Jump to content

Covid II: Medical Info and Implications


Recommended Posts

This is just not good news and will muddy the waters. This will not convince the unvaccinated to get vaccinated. The Delta variant does increase breakthrough cases. The vaccinated will carry the same viral load as the unvaccinated. The vaccinated still end up in the hospital and some even die. 
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-administration-recommend-vaccinated-wear-masks-areas-low-vaccination-rates-n1275012


 

 

ADE185AA-B918-4744-A9DB-A787D2292264.jpeg

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

The vaccinated will carry the same viral load as the unvaccinated.

Where does it say that?

added:  

Quote

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said recent studies had shown that those vaccinated individuals who do become infected with Covid have just as much viral load as the unvaccinated…

I want to see the actual quote to be sure it has been interpreted correctly.  That is very upsetting if true.  Still likelihood of getting infected is way down compared to unvaccinated. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Where does it say that?

added:  

I want to see the actual quote to be sure it has been interpreted correctly.  That is very upsetting if true.  Still likelihood of getting infected is way down compared to unvaccinated. 

I have not found a transcript but this has the actual audio of the announcement. 
 

https://www.wilx.com/2021/07/27/cdc-announcement-updated-mask-guidelines-expected-soon/

5CC92C08-78F2-4566-8D00-E63EFC70B977.jpeg
*not the whole clip. Will keep looking.

Edited by bsjkki
Link to comment

The problem with 70% of cases among the infected being vaccinated is it doesn’t show the percentage of the vaccinated in the population.  Also doesn’t show how time affects it. If 90% of the population was vaccinated and vaccinated early on, that 70% of the infected are vaccinated says something very different than if the vaccinated were 50% of the population and it has only been a couple of months since they were fully vaccinated.

Very confusing without those details.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I have not found a transcript but this has the actual audio of the announcement. 
 

https://www.wilx.com/2021/07/27/cdc-announcement-updated-mask-guidelines-expected-soon/

5CC92C08-78F2-4566-8D00-E63EFC70B977.jpeg
*not the whole clip. Will keep looking.

Thank you, that is enough for what I was wondering.  Though if you find data on how this changes over distance in time from vaccination, I would appreciate that.

Link to comment

Also wondering if the viral load varies based on severity of the symptoms, more mild cases have less than severe cases. I can’t remember if this was mentioned in the past or not. 

Link to comment
On 7/24/2021 at 7:15 AM, bsjkki said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/07/23/covid-could-spread-flatulence-say-ministers/

I would not want to be accused of being a super spreader 

 

82625E87-82BD-455E-9E8F-29480B2D8A5E.jpeg

This is an interesting article that I have forwarded to my wife, who is legendary in the family for this particular characteristic. :D 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)

This reminds me of mask mandates studies that don’t show the level of compliance…is it enforced or not and if so, how much; is there more who voluntarily use masks or those who do not. One needs context to compare studies to ensure populations and other variables are truly comparable, context too often ignored by media. 
 

For example, one needs to be careful when comparing Utah to other states because some of our relevant stats are on the fringes, such as average age runs low, nonsmoking runs high.  Other things to consider in a respiratory disease in comparing states across the US would be differences in altitudes and latitudes and weather…more inside or not, more open windows or not, differences in air quality, genetic attributes if a community tends towards genetic homogeneity, obesity levels and other known risks factors.

Comparing Maine where the average age is 45ish to Utah where the average age is 30ish…problematic if not age adjusted. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

It looks likely that there is a higher rate of infection among HIV positive individuals, though this may actually be more severe HIV cases are seen at the Center rather than monitoring those who are infected at all stages. I wonder if the antivirals taken for HIV have any impact on Covid so in healthy individuals there would be a decrease in infections and in HIV individuals taking the antivirals, infections are lower than they would be if not taking them.

Quote

Overall, 17% of known Center people had HIV/SARS-CoV-2 coinfection, whereas the comparable state-wide prevalence was 9%.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jia2.25573

Link to comment
Posted (edited)

Totally off topic…Did you know the oldest population in a city in the US is at The Villages in Florida…over 50% are seniors. Rather surprising since it is a 55+ planned community. I would have thought it would be higher. But that size (132,000) would require a lot of service providers, I guess. 

https://www.insidethebubble.net/the-villages-cool-facts/

For comparison, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the second largest city in Iowa, is about the same of population.  
 

I think it would be boring living in a community that heavy with seniors. I love hearing the kids outside playing around us. And even the teens on the street are pretty sweet…but then most know us since they were wee ones, so that helps. It still throws me seeing them as almost adults. Longest time I have lived in one place now and always has been the neighbourhood where I knew the most, most likely because of church, but also my sister-in-law lives down the street and is very involved in the neighborhood, so we had an in. 
 

