all eternity

Have things go back the way they used to be?"

---

*I don't think there is no point to the vaccine. It's just the closest rhyme I could think of for masks.  

Seriously, though. We don't shut down everything and have 98% of schools spend semesters online, and require masks everywhere, and have all sports, concerts, plays, movies, etc. completely restricted for the flu. Now that the vaccine is here, are we seriously looking at the same thing we've done this year, but with frequent booster shots that may or may not work for long periods of time (as a coronavirus, the odds are strong that it won't surpass the flu vaccines that are tweaked every year). And then, yesterday, they were saying that since we still don't know if vaccinated people just don't have symptoms but can still transmit, all mitigation measures are still going to have to be in place until 2022, even if herd immunity levels through vaccination are reached. 

There is literally no end to the societal restrictions. We're going to be "flattening the curve" forever and ever, even with a vaccine. A vaccine that people are going to have to have every year or multiple times a year. 

[pogi]

42 minutes ago, rongo said:

Do people who just had it and recovered need to have the vaccine? Isn't catching and recovering the best form of vaccine there is? Yet another counter-intuitive contradiction with this. 

As the goalposts have moved, the ultimate end was supposed to be "This will all go away when there's a vaccine . . ."

I'm not volunteering for a vaccine, and I hope they aren't required for teachers in Arizona. People who really want it are more than welcome to take my spot in line.
 

Natural immunity is not always more effective than vaccination.  There are notable examples where vaccines are better like HPV, Tetanus, Hib, and Pneumococcal -  and natural immunity is certainly not safer than a vaccine. 

I just received training on this this morning.  Because there is evidence of reinfections after 3 months, the recommendation will be for people to wait 90 days to be vaccinated after infection.  No one will force you to be vaccinated.  

In terms of the vaccine ending the pandemic, it is just one tool.  So far, it is our greatest hope.  If we can get the majority of the population vaccinated (thought to be around 70% by the CDC) we may reach herd immunity and numbers will go down dramatically, not necessarily disappear. 

About the vaccine, what we don't know yet is if the vaccine prevents infection or if it just prevents morbidity.  In other words, people may still be infectious after vaccination - just like an asymptomatic carrier.  If that is the case, the vaccine is not going to just make things go away.  What it will do however is protect the most vulnerable and the rest of us will either reach herd immunity from vaccination or natural immunity.  

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

If I understand the news reports correctly, as an educator in Utah, I am designated as an essential worker and will be one of the first to receive the vaccine after the health care workers. Having had Covid-19 already I wonder if I could defer until later and allow somebody else to move up in line? If everybody who has had Covid-19 and gave up their place in line, a lot of people could move up and get the vaccine earlier.

FWIW: I don't consider myself to be anymore essential than any other worker. I have hated that designation from the beginning of the pandemic. IMO all businesses/workers are essential.

You can defer if you want.  No essential worker will be forced to be vaccinated, they will just be first, well second, or third, in line if they want it. 

[rongo]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

In terms of the vaccine ending the pandemic, it is just one tool.  So far, it is our greatest hope.  If we can get the majority of the population vaccinated (thought to be around 70% by the CDC) we may reach herd immunity and numbers will go down dramatically, not necessarily disappear. 

So, let's say that happens. Covid is endemic and always with us, and people still come down with it, and some are even hospitalized and even die (like has happened with the flu, forever). Will there be sports, plays, concerts, school, travel, etc. without masks, restrictions, etc.? Or, will the fact that numbers "go down dramatically, but don't necessarily disappear" mean that we still will need to try to make sure no virus every gets transmitted ever, worlds without end? Will schools still have ridiculous quarantine protocols for potential exposure? I mean, they could take it to a vulnerable family member or something. 

