Jump to content

Menu

Long term masking behavior questions


Recommended Posts

Just now, Æthelflæd said:

Thanks everyone for the replies and response decorum. 

I have a part 2 sort of and I am going to flat out request to please do not bog down, nor bog down others in epidemiological terminology like a gotcha with efficacy vs effectiveness etc. Afaik, the vast majority of people here are lay persons and not epidemiologists in any way shape or form, so I think the discussion is easier when people aren't worried about getting bashed for using the wrong terminology. I'm going to use "effectiveness" as understood in general every day conversation, because I think most people know and think of effectiveness in a very similar way. 

So, in light of that- In terms of a vaccine, if you are waiting for a vaccine for resumption of "normal" activities, what level of effectiveness would you want a vaccine to have , before the vaccine allowed you to operate in a fairly normal-ish manner (masking or not, but say full return to pre-plague activities generally speaking)? In other words, what is your threshold? 100%, 70%? 50%? Less? 

Would you take the numbers off the finalized study, or do you plan to wait through a set time period to see how things played out in the wider population as a whole? 

 

97%+ effective @ 3 months

95%+ effective @ 6+months

90% effective @ 12+ months

 

I will wait at least six months after vaccine launch or three months after this administration is no longer in charge before accepting these figures.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 151
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Professionally (emergency department), I think masking for every patient encounter is probably a habit I will hang on to for a good long time, maybe forever.  It's interesting how my perspective has s

There never has been a mask mandate in my area. I starting masking way back in March; it just made sense to me that masks might help. I'll absolutely keep masking until there is widespread v

I'm just trying to get through the "right now." I'll have to worry about anything else when we get there. I do fervently hope that masking remains very common.

Just now, Sneezyone said:

 

97%+ effective @ 3 months

95%+ effective @ 6+months

90% effective @ 12+ months

 

I will wait at least six months after vaccine launch or three months after this administration is no longer in charge before accepting these figures.

Without being political, were there to be no administration change would that prevent you from using the vaccine at all? Or would other global verification suffice after a time period? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Æthelflæd said:

Without being political, were there to be no administration change would that prevent you from using the vaccine at all? Or would other global verification suffice after a time period? 

It would 100% delay my acceptance of the vaccine. I need adults with a backbone, backed by data, to be in charge of certifying these numbers. In the absence of that, I'll wait.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Æthelflæd said:

Thanks everyone for the replies and response decorum. 

I have a part 2 sort of and I am going to flat out request to please do not bog down, nor bog down others in epidemiological terminology like a gotcha with efficacy vs effectiveness etc. Afaik, the vast majority of people here are lay persons and not epidemiologists in any way shape or form, so I think the discussion is easier when people aren't worried about getting bashed for using the wrong terminology. I'm going to use "effectiveness" as understood in general every day conversation, because I think most people know and think of effectiveness in a very similar way. 

So, in light of that- In terms of a vaccine, if you are waiting for a vaccine for resumption of "normal" activities, what level of effectiveness would you want a vaccine to have , before the vaccine allowed you to operate in a fairly normal-ish manner (masking or not, but say full return to pre-plague activities generally speaking)? In other words, what is your threshold? 100%, 70%? 50%? Less? 

Would you take the numbers off the finalized study, or do you plan to wait through a set time period to see how things played out in the wider population as a whole? 

 

I do not have an answer to this currently.

But I do have thoughts and a side question. 

 

The discussion about mask wearing causing possible reduction in carefulness  made me wonder about that with regard to vaccines . I don’t seem to be a person for whom flu vaccine is effective (which I now wonder if it could be D related). And I now wonder if my experience in getting flu when I got flu shot was due to thinking I was protected and thus letting down my guard in other ways - Rather than as I had previously thought some greater susceptibility due to the vaccination. (Or could be neither, or a combination.) 

If a CV19 vaccine has a high percent effectiveness, then people letting down their guard because of a vaccine is probably is not much of an issue.

If it has a lower effectiveness, is it possible that people dropping their guard (masks, distance, hand washing, whatever) in other ways would be a problem?  And perhaps a problem not just for CV19, but also for other illness too? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pen said:

 

I do not have an answer to this currently.

But I do have thoughts and a side question. 

 

The discussion about mask wearing causing possible reduction in carefulness  made me wonder about that with regard to vaccines . I don’t seem to be a person for whom flu vaccine is effective (which I now wonder if it could be D related). And I now wonder if my experience in getting flu when I got flu shot was due to thinking I was protected and thus letting down my guard in other ways - Rather than as I had previously thought some greater susceptibility due to the vaccination. (Or could be neither, or a combination.) 

If a CV19 vaccine has a high percent effectiveness, then people letting down their guard because of a vaccine is probably is not much of an issue.

