No, this wasn't an ivermectin paper. Ivermectin was not one of the study drugs. The study drugs were a cocktail of methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid, thiamine, vitamin D, heparin, atorvastatin, melatonin, zinc, and famotidine, and therapeutic plasma exchange. I've read the original paper and the retraction from the journal in question. Viewable here (I think without paywall) The MATH+ protocol does now include ivermectin though (added in October 2020, as per FLCCC website). Many of the adjunct drugs on the current protocol are different than in the retracted study (famotidine, atorvastatin, and zinc are gone, but ivermectin, nitazoxanide, and dual anti-androgen therapy have been added) It was a paper by a guy who promotes dodgy protocols (including ivermectin protocols) with statements like this: " The MATH+ protocol potentially offers a life-saving approach to the management of hospitalized COVID-19 patients", whose protocol has just been discredited. Vitamins don't fix covid.

Of interest: Pierre Kory paper has been retracted from Journal of Intensive Care Medicine by editor and publisher for flawed data. It would seem that instead of the published 75% absolute risk reduction in mortality, his treatment group actually had an increase in mortality. https://retractionwatch.com/2021/11/09/bad-math-covid-treatment-paper-by-pierre-kory-retracted-for-flawed-results/

Probably not. Shift change is super busy for nurses and other care staff, and is the time when they will have the very least energy available to help you. Be there while the day-shift is there if you can. They will have rounded with the MD and have first-hand knowledge of what is going on. That's also when managers are around, if you have to escalate. Night staff will be a degree removed from info you want - information will be second hand; they will know what they were told in report and what's been documented, and likely won't have had in-person communication with the MD.

Optimize the timing of your visits if you can. Try to be there when the team rounds and when care is happening. First thing in the morning is a pretty high yield time.

I finally qualify: eligibility was expanded here to include healthcare and over 70's more than 6 months since second dose as of Saturday. My last dose was in early February. I'm booked for tomorrow - yay!

I haven't seen WYSIWYG acronym in forever! I think that the digital native generation are very good as using the tech, but don't tend to know how it works - it's all a bit of a black box. Where as older folks who learned in the early days of computers had no choice but to know the nuts and bolts of how the programs work, because back then that was the only way to use them. "Our Own Devices" is an interesting book that touches on this: how technology co-evolves with technique.

You've gotten good advice above. Definitely speak with the patient representative/navigator - the role has many different names. Definitely become a physical presence. Spend as much time present in-person as possible. Definitely be an assertive advocate! That said, please do it politely. Find (and respect) the line that separates assertive from disruptive. It helps if you are 1) there a lot and 2) viewed as helpful while you are there (see if there are any non-medical care tasks you can take on - you shouldn't have to do this, but if you are viewed as a helpful family member by staff, they will be more likely go out of their way to get you what you want, and if you are viewed as an obstruction/disruptive/PITA they definitely won't). Learn the staff's names if you can, and use them - this is a small thing that really makes a difference. I will add: call health records and request a paper copy of her complete chart. You will likely have to pay for this. There are lots of bits of chart (progress notes, nursing notes, etc) that do not get published to patient portals.

Our hospital mandate was very successful. We had quite a few hold out until the very last moment, but almost everyone complied when push came to shove. I'm rounding numbers for privacy, buy of approx 3000 staff, 40 were terminated for non-compliance with the mandate, 10 staff were granted exemptions, and 20 extensions (in process of getting series done, but missed deadline). We are more than 99% vaxed now. Before the hospital mandate, we were only about 80%. Exemptions must meet strict criteria and are not easy to get. Those numbers are in line with with what I've seen published at hospitals elsewhere here and in the US (about 1% staffing loss). ETA: The mandate give the up-to-now refusers an out; a chance to save face. You haven't heard any well-reasoned evidence-based rationale from vaccine-refusers in health care because, short of legitimate medical exemptions, which are rare, there aren't any.

Similar issues, plus in the ED we can never close our doors. But working sick doesn't fix it. The pandemic silver lining has been to shine a light on all the systems issues. I realize that working sick doesn't fix any of it. In fact, nothing that I do as an individual to stop gaps in systems problems is going to fix them. It is Not My Problem. Perhaps it's a sign of burnout that I've started to dissociate from conditions at work: do the best I can with the resources I've got during my assigned work hours, and let the rest go. And keep a diary of systems issues each shift. OP, I'm sorry I've taken the thread on a tangent. If your daughter's workplace has an official written policy that one mustn't work with covid symptoms, then that's pretty straightforward: she should call in sick. Quote the official policy to the boss if she gets pushback. Frame as an opportunity to practice advocating for herself, and for the safety of her co-workers and daycare clients. Then look for a job at a different daycare. (What other official policies and child safety practices does this daycare ignore? Is working with covid symptoms (and untested) breaking state or federal policy/regs?)