[pogi]

27 minutes ago, rongo said:

So, let's say that happens. Covid is endemic and always with us, and people still come down with it, and some are even hospitalized and even die (like has happened with the flu, forever). Will there be sports, plays, concerts, school, travel, etc. without masks, restrictions, etc.? Or, will the fact that numbers "go down dramatically, but don't necessarily disappear" mean that we still will need to try to make sure no virus every gets transmitted ever, worlds without end? Will schools still have ridiculous quarantine protocols for potential exposure? I mean, they could take it to a vulnerable family member or something. 

There is absolutely no reason to worry about those "worlds without end".   We have lived with endemic diseases forever.  We don't restrict school and travel (I'd be out of a job!) because people get sick and die from mostly well controlled endemic diseases.  34,000 people died from the flu last season and we didn't have any closures etc.   Compare that to the 300,000+ and counting that have died from Covid in under 1 year.  It is estimated that around 10% of the population has been infected so far.  If every 10% = 300,000 deaths, without strict measures we would reach 2.1 million deaths by the time we reach 70% of the population infected (which would be around the point of herd immunity).  That is the reason for the masks and closures, etc.    

I certainly think there will be a heightened awareness and precaution with infectious disease in the public after this (that will be a good thing) with many continuing to wear masks, etc, but there is no reason to believe that mandates and closures will remain once the pandemic has ended and herd immunity is reached.  You would find me protesting in the streets if that was the case. 

Edited December 17, 2020 by pogi

[The Nehor]

22 minutes ago, rongo said:

We need to add another verse to "If You Could Hie to Kolob" in the new hymn book. And yes, "Hie to Kolob" is staying.

"There is no end to Covid, there is no end to masks

There is no end to shutdowns, there is no point to vax*

Do you think that you could ever, through all eternity

Have things go back the way they used to be?"

---

*I don't think there is no point to the vaccine. It's just the closest rhyme I could think of for masks.  

Seriously, though. We don't shut down everything and have 98% of schools spend semesters online, and require masks everywhere, and have all sports, concerts, plays, movies, etc. completely restricted for the flu. Now that the vaccine is here, are we seriously looking at the same thing we've done this year, but with frequent booster shots that may or may not work for long periods of time (as a coronavirus, the odds are strong that it won't surpass the flu vaccines that are tweaked every year). And then, yesterday, they were saying that since we still don't know if vaccinated people just don't have symptoms but can still transmit, all mitigation measures are still going to have to be in place until 2022, even if herd immunity levels through vaccination are reached. 

There is literally no end to the societal restrictions. We're going to be "flattening the curve" forever and ever, even with a vaccine. A vaccine that people are going to have to have every year or multiple times a year. 

No, I think that by late 2021 most people will be vaccinated that are willing to be. We might have to keep vaccinating every few years for a while or (hopefully) the vaccine will be found to last or we can develop one that will.  They are probably right that masks will be a thing until late next year. Schools will probably all be completely open Fall of next year in the US.

"Flattening the curve" is about making sure ICUs are not being overwhelmed....like they are about to get right now. We are at a 9/11 death toll from this every day now. I remember how many people were afraid to go out after 9/11 happened once. If flattening the curve is perpetually an issue we have a much larger concern than whether we can go to a football game.

The complaining will never cease either. We are so whiny. Can you imagine this generation coping with World War II rationing and blackout restrictions? It lasts as long as it lasts. So many are like kids in the back of the car: "ARE WE THERE YET?" We will get there when we get there. No one is enjoying these restrictions. They are not fun. They are obnoxious. They keep us from doing stuff we want to do. They are also necessary to prevent unnecessary deaths.

It will end. We even have apostolic promises about that. It won't go back exactly to the way it was because we aren't the same people we were but we are not going to wear masks forever or never be able to go to a concert or restaurant again. I admit I do hope we culturally keep the South Korean practice of wearing a mask if you have the flu and have to go outdoors.

 

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

You can defer if you want.  No essential worker will be forced to be vaccinated, they will just be first, well second, or third, in line if they want it. 