There is something so wrong about a couple of these “cool facts”:

Quote
  • The Villages population passed 100,000 in 2012 and there are more than 132,000 residents today.
  • The U.S. Census Bureau named The Villages the fastest growing Metropolitan Statistical Area for the decade 2010-2019. 
  • The population of the Villages grows by approximately 4,500 annually.
  • To maintain its 55+ status under federal law, at least 80 percent of homes must be occupied by at least one person who is 55 years of age or older.
  • The average age in The Villages for a male is 62 and female is 60.
  • According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the median household income is $61,333, but The Villages Commercial Property Management promotes The Villages average household income as being $93,800.
  • For the most part, people under the age of 19 years are not permitted to reside within The Villages, but may visit for a maximum of 30 days per year unless a longer exemption is granted.
  • The Villages population is larger than 33 of the 67 counties in Florida

I would like to know why all these seniors choose to live together, outside the medical convenience of likely having tons of geriatric specialists, not the least appealing to me. 
 

Quote
  • The survival rate for sudden cardiac arrest in The Villages Fl last year was 44% – about 7 times the national average of only 6%.

Something not listed in their advertisement:

Quote

The racial makeup of The Villages CDP was 98% White, 0.4% African American, 0.1% Native American, 0.9% Asian, 0.1% Pacific Islander, and 0.5% from two or more races. Hispanics or Latinos of any race made up 1.2% of the population. As of 2019, persons under 5 years accounted for .

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Villages,_Florida#Demographics

I can see a second plus, the very low crime rate so if older, well off so can afford it with no family wanting to take you in and you don’t care about living close to others and chose instead to live alone, that would be very appealing. 
 

I assume all the senior sports appeal to many as well even if I find little interest in that. Very easy to stay active. 
 

Enough distraction for sitting up digesting food…time to try the bed. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
19 hours ago, bsjkki said:

This is just not good news and will muddy the waters. This will not convince the unvaccinated to get vaccinated. The Delta variant does increase breakthrough cases. The vaccinated will carry the same viral load as the unvaccinated. The vaccinated still end up in the hospital and some even die. 
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-administration-recommend-vaccinated-wear-masks-areas-low-vaccination-rates-n1275012


 

 

 

Are they distinguishing between one and two shots when they label someone vaccinated? Or the two weeks after the second shot? I've never seen that distinction made which makes me wonder about these numbers.

Link to comment
19 hours ago, bsjkki said:

As just to depress everyone even more. The viral load of delta is 1000 times higher than the original virus.
https://www.wcnc.com/mobile/article/news/health/coronavirus/vaccine/some-doctors-saying-cloth-masks-are-not-good-enough/275-54ffb20d-c506-4066-b201-581c3bbe6f82

 

 

BE98DAD1-9FAE-4C4A-8873-000E2D62F37A.jpeg

 

Which means unregulated cloth masks never did cut it....as evidenced by the same waves of infection in states regardless of mask mandates. 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, juliann said:

Which means unregulated cloth masks never did cut it....as evidenced by the same waves of infection in states regardless of mask mandates. 

No, cloth masks just mitigated. They never ‘cut it’ in the sense that they would prevent infection completely. This new variant would still be mitigated by cloth masks. It just would be mitigated a lot less due to the increased contagiousness.

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, juliann said:

Are they distinguishing between one and two shots when they label someone vaccinated? Or the two weeks after the second shot? I've never seen that distinction made which makes me wonder about these numbers.

I have seen it broken out but would have to look for the charts again.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

No, cloth masks just mitigated. They never ‘cut it’ in the sense that they would prevent infection completely. This new variant would still be mitigated by cloth masks. It just would be mitigated a lot less due to the increased contagiousness.

Which means what? That the virus evolved to get through cloth more effectively?  None of this makes any sense. And when looking at the charts of the rise and fall of the virus in states mandating masks and those not, masks didn't mitigate it, either. Mandates made no difference in the rate of cases or deaths when looked at state by state.

It seems common sense to wear a mask but I've seen nothing in the big picture that shows it making one whit of difference in the stats.

 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, juliann said:

Which means what? That the virus evolved to get through cloth more effectively?  None of this makes any sense. And when looking at the charts of the rise and fall of the virus in states mandating masks and those not, masks didn't mitigate it, either. Mandates made no difference in the rate of cases or deaths when looked at state by state.

It seems common sense to wear a mask but I've seen nothing in the big picture that shows it making one whit of difference in the stats.

 

No, you are thinking it is ‘all or nothing’. It means the mask never blocked all virus particles. Just some of them. When you increase the amount of virus you are exposed to because more is in the air because the viral count is higher in the new variant it is more likely enough of it will get through the mask to infect you. The mask decreases the chance of infection.

The oft-repeated claim that masks (and often lockdowns) made no difference is false.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-masks-lockdowns-covid/fact-check-studies-do-show-face-masks-and-lockdowns-slow-the-spread-of-covid-19-idUSKCN2AT3JQ

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...