If it has a lower effectiveness, is it possible that people dropping their guard (masks, distance, hand washing, whatever) in other ways would be a problem?  And perhaps a problem not just for CV19, but also for other illness too? 

I have worried about this, too. The president is acting like the vaccine will be completely effective and that once we have a vaccine, life will go right back to normal. Clearly, he is not being truthful about that. None of the experts are claiming that the vaccine will be anywhere near 100% effective. But if people believe the president, I do think things will get worse, because people will think they no longer need to take any precautions against the virus. 

It is a scary thought.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

I do not have an answer to this currently.

But I do have thoughts and a side question. 

 

The discussion about mask wearing causing possible reduction in carefulness  made me wonder about that with regard to vaccines . I don’t seem to be a person for whom flu vaccine is effective (which I now wonder if it could be D related). And I now wonder if my experience in getting flu when I got flu shot was due to thinking I was protected and thus letting down my guard in other ways - Rather than as I had previously thought some greater susceptibility due to the vaccination. (Or could be neither, or a combination.) 

If a CV19 vaccine has a high percent effectiveness, then people letting down their guard because of a vaccine is probably is not much of an issue.

If it has a lower effectiveness, is it possible that people dropping their guard (masks, distance, hand washing, whatever) in other ways would be a problem?  And perhaps a problem not just for CV19, but also for other illness too? 

Generally speaking, many (most) Americans DO NOT get flu vaccine b/c people don't take the disease seriously so there is low protection against flu (even when the vaccines a good match for the circulating strains) in general. That would not be the case if/when people adopted a COVID-19 vaccine. 1) people with half a lick of sense know it is more dangerous. 2) The vaccine would (presumably) be a better match for the disease and 3) there would be a far greater uptake rate (presuming trustworthy data, which is a BIG presumption).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pen said:

 

I do not have an answer to this currently.

But I do have thoughts and a side question. 

 

The discussion about mask wearing causing possible reduction in carefulness  made me wonder about that with regard to vaccines . I don’t seem to be a person for whom flu vaccine is effective (which I now wonder if it could be D related). And I now wonder if my experience in getting flu when I got flu shot was due to thinking I was protected and thus letting down my guard in other ways - Rather than as I had previously thought some greater susceptibility due to the vaccination. (Or could be neither, or a combination.) 

If a CV19 vaccine has a high percent effectiveness, then people letting down their guard because of a vaccine is probably is not much of an issue.

If it has a lower effectiveness, is it possible that people dropping their guard (masks, distance, hand washing, whatever) in other ways would be a problem?  And perhaps a problem not just for CV19, but also for other illness too? 

I think a confounding factor for flu, and tbd maybe for covid, is that the effectiveness various vastly from year to year sometimes. If they have a 70% effective flu vaccine generally speaking (not bracketed by age), that is considered good success. When they are in the 40%'s, or lower, people sort of shrug, whelp we missed. It doesn't help that it's retrospective either. Assuming they have to adjust for mutations seasonally or yearly of course and it's not something static like measles.

It would be interesting to know if people do consciously change their habits on years where they either didn't vaccinate for flu, or have heard the vaccine isn't as effective. Or are people fairly stable in behavior across the board. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the vaccine......we will be getting it but don’t expect to be allowed at the front of any queue.  Our focus will be to get my YA’s vaccinated so they can resume a bit more of a normal life.  Honestly my current feelings are trending towards pushing myself to the front of the queue!  

My husband is in charge of the decision because he has worked with determining vaccination numbers for herd immunity in a professional capacity.  He is simply hoping for that 40% that is acceptable in flu vaccines with a high degree of safety.  With that we won’t be out hugging strangers but can return to our somewhat germ adverse previous state.......I have always carried and used Purell.😉

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Snort. I’m in Oklahoma where we do not have a mask mandate and never have. The city next to me does but not the county.  It has had zero affect on my household masking. We mask everywhere we go and we do not do business with any establishment that doesn’t insist on on masking indoors. 
 

We are a ridiculous small minority. Dammit.
 

And the reason why people don’t wear a mask?

”well there isn’t a mandate.”

yeah. Those folks are why we need a mandate. 

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

We will probably be offered the vax early on to protect DH and, secondarily, military readiness. I have already decided (b/c I am the medical decision-maker in this family) not to take it unless it is proven safe and effective. I do not trust this administration. DH doesn't get a choice. God bless him, he's not risk-free either.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

It would 100% delay my acceptance of the vaccine. I need adults with a backbone, backed by data, to be in charge of certifying these numbers. In the absence of that, I'll wait.

