Jump to content



  • Posts

  • Joined

Posts posted by wathe

  1. 1 hour ago, MEmama said:

    This is definitely my preferred method as well. But we need to make something for the snack shack at a track meet and I’m afraid cash doesn’t feed hungry teen athletes and bored siblings. Lol

    In that case I would donate something baked by someone else - either bought  from a bakery or a bulk pack of packaged snacks from Costco 

    • Like 1
  2. 57 minutes ago, Pen said:



    revised: I found online that Canada rolled out vaccines for 12-15 on May 5 .    That suggests that there is not yet substantial experience with the 12 weeks between 

    (Eta I think your country = Canada ) 

    Approved for 12-17.  Not eligible to receive the vax in most provinces until much more recently than that.  My province 12yo eligibility started May 23, and most weren't able to get appointments immediately.   We booked our 13yo online the minute (literally)he became eligible, and the soonest appointment we could get for him isn't until early June.  ETA with second dose booked for September.

    • Like 1
  3. Just now, Pen said:

     yes I looked it up and was revising my prior post as this came in. 

    So perhaps not until September do we start learning effects on children of 12 week interim.  If it’s better, worse, or makes no difference. Unless maybe another country started it or already tested it out earlier

    edited to add more

    • Thanks 1
  4. 51 minutes ago, Pen said:

    Is Canada using 12 weeks between doses for 12-15 year olds? 

    My impression is that longer gap increases immune reaction, antibodies production, etc? 

    Is that a good thing in children?  Or maybe “too much of a good thing”?

    (Eta I think your country = Canada ) 

    For the time being, yes.  12-year-olds just became eligible in my province this week.  Those who had their shot this week are being booked for second doses in September.  Though I expect that the interval might shorten as supply improves. 

    ETA:  Data don't yet exist for 12 (Edited to correct: 16 week spacing) spacing for 12-17-year-old.   The national strategy is to get as many first doses into arms as possible and worry about second doses later.   This was necessary because we have had extremely limited supply, and supply continues to be an issue.  From a public health point of view, it's a very reasonable and ethical choice (and IMO, the only reasonable choice policy-wise).

    • Like 1
  5. On 5/25/2021 at 2:48 PM, crazyforlatin said:

    What's the maximum time between first and second shots that you would feel comfortable? 

    I need to wait until the AP exam and other events are over. All of Dd's friends have had barely a reaction from the second shot, but I still prefer to wait. 

    Dd has food allergies, but she didn't react to the first shot, so I know she's not allergic to the vaccine. Is that safe to conclude? I thought I read that the second dose is more potent.

    Well, my entire country is doing **12 weeks **between doses ( with very limited exceptions), and so is the UK, I think.  It seems to be working well so far.

    the second dose is exactly the same as the first.  Same product, same volume.  People do seem to have more side effects.

    i haven’t seen anything suggesting any difference in allergic reactions dose 1 vs dose 2.

    ** ETA nope, it's 16 weeks!

    • Thanks 1
  6. 2 hours ago, Spryte said:

    I spent three days and nights in a KN95 at the hospital. Even slept in it.  Took it off only when they took my temp, and when I was allowed to drink/eat about 2.5 days into the stay.  My O2 was monitored the entire time, and was fine.

    Obviously, I was not working out, but I did not develop pneumonia or any other issues.


    47 minutes ago, KSera said:

    Same for my family member who was in hospital. Not the same as working out, but no impact on O2 at all. 

    Right.  I wear an n95 for up to 10 hours at a time.  Some of that time is spent "working out", also known as CPR in full PPE.  I have worked shifts where I have worn the same n95 continuously for 10 hours (no breaks).  02 sat is fine.

    It is true that the CO2 level inside the mask is well above the CO2 level in ambient air.  But so is the CO2 level in the air in your natural respiratory anatomical dead space at the end of each breath (mouth, nose, trachea, bronchi) which you also rebreathe with each breath.   The space inside of the mask basically acts as an extension of your own anatomical dead space.  Healthy people's bodies do not have any trouble to adapting to that extra deadspace.  The human respiratory system is very flexible and can cope with an extra 100cc or so of dead space just fine.  

    Comparing N95 dead space CO2 concentrations with ambient workplace standards is a false comparison.  Ambient workplace standards apply to the ambient air - air that comprises the entire breath, for every breath taken while in the environment.  N95 dead space air, on the other hand , is a small volume, and the rest of the breath is comprised of normal ambient air that flows through the mask with each breath.

