This is just standard practice: Fact check: It is standard practice for vaccine safety monitoring to continue after approval

Because there’s a difference between a treatment being approved for one thing that it has been shown to work for (parasites) vs for another thing than it hasn’t been (covid19). I’d love to find out ivermectin works. I’m highly motivated to not get Covid and to recover well from it if I do. I take vitamin D and I have zinc on hand. Heck, I even have ivermectin because we have horses. But, unfortunately, so far there is no reliable data showing it works, and the two biggest studies used to base its supposed effectiveness off of have both been withdrawn due to significant issues (including outright fraud in the case of the Egyptian study). Maybe the Oxford one will finally show something. Additionally, I’m not particularly concerned about the final, long term stage of the vaccine trials not being complete, because we have an absolutely unprecedented amount of data on it at this point, more than we usually ever have before a drug gets full approval, and we are in the middle of an acute crisis where we need treatments now, and there is no history of any vaccine having negative outcomes that don’t show up until a year later. So, I’m far more concerned about the immediate outcome of deaths from Covid than of some potential mystery outcome that we have never seen happen before. It’s like the fire extinguisher cartoon that Katie recently shared. eta: with my older kids, I did have a lot of worry that they would end up with some kind of auto immune diseases due to too many vaccines, and it made me cautious and caused me to spread out vaccines and delay some. In the end, at this point, I think my concern was unfounded. FWIW. And now they have extras to catch up on and wish they had gotten them when they were younger. So, I do understand that concern, but I come from the viewpoint of someone who had that concern and now feels that concern was not based on anything that is actually happening.

I find this so unfair. We had this happen to us in a different situation where we paid for something under the understanding that particular guidelines were in place, and then they changed those right before hand and we were no longer comfortable with the situation. This is our experience. We don’t get tight enough seals over the bridge of the nose with the Happy Mask. I should insert my own wire, as that would probably fix it, but we have so many KF94s and they’re enough more comfortable that I don’t know what situation we’d use the Happy Mask in (outside in cold weather, maybe?). I do prefer the look of a cloth mask, but I can’t really make fashion the deciding factor 😉.

A nice planner, like a Plum Planner? We also particularly like the tabletop hand crank pencil sharpener.

I saw something this week showing what the summary of research looks like if the withdrawn studies are removed, but it wasn’t from one of those who has been enthusiastic about it, so it might not be what you are looking for. I believe the oxford study is still enrolling, so it may be a while. Although, the sad upside of such high infection rates is that it’s much quicker to reach the study end point 😔.

I definitely see a conflict of interest for drug companies, which is why I look to the greater scientific community, and not what their CEO is saying for the sake of their stock price. But it’s absolutely not true that there can’t be an EUA if there are successful treatments for Covid. There are multiple drugs approved for treating Covid and that have shown varying degrees of success. And scientists continue researching and looking for more. I actually do think it makes the most sense for private businesses to enact these things on their own, unless or until spread is increasing in an area such that mandates need to be put in place for the greater public health benefit in an emergency. It is one of the jobs of government to keep the populace safe, and if there’s a big outbreak, it’s their job to help stem it. All that said, your statement is super hyperbolic. If I can’t afford to go to a restaurant or join a gym, does that mean I’m on house arrest? Neither of those things is a basic human right. I’ve never been able to afford a gym, and I haven’t felt that that means someone has stripped my rights and freedoms.

Such a good show, thanks for sharing the clip. One of the few good things to come from this awful pandemic for us is that my husband and I watched the entire series together, having never seen it before. It was someone sharing a different clip from it (Josh and Leo’s poingnant “man in a hole” conversation) early on that prompted me to want to watch. I’m sad that we have finished it. 🙁 I had been noticing lately that you were sounding like you were doing better, but sounds like recent developments have tipped you back into catastrophizing mode. I’m sorry you are struggling. Did you find someone to work with? ((Hugs))

Yes. And for the conspiracy minded, especially those who don’t know how to evaluate sources, it can be very successful. Doing a web search for any conspiracy theory buzz word turns up scores of links, mostly all in support of that particular theory, but also all from wacky sources. They seem to have some successful SEO going for them. I don’t see any relation to this and conspiracy theorists. Some people may be zealots about certain parenting (or education) topics, and it may be obnoxious, but it’s an entirely different thing than people spouting harmful conspiracy theories. To equate them minimizes the harm of the conspiracy theories, IMO. I wouldn’t have a mean reply, but I’m also not going to feel some special kindness to anyone trying to get people not to get a life saving shot for fear that *maybe* sometime in the future it might be found to cause AI issues, when not having the shot is killing so many people NOW. I see anyone trying to convince others against being vaccinated as not caring about all of those deaths currently happening.

I saw this from Kaiser Family Foundation with data about breakthrough cases. It's more breakthrough data than I've seen In one place. COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Cases: Data from the States. One caveat I noticed with the data, is that cases with unknown status are not listed out separately, but instead grouped with not fully vaccinated. I would like to see the unknowns in their own category, because I don't know how much of the data fall in that category.