I may be off, but isn't ACIP in charge of recommending vaccines?  And the CDC is responsible for putting it on the schedule and making the information sheet given out by doctors to patients?  The executive administration can say whatever they like, but the government medical organizations are the ones who are ultimately in charge of the data and certification.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the part 2, I don’t have a specific number. I think a lot will be dependent on how widespread vaccination is. I run in some anti-vax overlapped circles, so there is no rate of efficacy that will have me comfortable there.  If I know my closest friends are vaxed, I might consider spending time together even with a 50% efficacy rate. I don’t have to make the choice right now, so I might just be more lax in the hypothetical.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hopeallgoeswell said:

I may be off, but isn't ACIP in charge of recommending vaccines?  And the CDC is responsible for putting it on the schedule and making the information sheet given out by doctors to patients?  The executive administration can say whatever they like, but the government medical organizations are the ones who are ultimately in charge of the data and certification.

There was some sketchy changes in the way this is handled in the last couple of months 

I know the NY TIMES is political but you can read a bit here

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/05/us/politics/coronavirus-vaccine-guidelines.html#click=https://t.co/0Z5rAObcaL

note that I didn’t come to this via the NY times but by multiple epidemiologists expressing their concerns on Twitter.

Basically the FDA want there to be at least two months of follow up safety data for phase 3 trials before an EUA.  this seems to me like a bare minimum to be honest I’m surprised how low the bar has been set.  But even that is being blocked.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For me personally relaxation would depend less on the published vaccine data and more on seeing what a roll out actually did in terms of case numbers and hospitalisations.  It also depends on the vaccine type.  If it is one that reduces symptoms but doesn’t actually stop spread that’s a different cup of tea to one that actually stops the virus from spreading.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/06/fda-vaccine-guidelines-white-house-426764
 

it looks like the new guidelines have now been approved.  I have to admit I downloaded them off the website because I thought it might be handy to have a copy of what they initially said was the safe minimum in case there’s political pressure down here to get them pushed through.  We’re supposedly getting the Astra Zeneca one.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

It would 100% delay my acceptance of the vaccine. I need adults with a backbone, backed by data, to be in charge of certifying these numbers. In the absence of that, I'll wait.

Yeah, especially with administration's overruling of CDC's very minimal safety and efficacy standards, I have real concerns about the vaccine.  I would normally jump on getting a vaccine, but honestly, it makes me say I'm going to wait six months until there's better data, because I don't trust anyone in charge.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, hopeallgoeswell said:

I may be off, but isn't ACIP in charge of recommending vaccines?  And the CDC is responsible for putting it on the schedule and making the information sheet given out by doctors to patients?  The executive administration can say whatever they like, but the government medical organizations are the ones who are ultimately in charge of the data and certification.

Many of these organizations/vaccine approval committees have been overruled and/or captured by partisans. Respect for their medical authority has largely been normative not statutory. We've seen many of these norms fall to political agendas over the last few years. I'm not willing to accept anything from those who hold (or appear to hold) the politics>science view.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/06/fda-vaccine-guidelines-white-house-426764
 

it looks like the new guidelines have now been approved.  I have to admit I downloaded them off the website because I thought it might be handy to have a copy of what they initially said was the safe minimum in case there’s political pressure down here to get them pushed through.  We’re supposedly getting the Astra Zeneca one.

Same. They're already changing the rules in the U.S. to push a less secure vaccine for political purposes.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SKL said:

I was thinking of starting a thread to see how common it is that masking is really hard.  It seems that most people feel it's no big deal.  Even my kids don't complain.  But my experience is not like that at all.  The other day I had to run out of a store because it was impossible to breathe in there while masked.  It depends on the air quality ... I'm better if the air is cool and not thick.

When I was a kid, I liked to sleep with my head covered, but then I discovered that this was causing headaches.  So maybe that is a thing for me personally.  So, there are at least some people who have difficulty masking despite not having an official "medical excuse."

Yes, I can handle it longer if the air is cold and dry. I was ok at the farmer's market this weekend because it was very cool out. In Walgreens I have about 5 - 10 minutes before I start having problems. I will also have the same issue if I'm overexerting myself on a very hot and humid day, but that also gets my MS symptoms flaring. That's why I had to stop walking my dog in the summer - I once had to call my husband to pick me up one block down from our house. I guess it's the humidity combined with the heat in the mask that gets me. My normal breathing pattern is very slow and shallow breaths.

Oddly, I thought my son would have the biggest problem - he's very sensitive to heat, on the spectrum and has sensory issues. He's fine in a mask. He just won't go out at all from anxiety, even for a ride in the car.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

There was some sketchy changes in the way this is handled in the last couple of months 

I know the NY TIMES is political but you can read a bit here

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/05/us/politics/coronavirus-vaccine-guidelines.html#click=https://t.co/0Z5rAObcaL

note that I didn’t come to this via the NY times but by multiple epidemiologists expressing their concerns on Twitter.

Basically the FDA want there to be at least two months of follow up safety data for phase 3 trials before an EUA.  this seems to me like a bare minimum to be honest I’m surprised how low the bar has been set.  But even that is being blocked.