    For fun:  Study of physiolgical effect of N95 during exercise.  Result:  1) "There were no significant differences between FFR and control in the physiological variables, exertion scores, or comfort scores", and predictably 2)"FFR dead-space carbon dioxide and oxygen levels were significantly above and below, respectively, the ambient workplace standards" - which, as explained above, is not meaningful.

    Also: a very nice, through review article, Face Masks and the Cardiorespiratory Response to Physical activity in Health and Disease: "Although the body of literature directly evaluating this issue is evolving, for healthy individuals, the available data suggest that face masks, including N95 respirators, surgical masks, and cloth face masks, may increase dyspnea but have small and often difficult-to-detect effects on Wb, blood gases, and other physiological parameters during physical activity, even with heavy/maximal exercise" - subjects may feel subjectively short of breath, but their physiological markers change negligibly, if at all.

    • Like 8
    • Thanks 14
  7. 1 hour ago, SKL said:

    I've never been stopped while following the law just to see if I was drunk.  (Well, once when I was a teen and the cop thought I was enjoying my car stereo way too much.  But never just for the crime of driving normally.)

    As for education etc., we have certainly invested, and continue to invest, tons of time and money into educating people about Covid safety.  That's why so many people are fully vaccinated and not a danger to society.  Which is apparently meaningless to many people on this board.

    I have. multiple times, as part of a provincial spot-check program (RIDE).  It's normal here.

    Police set up spot checks and stop every single vehicle, usually on holidays, and usually after bar-closing time.

    I actually have a pretty high chance of being stopped tonight as I'll be working a late shift and today is a holiday here, and my route takes by through an intersection where RIDE spot checks have been set up several times before.

    • Like 6
  8. 3 minutes ago, MercyA said:

    Yes! Big League Chew. But the candy cigarettes and bubble gum cigars (which came in blue, pink, and yellow, perfect for baby congrats) were much cheaper at our local dime store. Happy memories.

    I remember that!  But didn't ever clue in (until right now!) that it was modeled on chewing tobacco.  In my defense, I had no IRL exposure to chewing tobacco as a kid, (or adult, really) and wasn't much exposed to baseball either.

    • Like 3
  9. 8 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:


    I was 11 when we came to Canada, so I think I missed it all 😉 . 

    They never went away, just got less popular. We used to get them in our Hallowe'en candy.  The tips were coloured red, to look like they were lit.

    I do remember the chatter about the name change.

    • Like 1

    1 hour ago, KSera said:

    I’m trying to see how this might be affected by vaccination, and so far I can’t find anything that addresses that. 

    From the FDA EAU authorization summary:

    13. The performance of this test has not been established in individuals that have received a COVID-19 vaccine. The clinical significance of a positive or negative result following COVID-19 vaccination has not been established, and the result from this test should not be interpreted as an indication or degree of protection from infection after vaccination.

    Along with a bunch of other CYA disclaimers on the last page basically saying that a positive test may not mean past covid infection and a negative test may not mean absence of past covid infection, and the test should not be used to make clinical decisions..........

    ETA link

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  11. Re T-Detect referenced upthread: 

    It looks like the clinical sensitivity was tested at 0-7, 8-14, and >= 15 days post symptom onset, and also a second, larger data set post positive PCR  test with the same time intervals.

    Prospective clinical specificity, which relates to rate of false positives, was very high at 98.7

    Clinical sensitivity, which relates to false negatives, was somewhat lower: for >= 15 days post symptom onset sensitivity was 92%, with 95% confidence interval 78-98%, and for >=15 days post positive PCR sensitivity 97.1%, with 95%CI 92-99%.

    It looks like >= 15 days post positive PCR test is the longest sensitivity time frame reported.  That might not very long at all?  I'd be interested to know what the upper bound was; ie were any of the study subjects significantly more that two weeks post acute illness or not?

    It will be interesting to see how well real world data correlate

    Sensitivity and specificity data are on pages 8-10

    • Thanks 2
  12. 1 hour ago, KSera said:

    Have you seen the charts though? This was way beyond a light flu year. There were just enough cases to show there was a tiny amount circulating, but it was a flat line at the bottom of the chart (I will try to insert a flu chart).  There was a single pediatric flu death, compared to the usual ~150-190. I agree we can’t know which elements contributed most to that, but it was obviously something. I do expect lack of travel helped a lot. Especially in Southern Hemisphere countries. The other interesting (but in a bad way) aspect of the almost non existent flu season is to see how flu was so suppressed, but Covid still managed to rage. Demonstrates how much more contagious than flu it is. 