I keep wondering why the Israel numbers are so much different as well. It seems highly unlikely, but is there any chance they weren’t storing it properly there? I know I’m grasping at straws‘s.

Same experience here. Completely horrific.

In that same press conference, I saw that doctor get emotional about the governor of Louisiana enacting a mask mandate for schools, calling it a “lifeline.”

Short thread on Covid rates in kids in high vax vs low vax areas (this is kind of obvious):

Wow! Amazing work! 👏

I haven’t seen a 16% number yet. Where did you see that one?

There’s been so much asymptomatic spread since the start that I don’t feel like that aspect has changed enough to make a big difference at this point. So I’d still choose caregiver vaccinated. Vaccinated and masked I’d feel pretty good about.

That's a much more straightforward quote. Thanks for tracking it down.

Yeah, I'm well aware. I think most of us who read a lot about this stuff know that. But what I want to know, is if I get covid, what are the chances I will be hospitalized or killed by it after being vaccinated vs without being vaccinated. That's the real world number. I get the vaccine for IF I get covid (which with Delta, now looks like darn near everyone will be exposed, unless they can really isolate hard). It matters a whole lot to me to know that 99%+ of the covid patients in my local hospital are unvaccinated. That's not a tiny effect, no matter how much covid deniers like to lean into the absolute effectiveness rate in an attempt to make it sound like lack of vaccination isn't killing people by the thousands. Which is so perplexing to me. Isn't less people dying better?

I get the issue. One thing I don't know if you have tried, if you find a place that just isn't on your insurance but seems to be a fit otherwise, you can see if they will submit a single case agreement with your insurance company. That essentially means your insurance company negotiates a rate for them just for your ds, for this particular case, because there is no other option in network. We had to go this route, and it took some time, but they agreed to it. Having one of his health professionals write a letter saying why that particular program is what he needs can be very helpful. Once agreed to, they cover like it was in network. Whether or not to leave out the ASD diagnosis depends on how important you think it is for them to know that in order to work effectively with him. It sounds like he may have some pretty common ASD stuff going on, so it would be ideal if they had that context.

A heads up for others that the person on that video is an anti-semitic conspiracy therorist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucharit_Bhakdi. I see from the title it's about blood clots, and blood clots are a legitimate concern, but not from a covid denier and certainly not about to give paid clicks to an anti-semite. That's unfortunate. I actually thought it was fairly well spread, because early on, a lot of the pushback on vaccines was "they only prevent serious illness and death, not spread, so why do you care if anyone else gets it?" and that lasted up until the research in the late Spring showing they were preventing transmission very well.

Yeah, I looked at the article, but it appears they used their own effectiveness definition that doesn't match the FDA one. I don't think they intended that; that was written pre-vaccine, and the info wasn't out yet for them to know what the endpoints were. The endpoints weren't contracting the illness, they were serious illness or death. That's all that was even measured in the initial trials (because that was the initial main goal). From the actual FDA document: As stated above, initially, preventing serious illness and death was the goal. Then we found out it prevented transmission, and that was amazing(!) news. Super happy, joy, joy. But then Delta came along. Now it still prevents most hospitalization and death (I'd call that more than just symptom mitigation), and it reduces disease, but it doesn't reduce it as amazingly as it did with previous variants.

It looks like we can all agree on this point. While that's super unfortunate, there are lots of more trustworthy scientific sources people can rely on (most have which have agreed that the CDC messaging has been awful). This matches the vast majority of breakthrough cases I've heard of--the majority I know of have started in an unvaccinated kid, who then transmitted to someone they live with or spend a lot of time with. I don't think most vaccinated are going to feel they were sold a bill of goods, unless they did so begrudgingly and have been looking for reasons to be mad about it. Their vaccine is going to keep them alive and out of the hospital, which is a lot better to me than a bill of goods. I guess like anything that keeps people alive, those that would otherwise have died will never know it. (It's like all those people who say things like, "I never wore a seatbelt growing up, and I'm still here!")

The 40% number, whether true or not, is not the number for for the endpoint they were looking for. They were looking at effectiveness at preventing moderate to severe covid and death. For which it is incredible effective still.

Did he have any inpatient treatment after that? He sounds at a point where residential treatment might be ideal. Even better if you find one that includes a DBT program. When does he turn 18? I can't encourage you enough to do everything you can to get him help now, as it's much, much less complicated before they turn 18. It doesn't sound like he's used to hearing any absolutes or ultimatums, or anything else he has to follow. That doesn't need to be in a punitive or unkind way in the least, just in a very matter of fact, "you're not making good decisions and this is what we're going to do to help you" kind of way. Perhaps his professionals can help with finding him a more intensive program? Whatever he's currently getting, doesn't seem to be sufficient (which isn't on them, it's just that for some situations, standard outpatient care isn't enough).

I got antibody tested in October and was negative. But, it was acknowledged that that far out, it was debatable if a negative could be trusted. A positive would have told us, but a negative doesn't necessarily. I haven't looked into any treatments, because I'm functional at this point. Just super low energy and I get winded with any kind of exertion. I was found to be quite anemic at the same time in October, and need to retest. I have a feeling I still am. So, that's a confounding aspect.