I am with everyone here who is saying that politics have slowly been creeping into medical treatments/products/policies.  I think people would be surprised if they took a peek at actual vaccine inserts (not the CDC handout) and looked under section 6 to see what is there and what isn't there.  The SAE for vaccines can vary, some only being 30 days.  I am very happy that vaccine safety and efficacy is front, center, and fairly transparent right now.  It might lead to safer and more effective vaccines...hopefully.  We won't be getting the vaccine until all the research is published and we talk with our doctor about it.

 

Back story if you are so inclined to read:  I am not "anti-vax."  When my first dd was born, she was 4 weeks early.  When she was 4 hours old, she was given a hep B vaccine (even though I tested negative for it and she was not going into a daycare setting) and taken to get her first bath.  After almost 24 hours of being up and a natural labor, I was tired.  I closed my eyes to rest and opened them 45 minutes later in a panic.  When I called the nurses' station, she said there was a little problem; dd was ok, but they couldn't bring her back until a doctor was there to speak with me and my husband.  When he came in, he said, "Your daughter had a little bout of apnea and we had to resuscitate her after she started turning blue.  She'll need to be on a heart and lung monitor for the first few months just so we can keep an eye on her."  I knew nothing of the anti-vax movement and was raised by a physician's assistant who was big on "just go with what the docs say," but the first thing I said was, "Could it have been the vaccine?"  His response was to chuckle and say, "Oh, no.  Vaccines are completely safe and effective.  She probably just got mad and held her breath."  Chuckle, chuckle.  Um, ok.  I was always told when kids pitched a fit and held their breath, they automatically started breathing again.  But I was 20, and a mere college student; what did I know?  He should have told me, "That specific vaccine is noted to cause episodes of apnea in premature babies.  There is a small possibility it could have been the vaccine; let's report it to VAERS."  It wasn't until I started to get into my higher level stats classes that I became interested about the ins and outs of vaccine research, having a baby who was deep in the throws of several multi-dose vaccines every few months and piling up more and more signs of inflammation.  When I asked the doctor a few very specific things, he poo-pooed me away with an air of "They're perfectly safe.  I'm the doctor."  He never answered one question over the next few visits, so I dug into it myself and changed doctors. Thankfully, we have someone now who believes in informed consent and keeps up-to-date with published research. To say that vaccines are safe and effective, with completely air-tight, unquestionable science, is a bit alarming; we don't do that with any other medical procedure/product.  Here is just one interesting study my doctor has given me: https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf

 

Editing to add: I tend to mentally shy away from this, but I wanted to add that if my dd had stayed with us instead of going with the nurse for her bath, I don't think she would be alive right now.  The doctor probably would have said it was SIDS.

Edited by hopeallgoeswell
  • Sad 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, hopeallgoeswell said:

I am with everyone here who is saying that politics have slowly been creeping into medical treatments/products/policies.  I think people would be surprised if they took a peek at actual vaccine inserts (not the CDC handout) and looked under section 6 to see what is there and what isn't there.  The SAE for vaccines can vary, some only being 30 days.  I am very happy that vaccine safety and efficacy is front, center, and fairly transparent right now.  It might lead to safer and more effective vaccines...hopefully.  We won't be getting the vaccine until all the research is published and we talk with our doctor about it.

 

Back story if you are so inclined to read:  I am not "anti-vax."  When my fist dd was born, she was 4 weeks early.  When she was 4 hours old, she was given a hep B vaccine (even though I tested negative for it and she was not going into a daycare setting) and taken to get her first bath.  After almost 24 hours of being up and a natural labor, I was tired.  I closed my eyes to rest and opened them 45 minutes later in a panic.  When I called the nurses' station, she said there was a little problem; dd was ok, but they couldn't bring her back until a doctor was there to speak with me and my husband.  When he came in, he said, "Your daughter had a little bout of apnea and we had to resuscitate her after she started turning blue.  She'll need to be on a heart and lung monitor for the first few months just so we can keep an eye on her."  I knew nothing of the anti-vax movement and was raised by a physician's assistant who was big on "just go with what the docs say," but the first thing I said was, "Could it have been the vaccine?"  His response was to chuckle and say, "Oh, no.  Vaccines are completely safe and effective.  She probably just got mad and held her breath."  Chuckle, chuckle.  Um, ok.  I was always told when kids pitched a fit and held their breath, they automatically started breathing again.  But I was 20, and a mere college student; what did I know?  He should have told me, "That specific vaccine is noted to have episodes of apnea in premature babies.  There is a small possibility it could have been the vaccine; let's report it to VAERS."  It wasn't until I started to get into my higher level stats classes that I became interested about the ins and outs of vaccine research, having a baby who was deep in the throws of several multi-dose vaccines every few months and piling up more and more signs of inflammation.  When I asked the doctor a few very specific things, he poo-pooed me away with an air of "They're perfectly safe.  I'm the doctor."  He never answered one question over the next few visits, so I dug into it myself and changed doctors. Thankfully, we have someone now who believes in informed consent and keeps up-to-date with published research. To say that vaccines are safe and effective, with completely air-tight, unquestionable science, is a bit alarming; we don't do that with any other medical procedure/product.  Here is just one interesting study my doctor has given me: https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf

Wow what a scary experience.   Also not an anti vaxxer but had a much milder but similar experience with dd have a pretty bad week after the rotavirus vaccine including blood in nappy.  I was told it was within the range of normal and not reportable.  I think it makes sense to pay attention to the specifics of each vaccine.  

