Jump to content

Covid II: Medical Info and Implications


Recommended Posts

Any personal stories of vaccine side effects? Fauci said the 2nd dose had more side effects than the first for him. Not severe though. 
 

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/fauci-says-he-had-brief-side-effects-from-second-vaccine-dose

My son’s dentist was fine but his assistant got sick for a week with her first shot.

Edited by bsjkki
Link to post
29 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Any personal stories of vaccine side effects?

My sister said the injection site was sore for a couple of days, nothing more. She’s still waiting for the second dose. Moderna. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/gop-congressman-give-1400-stimulus-checks-to-people-who-get-the-covid-19-vaccine-220040418.html

Thoughts on the idea of no one getting the $1400 stimulus unless they are vaccinated?

That is an interesting proposal.  I think I have mixed feelings about it.  First, I don't like the idea of the stimulus checks in the first place.  I didn't need the first one, the second one, and I certainly don't need a third one.  I think the money could have been more wisely targeted and used to help the economy and those who are struggling.

What I like about the idea is that we are getting something for the money - herd immunity.   Make no mistake, we will be paying it back, or our kids...  This idea will no doubt save lives and help us reach herd immunity much more quickly, and get our economy back on track.  What I don't like is that it might place unethical pressure on those who really are desperate for the money but who might be scared about the vaccine.  As strong as I am in support of these vaccines, I am equally strong on the ethic of informed consent.  Threatening to withhold much needed money from someone who has valid concerns over receiving a vaccine that is not yet FDA approved, I think dangerously stresses that ethic by forcing an almost coerced consent.  People should be free to make their own medical decisions for themselves and their families after being informed of risks vs benefits from medical experts free from outside coercion. 

Ethics are in the balance. 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
12 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Any personal stories of vaccine side effects? Fauci said the 2nd dose had more side effects than the first for him. Not severe though. 
 

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/fauci-says-he-had-brief-side-effects-from-second-vaccine-dose

My son’s dentist was fine but his assistant got sick for a week with her first shot.

I got my first dose Wednesday afternoon. My arm was a little sore yesterday. Barely sore today. Nothing else. Pfizer.

Link to post

Minority poor who have the most reason to distrust the medical establishment and therefore distrust the vaccine are also among those that need the checks most.

They also need the vaccine, but forcing medical procedures on the community yet again?  There is something wrong with that.

  • Like 2
Link to post

I like the idea in theory but I don't think it's doable in practice. 

There are some people who shouldn't get the vaccine, but they should still be eligible for the money.  And there are people who aren't eligible for the money, who still should get the vaccine.  Plus, we don't have enough vaccine to give to everyone yet, which isn't that hard to maneuver around right now but would be much more difficult to orchestrate when those who are offered it first also get money, and those who won't be getting it for months won't have access to that money for months through no fault of their own.

I can see the ethics issues but they don't seem that different to me than schools requiring vaccinations before a child can attend.  One could say that the school or government was forcing medical procedures onto people and doing so is unethical (and I know that some do say that) but I don't think it's unethical when it comes to vaccines and public education and I'm not sure I see it any differently with vaccines and public money.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
22 hours ago, pogi said:

2 days, actually.  People are considered contagious 2 days before symptom onset.  The incubation period, however, is up to 2 weeks!  I other words a person could be exposed to the virus 2 weeks ago, test 2 days after initial exposure, after finding out that they were exposed by a coworker, test positive (because the virus is actually in him), but only have a tiny viral load at this point and would not by symptomatic or contagious for up to 10 days later.

The PCR tests are not false positives if they actually detect Covid virus (even if it is a small amount).  The person has the virus, but may not be symptomatic or contagious for another 10 days.   The problem that might arise with a less sensitive test is that if a person tested negative 2 days after exposure, then developed symptom 10 days later, they may blow it off thinking they couldn't have been infected by that contact because they tested negative.  "Must be a cold or allergies!"

To be honest, I can't read the article (it requires a subscription - but we have discussed this article already).  I am just going off what you have quoted.  Here is what you stated about the article:

"Barely having any virus" at the time of testing, and "never getting covid-19" are two VERY different things!  If they barely have any virus, they still have the Covid virus in them!   Again, the question is, what stage of infection are they in?  We can't rely on that freeze-frame snap shot of this article to determine if these people will never be symptomatic or contagious, or if they never were symptomatic or contagious before being tested. (2 weeks is a large window!)  I also have no way to examine their methods. Not all studies are created equal.

I hope I have answered this some with the above, but we don't know for sure what the threshold is.  If it is like other viruses, it is likely can vary from person to person.  The point I am making is that simply because they had a low viral count on the day they tested positive, that is NOT a guarantee that they will not be contagious in the near future, or have not been contagious previously.

How often do people who test positive for the sars-cov-2 virus never get covid-19?  This is what I really want to find out.  Is there an article that you could refer me to?  It seems that we have focused too much on whether or not someone tests positive and not on whether or not someone gets sick and why and who is more susceptible to getting sick, etc.  Sars-cov-2 has been floating around for more than a year and it seems that perhaps everyone or a great percentage have been exposed.  Do you think if the pcr test is done properly, at 40 cycles, everyone test positive for at least a little amount of the virus?

