Could you send me an invite?

No need to apologize! I sympathize with what you are up against. Even if a fraction of the millions of rabbit trail conspiracies have merit, the fact that we are in a PANDEMIC and must do the best we can as quickly as possible to mitigate the greatest harm has to prevail. I am so done receiving YouTube videos of quacks trying to whip up fear in what is already a pretty scary situation. The quacks and the people latching on are doing unforgivable harm and I realize HCWs really cannot just sit back and let them rip.

Again, I am reading without the benefit of medical background but my feeling is if we are going to have damaged dna either way, I'd rather have it with a lessened chance of the potential long covid effects of being infected. I would be interested to hear completing arguments that challenge that stance.

I don't fully understand all of this but if it turns out to be true this is kind of where I was going with my original question. An unscientific polling on what people are actually seeing in multiple infections. I realize it will vary widely. If anecdotally, nearly everyone responded with claims of lesser symptoms or the opposite, that would be telling to me. So far, that is not the case. But I thought it was worth the ask. And still think so.

Thanks for this. You hit on the root of the concern. Did getting the vaccine so soon after infection risk less protection from the vaccine? They would not have vaccinated so soon except that proof of full vaccination was required to visit a close relative in long term care that had been isolated for over a year. I am inclined to push for a booster now rather than wait.

I appreciate that you took the time to respond but this is not what I was asking. I was asking for actual experiences with multiple Covid infections. Frankly, I am not interested in any "treatment" or prophylactic until there is significant research published by credible sources. Nor would I have safe access to or medical oversight of such treatments even if I did want to go there. I do not want to see this thread get overrun by yet another ivermectin fight. I do thank @Lori D. for listing some preliminary studies on the subject.

For those who have had multiple infections or are close to those that have, can you share whether subsequent infections were more, less, or the same when it came to symptoms, length of symptoms, and lingering effects? Since it is becoming more and more likely that we are not going to get to the point of controlling this virus via vaccinations and other mitigation efforts (thanks, politics), I am less and less willing to severely limit my family's life indefinitely. While I have managed to avoid infection, mostly by avoiding many things I enjoy, I am sitting in a county that is on fire (22% positivity, 500/100,000 infection rate, 50% vaccination rate for 18+, very little masking) and cannot see any sort of light at the end of the tunnel. I have been boosted and will continue to take basic safety measures, but am coming to terms with the likelihood that I will eventually be infected and possibly multiple times if this goes on forever and ever. Are we seeing trends yet on what happens to people who have had it multiple times? Specifically people who are getting vaccines as available that are generally in good health? I only personally know of one fully vaccinated person who got a second infection (first was pre-vaccine) and they were asymptomatic. But one anecdotal data point is meaningless.

If it were me, I'd go ahead and get it but the person in question wants to see some sort of evidence that getting it now is not premature, as in shortening the total time of maximum protection by getting it earlier than needed or that a booster at this point is redundant completely. They also had very uncomfortable and lengthy reactions to the two initial shots so wants evidence-based direction that it will be worth it at this time. And if not, when? They know they are being exposed more than they are comfortable so wants to do the right thing. I realize that there might not be any evidence available but if anyone knows of any, do let me know.

I cannot find anything consistent on this. Say one had Covid 8.5 months ago. Then was vaccinated with initial (Pfizer) dose shortly after recovery with the second dose 4 weeks later. So, it has been 7 months since the second dose after having had a mild natural infection. This person is currently subject to a lot of risky exposure in a low-vaccine, masks-don't-exist area that is on fire right now. Some things I find say anyone who is fully vaccinated that had natural infection does not need a booster yet. But I can find little on the timing of the natural infection. Does it matter if it was before vaccination? After? A whole year before in the early days of the pandemic? It seems like this would matter, right? And while I read "not yet," I do not see advice on when it would be the right time. Anyone know?!?!

Yep. Just about any time I leave the house. About half of my local friends smoke. Interestingly, they all have at least a master's degree.

Dd and I got our third doses of Pfizer last Tuesday. The shot itself was very painful for me. Not for dd. We both had notably sore arms, mine for about 24 hours, dd's lingered for 3-4 days and the pain seemed to move in location. We both felt a little tired the next day but nothing significant. Both of us resumed our normal lives and exercise the day after.

That is how I am interpreting the high positivity.....low testing.

I loathe menu planning for non-picky people with no allergies, so I can sympathize. My barrier is trying to work around what is available at any given time (fresh produce that is not a wilted mess can be very limited here) and having meal substitutions in case key ingredients are not available. I have no excuse for hating it. I just do.

I just found our actual numbers. We are currently at 460/100,000 with a positivity rate of 22%. And I assume this is artificially low between difficulty accessing tests and public resistance to testing. That looks bad.