  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@hopeallgoeswell I’m so sorry you had such a scary experience. I think, as in many things, the “extremists” in the anti-vax world have caused a reaction of “extremism” in the pro-vax world, because some pro-vax professions or organizations are so bent on never chronicling a possible adverse effect, they become dismissive. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Catwoman said:

It would be pretty disappointing thinking you were going to see Robert Redford and then Robert Redfield showed up. 😉 

I saw Robert Redford at my local coffee shop last year. I couldn't believe it was him, so I stared for like 15 minutes (trying to be discreet, googling pictures of him), and lo and behold, it was him! I had just watched The Sting, so I was all aaaaaaaaaahhhhhh Robert Redford is 6 feet from me!!!!! I was too shy to say hi.

He probably thought I was a weirdo. The funny thing was, NOBODY talked to him or gave him any notice at all. He just got his latte and sat there drinking it, reading on his iPad. 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Quill said:

@hopeallgoeswell I’m so sorry you had such a scary experience. I think, as in many things, the “extremists” in the anti-vax world have caused a reaction of “extremism” in the pro-vax world, because some pro-vax professions or organizations are so bent on never chronicling a possible adverse effect, they become dismissive. 

It was extremely terrifying.  I know most new parents like to sit and watch their baby sleep, but I was hyper-vigilant, especially for the first few days after every round of vaccines.  

I agree that extremism leads to extreme polarization, but I would have to say that doctors' dismissals of parents' observations and concerns (much like my experience upthread) led to what is labeled as the "anti-vax" movement.  After almost 20 years of researching this via various medical avenues and history books, I get a little salty when the topic comes up, so this might get long-winded.  Are vaccines tested against an inert placebo?  Are they tested concomitantly (CDC schedule)?  Are they tested longitudinally?  Are they tested to see if they offer protection against spreading the illness to others?   Are they tested to see how long protection from the vaccine lasts?  The adverse reactions captured in testing for most vaccines are limited to little things like fever, headaches, and swelling at the injection site for the next few days and the SAE that are captured for the next 1-6 months are always stated with the caveat of "it isn't known if the vaccine caused them or not." In my experience, when people take an unbiased look into how vaccines get produced, tested, and green-lit for mass distribution (most of the time by mandates), they are generally confused and appalled.  Most of who the media would label as "anti-vax" parents are not against vaccines, they just want better testing and more transparency.  Most of the "pro-vax" doctors don't want to be dismissive, but they are taught that vaccines are safe and effective and can [very rarely] cause anaphylactic shock, which is fixed with an EpiPen. I am glad production of the covid vaccines are bring the concerns "anti-vaxxers" have had to light and are actually giving them credence.  

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, hopeallgoeswell said:

... I am glad production of the covid vaccines are bring the concerns "anti-vaxxers" have had to light and are actually giving them credence.  

Yes, I was thinking this too.  I hear people saying they aren't going to blindly follow xyz down the Covid vax path.  That's exactly how I feel about this and every vax.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Æthelflæd said:

 

So, in light of that- In terms of a vaccine, if you are waiting for a vaccine for resumption of "normal" activities, what level of effectiveness would you want a vaccine to have , before the vaccine allowed you to operate in a fairly normal-ish manner (masking or not, but say full return to pre-plague activities generally speaking)? In other words, what is your threshold? 100%, 70%? 50%? Less? 

Would you take the numbers off the finalized study, or do you plan to wait through a set time period to see how things played out in the wider population as a whole? 

I'm realistic that most vaccines are considered widely successful if they hit >75%.  The average flu vaccine hits a 40-60% window, and as a Coronavirus it is more likely we're going to be in that window than at 90%+.  I haven't seen a lot of conversation on this point. I'm not sure if they aren't wanting to crash the markets, or what.

I have friends in the vaccine development industry.  None of them are going to take a vaccine in its first year out, especially one that has been rushed through phase 3. I'm following their lead.