    Yes.  Canada has had 68 lab confirmed flu this season for the whole country.  Usual annual numbers are approx 50,000.  That's a nearly thousand-fold decrease.  Three orders of magnitude.  And 31 of those 68 cases were associated with viral shedding secondary to live attenuated vaccine (ie Flumist), and hence do not represent community acquired flu:

    "To date this season, 68 influenza detections have been reported (Figure 2), which is significantly lower than the past six seasons where an average of 49,641 influenza detections were reported for the season to date. All provinces and territories are closely monitoring indicators of influenza activity this season. Data in the FluWatch report represent surveillance data available at the time of writing, and may change as updates are received.

    Thirty-one of the influenza detections reported to date this season are known to be associated with recent live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) receipt and do not represent community circulation of seasonal influenza viruses. LAIV strains are attenuated but can be recovered by nasal swab in children and adults following vaccination with that product (i.e., "shedding")

    • Like 5
    • Thanks 3
  13. @Not_a_Number, @whitestavern

    It looks like the the Modena placebo was also saline (quote from the clinical study protocol:


    "Investigational Product, Dosage, and Route of Administration:

    The mRNA-1273 IP is an LNP dispersion of an mRNA encoding the prefusion stabilized S protein of SARS-CoV-2 formulated in LNPs composed of 4 lipids (1 proprietary and 3 commercially available): the proprietary ionizable lipid SM-102; cholesterol; 1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero-3 phosphocholine (DSPC); and 1monomethoxypolyethyleneglycol-2,3-dimyristylglycerol with polyethylene glycol of average molecular weight 2000 (PEG2000-DMG). The mRNA-1273 is provided as a sterile liquid for injection and is a white to off-white dispersion in appearance, at a concentration of 0.2 mg/mL in 20 mM Tris buffer containing 87mg/mL sucrose and 10.7 mM sodium acetate at pH 7.5.

    The placebo is 0.9% sodium chloride (normal saline) injection, which meets the criteria of the United States Pharmacopeia (USP).

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 2
  14. 10 hours ago, whitestavern said:

    I read somewhere (months back) that some of the nonactive ingredients in the vaccine are in the placebo as well. Anyone know if that is accurate? Maybe it was one of those ingredients that caused those particular side effects. 


    9 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

    That seems pretty unlikely, although I'd be curious if anyone knows what they used as placebo. 

    The placebo used in the Pfizer trial was saline:

    "Trial Procedure

    With the use of an interactive Web-based system, participants in the trial were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive 30 μg of BNT162b2 (0.3 ml volume per dose) or saline placebo."


    • Thanks 4
  15. 1 hour ago, bolt. said:

    Our vaccines are purchased by the federal government and distributed in partnership with the provinces. Aside from logistics, there aren't any further costs after the initial mass purchase from the manufacturer.

    Provincial health insurance plans are paying providers to administer it, similarly to payment for any other provincially covered health care service, so there definitely is additional cost borne by the provincial health insurance plans. (in Ontario, MDs are billing OHIP for each vaccine given in the office, or billing a sessional fee at mass vax clinics).  Though maybe that's what you meant by logistics?

    ETA This is costing the provinces a whole lot of money (well spent, of course). I expect that provincial administration costs are greater than the cost of the vaccine themselves.

  16. The protocol here would be to lock-down the whole household until the symptomatic person had a negative covid test.

    Given that you're fully vaxed, covid seems unlikely.  BUT covid is a sneaky jerk of a virus, so I would lock-down and keep the kids home until you have a negative test. 

    I guess you have to decide which is worse: the high probability outcome of disruption of locking down the family for a day or two until you have a negative test, or the low probability outcome of not locking-down and exposing others to covid in the unlikely event that that's what you've got.

    • Like 3
  17. Nature vs nurture.  I think the answer is both. 

    Lucky genetics, resource access, nurturing family/environment.  I think if you have 2 of 3, you have a chance.

    I think inter-generational trauma is a vicious cycle that's really, really hard to overcome, even with the most robust genetics.  Impoverished/non-nurturing early environment (even as an infant) is hard to overcome.  Fetal exposure to substances might be impossible to overcome (fetal alcohol syndrome is permanent).

    The combination of unlucky genetics, impoverished environment/resource access, and a non-nurturing family is deadly.

    • Like 18
  • Create New...