That is the case here as well. It takes way too much effort for people to access testing so you have to really *want* to test to get it done. The unvaccinated simply will not put in that effort, even if they felt compelled to test. There is now a culture to NOT test or isolate, even if symptomatic, amongst the "my rights" people. So our current high infection rates are probably actually much higher and I believe it is artificially inflating the breakthrough rates based on who is testing at all.

We are at about 45% vaccination rate and have the highest infection and hospitalization numbers ever. And that is saying something since testing is very hard to access and many people here will not test even if they have raging symptoms. The schools have no mask mandates and are not doing contact tracing. Many kids are out of school or showing up with symptoms. A child I am close to just got infected and has significant symptoms. Her parents contacted the school for contact tracing and they told them they were not collecting that info anymore. Nor do they even have a policy for quarantine because "Covid is no big deal for kids." She could (but will not) go back to school right now despite being symptomatic and having just tested positive two days ago. I am deeply disturbed. There is almost no masking in public. It is quite rare. The only exception is the university, which has reinstated their mask mandate after a surge amongst the students. Somehow, despite much higher testing access, the student population, even during this "surge," is still at a fraction of the public infection rate. Most students and almost all faculty were still masking at least part time even when the mandate was lifted for a brief time. I work there and my dd is a student there so that is a relief. We are all boosted. I still wear a mask in other public places and I am usually rewarded with the stink eye by everyone I encounter.

Canadian boot company that has been around forever. They used to be known for their warm non-nonsense winter boots. They have recently become a bit trendy but still carry the warm functional boot as well.

They make cute ones too.....or perhaps that is in the eye of the beholder. I can't say if they run narrow. I do have a pair and have had several over the years and don't find their fit to be different than the other brands I have worn.

Also, for others who are reading this with similar problems, standing in one place on snow/ice is the worst. I bring one of those foam garden knee pads or even a square of pink insulation foam to stand on. It makes a HUGE difference! I watch and volunteer for all-day ski and dog sled races in the worst of conditions and this has been a game-changer.

I have Raynaud's, live in a very cold climate, and spend a great deal of time outdoors, often spectating. Your first problem is two pairs of socks. It sounds like you are using up your airspace with socks, which will mean cold feet. One pair of 100% wool is what I would start with. If your boots are still too tight, you probably need a larger pair. There are all kinds of boots options out there but honestly, there is not a whole lot of difference. The fit and what you put in them will matter most once you have a decent pair (Sorel, Boggs, Kamik, etc......). Hot Hands are what saves me every time. I buy them by the case. You need enough airspace in the boots for them to work. They need to be activated outside of the boot for about 10 minutes before you put them in. This is very important. The stick on ones are nice for not shifting, but the ones made for hands last longer and put out more heat. I find they work best under my toes. That is a bit crazy making but you get used to it. Pro tip: Hot Hands can last up to 10 hours. If I have only used mine for a couple of hours, I put them in a sealed ziplock snack bag. That stops the reaction and they can be used again. Even a few times. I never rely on reused ones when it REALLY matters (just in case) but for everyday things, they work just fine. I have to use them in my mittens almost daily so I reuse those many times before they stop working. The really old ones, I still will use to pre-heat my boots then toss them.

I would not stress too much about this. She will really not make a poor impression as long as her clothing is neat, clean, and does not stand out. I'd say overdressing is more of a sin in the tech world than underdressing.

Business casual now does seem to include nice jeans. I would guess this is especially true in the tech business. My guess is they will be thrilled that she is not wearing PJs. "Nice" jeans are solid color, no rips/snags, no bling, not distressed, not too tight/trendy, etc.... As someone who is most comfortable in jeans, I have welcomed this development over the years. If she actually prefers slacks or skirts, that will be fine. If she prefers jeans, I'd suggest wearing a black pair or very dark blue on the first day to test the waters. Flats are fine. Heels might even be out of place. Tops do not have to be fancy. I typically wear solid color, long sleeve, fitted Ts, like what can be found at Old Navy or Gap and keep a cardigan handy as AC is often chillier than I prefer. She can easily convert the outfit to dressier with a scarf and cardigan, so she could keep those handy just in case.

Nope. I would not. We are having t avoid one set of relatives for the holidays for the same reason. I hate it but aside from the real risk, I am also in danger of losing my temper over the whole hoax thing.

My dd borrowed her best friend's just hours before friend's public school graduation. That robe got to graduate two kids in one day! Ha ha! It was very cheap. I don't think embroidery would have worked. One option would be to add a (the word is escaping me right now) band of cloth to drape around the neck. That could be personalized as you want and small enough for each of your children to save as a keepsake.

I agree! Every time I see these "must have" lists, I think of the tiny square footage available in many dorms. I say go as light as possible and plan to pick up things as needed once they move in.