As to when I'll stop masking in public (if I ever do)....I'm going to look at local statistics re: amount of community spread.....same as I do during influenza season.  I suspect there will be a CDC tracker on this point, just like there is for influenza.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, I have had an adverse reaction to vaccines, and two of my kids have.  We're in the whole have-to-premedicate camp so that my skew my viewpoint to a more cautionary one than most.  We still get vaccines, and we will for this one also, but we'll also be the people having to premedicate, and then sit in the office with epi-pens on standby and continuing to carry them after the shot. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not related to long term masking behavior (which, for me, whatever, I'll do it where it's required until people stop), but the turn of this thread is disturbing.

I am extremely worried that anti-vax rhetoric is being given a foothold where it otherwise would not.

The whole argument that the government is covering up bad data or outcomes is the same trope that people who don't vaccinate their kids with *any* vaccines trot out time and time again (it dovetails nicely into "read the package insert! See how dangerous they are! The government knows and is giving them to us anyway!"). And if we get a Biden admin, nothing about what is happening with approval or trials of covid vaccines will change. Nothing. The scientists developing the vaccines aren't going to change in January, the data in the trials isn't going to change, the efficacy or lack thereof isn't going to change, and for people to be spreading this anti-vax nonsense and because of politics is super irresponsible, IMO. 

I'm just super peeved that all my anti-vax friends suddenly now have a soapbox to climb on and are being legitimatized by political cynicism. Trump is not making a vaccine, nor approving it. His administration has authorized tons of money so that one can be studied and produced without companies risking losing millions of dollars on something that might not work so that trials are conducted at a faster pace.

If you don't want a specific vax because of the efficacy or trial data, don't take it. I'm all for informed consent. But please stop spreading anti-vax nonsense about government conspiracy and denigrating the hard work of actual, reputable scientists on something extremely important because of who is or is not occupying the white house.

This concludes my TED talk and I don't know if I'll be able to log in again tomorrow because I keep getting booted off, so this may be the last I say on this subject for a week.😆

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, EmseB said:

Not related to long term masking behavior (which, for me, whatever, I'll do it where it's required until people stop), but the turn of this thread is disturbing.

I am extremely worried that anti-vax rhetoric is being given a foothold where it otherwise would not.

The whole argument that the government is covering up bad data or outcomes is the same trope that people who don't vaccinate their kids with *any* vaccines trot out time and time again (it dovetails nicely into "read the package insert! See how dangerous they are! The government knows and is giving them to us anyway!"). And if we get a Biden admin, nothing about what is happening with approval or trials of covid vaccines will change. Nothing. The scientists developing the vaccines aren't going to change in January, the data in the trials isn't going to change, the efficacy or lack thereof isn't going to change, and for people to be spreading this anti-vax nonsense and because of politics is super irresponsible, IMO. 

I'm just super peeved that all my anti-vax friends suddenly now have a soapbox to climb on and are being legitimatized by political cynicism. Trump is not making a vaccine, nor approving it. His administration has authorized tons of money so that one can be studied and produced without companies risking losing millions of dollars on something that might not work so that trials are conducted at a faster pace.

If you don't want a specific vax because of the efficacy or trial data, don't take it. I'm all for informed consent. But please stop spreading anti-vax nonsense about government conspiracy and denigrating the hard work of actual, reputable scientists on something extremely important because of who is or is not occupying the white house.

This concludes my TED talk and I don't know if I'll be able to log in again tomorrow because I keep getting booted off, so this may be the last I say on this subject for a week.😆

These concerns are being raised by extremely pro vax virologists and epidemiologists.  In fact that’s one of their major concerns.  If gov bends laws to push through an unsafe vax it’s going to set back public trust in vaccine by years.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

These concerns are being raised by extremely pro vax virologists and epidemiologists.  In fact that’s one of their major concerns.  If gov bends laws to push through an unsafe vax it’s going to set back public trust in vaccine by years.

I’m definitely in the pro vax camp. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

These concerns are being raised by extremely pro vax virologists and epidemiologists.  In fact that’s one of their major concerns.  If gov bends laws to push through an unsafe vax it’s going to set back public trust in vaccine by years.

The concerns, as far as I can see, are political, based on US politics, and not based on looking at data from trials (that isn't even available yet!). It is denigrating the work before it's done and validating anti-vax conspiracy theories and is poisoning the well before we know anything about the vaccines themselves, and is actively discouraging an already wary public from getting a vaccine based solely on speculation. The US isn't even the only country developing or approving vaccines for use! Even if Trump had some final say about the science in the US (he doesn't), he doesn't have input for many, many other countries, some of whom are developing their own vaccines.

The basic idea I see is that life shouldn't return to normal without a vax, but we shouldn't trust the science on a vax before late Jan because politics, and not even then if the right person doesn't get elected in the US. It is not about the science and the fact that some scientists would inject politics into this issue like this before data is even available or decisions are made is deeply problematic.

I am not for bending the rules. I am very much against, for example, what Russia and possibly China are doing wrt to a vaccine. I am for looking at the phase iii data and letting scientists make evaluations and recommendations regardless of who is in the white house.