Link to post
24 minutes ago, Calm said:

Minority poor who have the most reason to distrust the medical establishment and therefore distrust the vaccine are also among those that need the checks most.

They also need the vaccine, but forcing medical procedures on the community yet again?  There is something wrong with that.

I understand the point that is being made. However, that the government would treat minorities or the poor a certain way is reason for everyone to distrust to the government. Essentially, what the government actions boil down to is "we will do whatever we want, to whomever we want, because we can, and you just so happen to be of the group of people we decided to target today". First they came...comes to mind.   

I do not agree with forced vaccination. 

Link to post
22 minutes ago, provoman said:


I do not agree with forced vaccination. 

If the government paid people $1400 to get vaccinated, but no one had to do it, is that considered being forced?

Link to post
1 hour ago, Harry T. Clark said:

How often do people who test positive for the sars-cov-2 virus never get covid-19?  

Why are you only focusing on false positives when the far more concerning and more common limitation of these tests is false negatives? 

False positives happen rarely when community spread is high.  They are more common when community spread is very low.  Some people may be inconvenienced for 10 days with a false positive.  If anyone wants, they can have a second test to confirm.  Problem solved!  On the other hand, if someone has a false negative the burden is much greater potentially leading to the hospitalization and/or death of loved ones and other close contacts.   I am much less concerned about false positives!  

1 hour ago, Harry T. Clark said:

It seems that we have focused too much on whether or not someone tests positive and not on whether or not someone gets sick and why and who is more susceptible to getting sick, etc.  

Asymptomatic transmission is a thing. 

Quote

Nearly 40% of children ages 6 to 13 tested positive for COVID-19, but were asymptomatic, according to just published research from the Duke University BRAVE Kids study. While the children had no symptoms of COVID-19, they had the same viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in their nasal areas, meaning that asymptomatic children had the same capacity to spread the virus compared to others who had symptoms of COVID-19.

And, a study from Singapore early in the COVID-19 pandemic showed that people who were asymptomatic still were spreading SARS-CoV-2 to others.

https://www.uchealth.org/today/the-truth-about-asymptomatic-spread-of-covid-19/

We have to focus on positive results, and not just symptoms, due to asymptomatic transmission. 

1 hour ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Sars-cov-2 has been floating around for more than a year and it seems that perhaps everyone or a great percentage have been exposed. 

"Seems like?"  Based on what?  That seems outlandishly unreasonable to me.

1 hour ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Do you think if the pcr test is done properly, at 40 cycles, everyone test positive for at least a little amount of the virus?

No, everyone will not (and objectively does not) tests positive for at least a little amount of the virus.  How long do you think the virus lives in the body anyway?  Even if we were all exposed at some point (I wish that was true, we would have reached herd immunity!), we would not all be testing positive for more than a month or so on average.    We are at 20% positivity rate in Utah right now for those who test.  Most people who test are either symptomatic or have had close contact with someone who was - this significantly reduces the risk of false positives. 

You seem to obsess about the 40 cycles with the PCR tests when antigen testing seems to be the more commonly used as they are easier, cheaper, and quicker results - less likely to have a false positive, however, they are more likely to have a false negative than PCR.

Honestly Harry, you are worrying in the wrong direction with your concerns of false positives. 

Edited by pogi
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

If the government paid people $1400 to get vaccinated, but no one had to do it, is that considered being forced?

No, that is also a standard federal government tactic to get around constitutional issues. The standard drinking age is 21 not by federal fiat but because the federal government denied federal highway funds if you did not set it like that. The government can also force vaccination. There is Supreme Court precedent.

Wouldn’t work in this case yet. To incentivize vaccination it has to be generally available. By the time we are in a situation where vaccines are available to anyone seeking them we will hopefully be near the end of needing stimulus.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
3 hours ago, bluebell said:

If the government paid people $1400 to get vaccinated, but no one had to do it, is that considered being forced?

Depends. 

If the receipt of economic stimulus money is tied to getting the vaccine, then I would considered it forced.

If the Government says "we will pay $1,400.00 amount to get the vaccine, in addition to any economic stimulus"; then that is a different set of circumstances. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
26 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

The CDC needs to improve. This article does not fill me with confidence about this agency.

 

I'll wait to find out if political meddling resulted in those decisions as well.

Link to post
26 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This is still early data but it seems that current vaccines may be less effective against the new Covid strains.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/21/dr-fauci-says-covid-vaccines-appear-to-be-less-effective-against-some-new-strains.html

Again, still very early and more data may (hopefully) show the difference to be marginal or non-existent.

I’ve been seeing the same stories and it seems covid will likely turn flu like with multiple strains and we will need vaccines yearly that guess which strains will appear.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, provoman said:

If the Government says "we will pay $1,400.00 amount to get the vaccine, in addition to any economic stimulus"; then that is a different set of circumstances. 