This is also true. Though Supreme Court precedent does allow the government to require mandatory vaccinations no leaders I know of are aggressively pushing for it. It will likely be a required thing to go to public school at some point in the same way getting a measles vaccination often is. Military service will probably require it as well. I am concerned that enough people will refuse the vaccine that vaccine herd immunity will be impossible. That could make this last longer.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

You would find me protesting in the streets if that was the case. 

I will bring the signs.

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This is also true. Though Supreme Court precedent does allow the government to require mandatory vaccinations no leaders I know of are aggressively pushing for it. It will likely be a required thing to go to public school at some point in the same way getting a measles vaccination often is. Military service will probably require it as well. I am concerned that enough people will refuse the vaccine that vaccine herd immunity will be impossible. That could make this last longer.

That's right.  Even school "requirements" like measles vaccines are usually pretty easy to get around in most states.  All 50 states currently allow for medical/religious/philosophical/personal exemptions of vaccines.  The only truly compulsory vaccine that ever existed (as far as I am aware) was the small pox vaccine.  That also happens to be the only disease that we have eradicated through vaccination.  Go figure!  I personally am against compulsory medical interventions however.  I strongly uphold the medical ethic of informed consent.  There may be extreme and rare exceptions to that rule, however. 

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

That's right.  Even school "requirements" like measles vaccines are usually pretty easy to get around in most states.  All 50 states currently allow for medical/religious/philosophical/personal exemptions of vaccines.  The only truly compulsory vaccine that ever existed (as far as I am aware) was the small pox vaccine.  That also happens to be the only disease that we have eradicated through vaccination.  Go figure!  I personally am against compulsory medical interventions however.  I strongly uphold the medical ethic of informed consent.  There may be extreme and rare exceptions to that rule, however. 

The Supreme Court precedent was on a smallpox vaccination case. We may have polio gone soon too. I really hope the current situation doesn't cost us that.

[bsjkki]

42 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Those studies also showed no statistically significant benefit. Why are you holding on to this one drug so desperately? It doesn't seem to help. Doing more studies just means fewer studies of stuff that might actually help.

Or is this really about prominent people recklessly guessing that it would help?

No, my problem is that you are citing one study that was for later stage patients and ignoring all the other observational studies that report different findings. Why are observational studies okay for masks and other things but not this? https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=hcq+observational+study&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

 We may have polio gone soon too. 

We are so close!

If only we can get other countries to stop using the da** live polio vaccine.  I honestly don't understand why that is still being used.  It is currently responsible for more polio than the wild virus, by far.  This is one of those instances where the risk for vaccination far outweighs the risk for wild disease. 

For those of you who may not be aware, the US uses an inactivated polio vaccine (not live) and you cannot get infected with the disease from it.  Also to appease any potential concerns, the Covid vaccines are not live either.  You shouldn't be afraid of live vaccines in general as they are attenuated, but the live polio vaccine is the one exception where I would always advice against it (thankfully, you can't find it here in the states). 

Edited December 17, 2020 by pogi

[strappinglad]

Just when you thought it was "settled science " , we get this study.

Effects of mask-wearing on the inhalability and deposition of airborne SARS-CoV-2 aerosols in human upper airway: Physics of Fluids: Vol 32, No 12 (scitation.org)

[The Nehor]

27 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Just when you thought it was "settled science " , we get this study.

Effects of mask-wearing on the inhalability and deposition of airborne SARS-CoV-2 aerosols in human upper airway: Physics of Fluids: Vol 32, No 12 (scitation.org)

Since the primary benefit of a mask was always said to be primarily to prevent transmission from the mask wearer to someone else I do not see how this "unsettles" anything.

[pogi]

37 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Just when you thought it was "settled science " , we get this study.

Effects of mask-wearing on the inhalability and deposition of airborne SARS-CoV-2 aerosols in human upper airway: Physics of Fluids: Vol 32, No 12 (scitation.org)

Which suggests that people should wear masks.