I think any virologist or epidemiologist who is saying Trump is a problem for vaccine trustworthiness is ruining their reputation because that's not how vaccine development works. That's not how any of this works. And they know it.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot speak for everyone but my objections are based on the interference of political appointees in decision making about the   COVID vaccine trials and emergency/trial certification standards. They have, like a lot of other issues, dumbed things down, repeatedly lied, and undermined science (most notably with the efficacy of universal masking, severity of the illness, and airborne transmission). You are on an island, practically alone, in your view of this administration’s trustworthiness. That’s ok, of course, to each his/her/their own. No one’s gonna be guilted into taking the Trump administrations word on anything tho, not even WRT the weather...especially the weather. Sharpie anyone? JAMA literally endorsed the other guy. First time in 250+ years. 🤣

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, EmseB said:

The concerns, as far as I can see, are political, based on US politics, and not based on looking at data from trials (that isn't even available yet!). It is denigrating the work before it's done and validating anti-vax conspiracy theories and is poisoning the well before we know anything about the vaccines themselves, and is actively discouraging an already wary public from getting a vaccine based solely on speculation. The US isn't even the only country developing or approving vaccines for use! Even if Trump had some final say about the science in the US (he doesn't), he doesn't have input for many, many other countries, some of whom are developing their own vaccines.

The basic idea I see is that life shouldn't return to normal without a vax, but we shouldn't trust the science on a vax before late Jan because politics, and not even then if the right person doesn't get elected in the US. It is not about the science and the fact that some scientists would inject politics into this issue like this before data is even available or decisions are made is deeply problematic.

I am not for bending the rules. I am very much against, for example, what Russia and possibly China are doing wrt to a vaccine. I am for looking at the phase iii data and letting scientists make evaluations and recommendations regardless of who is in the white house.

I think any virologist or epidemiologist who is saying Trump is a problem for vaccine trustworthiness is ruining their reputation because that's not how vaccine development works. That's not how any of this works. And they know it.


to be honest I can’t be bothered digging  back into the links and stuff from the Last few weeks because I know it won’t change your mind anyway.  In short from memory a rule change was brought in stating the FDA couldn’t make any changes that weren’t personally signed off by the HHS secretary.  The HHS assures everyone it was just for clarity and wouldn’t change anything.  The FDA wanted to make a change to the rules around vaccine approvals because they had serious concerns about the current requirements.  The Whitehouse then blocked them from issuing the new rules.  FDA then sent them to the vaccine manufacturers and the Whitehouse backed down and approved the new rules.  In case we think this is some over the top ruling the FDA are asking for they are asking to extend the minimum amount of safety data from phase 3 trials for an EAU from 1 month to 3 months.  Do you really think getting authorisation for a new vaccine based on one month worth of safety data is actually sufficient.  Personally I’d be pretty scared even on three months that we wouldn’t know about the long term impacts particularly with a vaccine relating to a coronavirus given the known issues with the SARS vaccine etc. I don’t think the fda were being unreasonable.

I can’t go further than that without getting into politics and I doubt I’ll change your mind anyway.  But for anyone whose willing to do some research and reading I’m standing by the fact that we need to check the data on whatever vaccine gets through pretty carefully.  No matter which political party they are all pretty keen to see a magic bullet that will get the economy going again.  Heck we all are.  Which makes the perfect environment for a rushed solution which is really not a solution.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

For whatever reason this week has seen an even more than usual return to pre-covid era in this area.  I typically do not wear masks, but will make exception for the dr office or something like that.  Anyway, this week we went for a walk with ds2 in the evening and that takes us by a playground which is conveniently right beside the local watering hole.  The neighbor kids came running over and so they played and we had beer with the neighbors.  Then a man wandered over who knew the neighbors and introduced himself and shook hands.  I haven't shaken hands with anyone since March!  Then Dh had a business meeting and went with a mask but no one wore them and everyone shook hands.  I guess maybe that's a snapshot of masking going forward around here.  Maybe at a dr office, although my dentist does not require it and has no signs about masks or distancing. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Mbelle said:

For whatever reason this week has seen an even more than usual return to pre-covid era in this area.  I typically do not wear masks, but will make exception for the dr office or something like that.  Anyway, this week we went for a walk with ds2 in the evening and that takes us by a playground which is conveniently right beside the local watering hole.  The neighbor kids came running over and so they played and we had beer with the neighbors.  Then a man wandered over who knew the neighbors and introduced himself and shook hands.  I haven't shaken hands with anyone since March!  Then Dh had a business meeting and went with a mask but no one wore them and everyone shook hands.  I guess maybe that's a snapshot of masking going forward around here.  Maybe at a dr office, although my dentist does not require it and has no signs about masks or distancing. 

 

Wow. I can’t imagine this world right now, at least not anywhere in the US. Are you willing to share where you are? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, kand said:

Wow. I can’t imagine this world right now, at least not anywhere in the US. Are you willing to share where you are? 