I hear you. I really do. I am also in a chronically short-staffed environment. But understaffing and lack of sick-time planning are systems problems, and systems problems need systems level solutions. Leaning on individuals to stop gaps in systems-level problems is a primary cause of burnout. More burnout is the last thing we need in healthcare right now. When workers (at their own personal cost) keep accommodating broken systems, institutions aren't forced to make systems level changes (and can even claim that the systems problem doesn't actually exist). Working sick is part of a toxic healthcare work culture that's bad for everyone in the long run - bad for the workers, bad for the patients, and bad for the institutions. ETA: I really hope that the workplace culture shift that I'm seeing where I am sticks. I actually think that it might. ETA again: Calling in sick this week was really, really psychologically hard. Way harder than it should have been. I shouldn't even had to think twice about whether or not I show up to work with a cough, runny nose and low-grade fever to care for patients during a pandemic. But I've been trained to work sick for almost 30 years ----> that is a sign of a sick work culture.

I love working covid vax clinics. It's happy work. Ours have been slow lately, but will pick up next week ( 70+ and HCW's become eligible for boosters 6 mo after 2nd dose as of tomorrow). Kids vax 5-11 not approved here yet - hoping for soon.

I'm seeing a culture change in healthcare here since the pandemic. I actually called in sick with relatively minor illness (runny nose, cough, low-grade fever) this week for the first time in my life. Pre-pandemic I would have gone to work and pushed through - for all the reasons you mentioned: colleagues would have to work short, and working sick was an expectation. Not anymore. The policy is very clear: If one has covid symptoms, which are indistinguishable from cold symptoms, then one stays home until one has a negative covid test and symptoms are improving. The workplace has adapted. It's a good change. We really shouldn't have ever been working sick in the first place. But workplace culture and peer pressure are hard to resist (and sometimes even hard to even see for what they are when one is immersed). OP, really, your daughter should stay home at least until she has a negative test. That's the right thing to do. (even if it's a very hard thing to do.)

In your situation , I probably wouldn’t. Neither my 12 yo nor my 13yo have cellphones. It’s been a nonissue so far. They do drop off activities ( scouts, travel volleyball). While at those activities, they are in the care of adults who have access to phones. Their is no need for each kid to have a personal phone IMO. They do have their own email accounts, and have started to manage some of their own communication with activity leaders and peers with email from a home computer. Much easier to supervise and less likely to become a distraction.

I'm actually pretty sure that "colorsafe bleach" is an American term. I first heard of it on this forum, in posts posted by Americans, when reading laundry threads.

Right. Peroxide absolutely is marketed as colorsafe bleach. Also called non-chlorine bleach. Bleach can mean either sodium hypochlorite or hydrogen peroxide.

I'm sorry Quill "Dissonance" has become my word of the year, I think.

Here the formal recommendation is after symptoms resolve and after self-isolation period has ended. So that's as soon as 10 days post positive test. https://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/publichealth/coronavirus/docs/vaccine/COVID-19_vaccine_administration.pdf (pages 11 and 12)

Same. I think this is the correct link (CDC).

Just for interest, there is data on 11 year olds in Ontario (or to be more precise, 11.5+ year olds) In July, vaccination eligibility opened up to all children born 2009 or earlier*, even if they hadn't turned 12 yet. I haven't seen anything publicly accessible that breaks it down that finely by age, but the data exists, and the numbers vaccinated are big - roughly 140 000 kids born in the province in 2009, and the proportion vaccinated is about 80%. Edited to correct: Earlier, not later.

Ontario: "Based on advice from Ontario’s Vaccine Clinical Advisory Group, the Ministry of Health is issuing a preferential recommendation for the use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for individuals 18-24 years of age", buried on page 7. (ETA 12-17 and 18-24 still get a two dose regimen of Pfizer) Moderna appears to have a higher myocarditis risk than Pfizer for this age-group. We have a tonne of Pfizer, so based on this we aren't using Moderna under the age of 25. Moderna is still a very good vaccine, and if Moderna were all we had, I am certain that we would be using it on under 25's. But we have an even safer choice, in abundant supply. So we make the best possible choice given our resources. I don't know if that is influencing the approval process for Moderna or not. I think their trial was too small/underpowered to assess myocarditis risk (as was Pfizer's). We aren't using AZ anymore either - but only because we have an abundant supply of mRNA vaccines. if AZ was all we had, I'm certain that we'd be using it.

There was no giving away of anyone at my wedding. There was welcoming of the new Son-in-Law and new Daughter-in-Law by both sets of parents. I walked down the aisle all by myself.

Both sons and DH all have long hair. DH wears his ponied and younger son neatly braided. Older son prefers a shaggy mess, but he will smarten it up with a neat pony when required.

Found it: the data is embedded in the FDA briefing document

Does anyone know if Pfizer's paediatric covid vaccine data has been published yet? And could point me to it? I's really like to look through it.

Emergency Broadcast. This one is particularly good with really little kids. Short and sweet, and cute!