This is what I would hope they do.  If they took off a hundred or two off the check and set that aside for incentive, I think that would help a lot.  Make it worth people’s time and effort with enough extra that people who are borderline in deciding think ‘why not?’ while leaving the majority of the stimulus immediately available. But to do it when the vaccine is limited and difficult to get appointments...not a good idea.  Will only result in people feeling the government is jerking them around IMO with offering money to do it, but then saying not available actually.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I'll wait to find out if political meddling resulted in those decisions as well.

From the=article...

Quote

The problems within the CDC, which has suffered from a decade of declining funding, point to the steep challenge faced by newly inaugurated President Joe Biden and his CDC director, Rochelle Walensky, to rehabilitate the agency in the eyes of scientists, other public health officials and the public.

Even if not direct, the indirect declining funding is political meddling IMO.  Rather than thinking ‘best medical practices’, decreased funding may have shifted the planning rationale to ‘most cost effective’, including what would be least likely to result in potentially costly legal issues.

Edited by Calm
Link to post
6 minutes ago, Calm said:

This is what I would hope they do.  If they took off a hundred or two off the check and set that aside for incentive, I think that would help a lot.  Make it worth people’s time and effort with enough extra that people who are borderline in deciding think ‘why not?’.

The problem with that is that you may cause a run on vaccines if you tie having had it. A better way to incentivize in my opinion is to put a one-time built in increase to the standard deduction on taxes and have an equivalent write off for those who itemize. This keeps it from being a “have to be first to get vaccine to get more stimulus money now”. You can phase the benefit out at higher income levels it that makes it more palatable but probably not necessary. The downside is that the gratification is less immediate.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
40 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I’ve been seeing the same stories and it seems covid will likely turn flu like with multiple strains and we will need vaccines yearly that guess which strains will appear.

 

I am hoping if we can get vaccines out to stem the tide we can eradicate in most of the developed world at least. It doesn’t mutate as fast as the flu and the flu jumps to a lot of animals which is why it is virtually impossible to eradicate and Covid doesn’t jump to most animals as far as we know. Covid also doesn’t mutate as quickly. If we can damp down the spread through vaccination mutations become rarer.

The risk of mutation was another big worry for me when people suggested going for natural herd immunity. It increased the probably of more mutations.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post

Pogo, personal info question...my husband and I are debating if our daughter (diabetic, thyroid issues, other stuff) qualifies for a vaccine now here in Utah or does she have to wait.  I am reading the requirements as having to wait.  If he is right and she would qualify, do we have to get a doctor’s certification of her high risk status or do they take people’s word for it?

——

On another note, he found out all his students in at least one class have had Covid...and he went out and got pizza for them to eat in class.  I could have hit him for his carelessness, but I am trying to not get back to where we were in the early days of Covid conflict.  I told him just because they all have had it once doesn’t mean they couldn’t get it again nor do we known how long immunity lasts (some got it in summer).  Is there anything else I can point to so that instead of him relaxing at this point when community spread is highest, he will increase caution?

Link to post
30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The risk of mutation was another big worry for me when people suggested going for natural herd immunity. It increased the probably of more mutations.

Mutations can go both ways, though; people are assuming that mutations will always be in the direction of more virulent.

I think that the lockdown method not only simply delays the inevitable in the name of "flattening the curve," it also may lead to prolonging deadly strains. If allowed to circulate naturally, it seems like natural selection would select in favor of strains that infect but don't kill the host (since the virus is then exposed to more robust immune systems with minimal cytokine storms, over all). On the other hand, keeping it away from the greatest number of people (ideally; that's the point of lockdowns) as long as possible seems like it would select for strains that prey on the vulnerable (those with comorbidities or immune systems ill-suited to handling it in a good way). 

  • Like 1
Link to post
36 minutes ago, rongo said:

Mutations can go both ways, though; people are assuming that mutations will always be in the direction of more virulent.

I think that the lockdown method not only simply delays the inevitable in the name of "flattening the curve," it also may lead to prolonging deadly strains. If allowed to circulate naturally, it seems like natural selection would select in favor of strains that infect but don't kill the host (since the virus is then exposed to more robust immune systems with minimal cytokine storms, over all). On the other hand, keeping it away from the greatest number of people (ideally; that's the point of lockdowns) as long as possible seems like it would select for strains that prey on the vulnerable (those with comorbidities or immune systems ill-suited to handling it in a good way). 

It is not necessarily that they will be more contagious or more deadly though that is a concern. As you point out it is not a hard and fast rule but viruses tend to become less deadly in the long term.

Keeping it away from people wouldn’t have that effect. It would still select more for survivability of the virus which means its ability to spread.

My concern was and is that the more virus out there the more chances it has to mutate and the more it mutates the less effective vaccination programs will be and the more likely it is to cross species. If it gets into common animals it will almost certainly become endemic in the same way influenza is. Hopefully that won’t happen and Covid is less likely to make that jump than influenza was.

Edited by The Nehor
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...