Yeah, it has been an exceptional week.  There are still stores that require masks, but those tend to be a few select big box stores like costco or walmart.  Also my older kids college is still very strict with plans to continue it next semester.  Ds1 did say he wants to take a gap year starting next semester as he's quite unhappy with the situation.  Older dd is unhappy too, but she's so far along it doesn't make sense to drop out at this point.  More discussions are coming up on that this weekend.  We are in GA.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the interesting experience of having a long hospital stay right before Covid really broke out in our area. Despite living in an area with a fairly high Asian population, I only had one nurse wear a mask during my stay. She was very apologetic and kept telling me that she wasn’t wearing it because of me. She was required to wear it because she was unable to get flu shots. I was struck by how uncomfortable (socially) the mask made her. 
 

When I got out of the hospital, the very next patient in my ICU bed was our county’s first known Covid case. 
 

About a week later, I needed surgery to have a port put in. First it was canceled because our governor put a stop to elective surgery and my surgeon had to throw a fit and explain that no one just elects to put a port in if it isn’t necessary.

In pre-op, no one was wearing masks until the nurse who had done my telephone appointment decided to take charge. First, she said that she wanted to switch patients and be my nurse because it was more efficient than updating a different nurse about all of the info covered in the phone interview. Once they agreed to switch, she demanded everyone wear a mask around me. It was interesting how much resistance she got from the other staff members. 
 

She even sent the anesthesiologist back to put on a mask telling her that I was about to start chemo, so no one was going to approach my bed without a mask. 
 

I think post Covid, some of the stigma against mask wearing will be lifted. During treatment, my doctor only allowed me to leave the house for medical appointments only, and I wore an N95 mask covered by a surgical mask to those. 
 

Now that I’m finished, she says I can enjoy any activities which are outside if I also wear a mask. I will continue following those guidelines until the Spring,  then I will check in with her again and see if she is okay with my resuming indoor activities. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2020 at 3:53 PM, Sneezyone said:

I cannot speak for everyone but my objections are based on the interference of political appointees in decision making about the   COVID vaccine trials and emergency/trial certification standards. They have, like a lot of other issues, dumbed things down, repeatedly lied, and undermined science (most notably with the efficacy of universal masking, severity of the illness, and airborne transmission). You are on an island, practically alone, in your view of this administration’s trustworthiness. That’s ok, of course, to each his/her/their own. No one’s gonna be guilted into taking the Trump administrations word on anything tho, not even WRT the weather...especially the weather. Sharpie anyone? JAMA literally endorsed the other guy. First time in 250+ years. 🤣

You seem to be missing my point entirely. I don't trust the administration. I don't trust any administration. I am willing to trust the data that comes out in the vaccine trials. The problem is exactly that people are letting their distrust of Trump undermine the actual science and data while giving legitimacy to anti-vax conspiracy theories. This has repercussions beyond the current occupant of the White House.

As for JAMA, a bunch of scientists literally getting political is not good for the scientific community, no matter if it confirms my priors about any particular politician or not. I think perhaps those who are responsible for running major medical journals should look at getting their own houses in order and making sure what they are publishing wrt to various actual medical studies is accurate before branching out into political activism.

Edited by EmseB
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, EmseB said:

You seem to be missing my point entirely. I don't trust the administration. I don't trust any administration. I am willing to trust the data that comes out in the vaccine trials.

As for JAMA, a bunch of scientists literally getting political is not good for the scientific community, no matter if it confirms my priors about any particular politician or not. I think perhaps those who are responsible for running major medical journals should look at getting their own houses in order and making sure what they are publishing wrt to various actual medical studies is accurate before branching out into political activism.

I’m not missing the point at all. There is NOTHING that comes out of this administration that I would trust absent external verification and certification and, breaking long-standing precedent, JAMA agrees. Nothing about the interference we’re seeing in research, approval processes, or medication advocacy is normal. I hope we never see it’s like again. I hope it’s unnecessary. BTW—did I quote/send for you? I don’t think I did. 

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

I’m not missing the point at all. There is NOTHING that comes out of this administration that I would trust absent external verification and certification and, breaking long-standing precedent, JAMA agrees. Nothing about the interference we’re seeing in research, approval processes, or medication advocacy is normal. I hope we never see it’s like again. I hope it’s unnecessary. BTW—did I quote/send for you? I don’t think I did. 

I am free to respond on a message board? To anyone? Wth?

The administration doesn't put out vaccines. So it's not coming out of this administration. The data from phase III trials globally doesn't come out from this White House.

Of course we've seen nothing like this before because we haven't had a pandemic like this in our lifetimes, haven't had such an urgent need for a vax, and haven't really confronted how prospective loss of capital and bureaucracy confound drugs and vaccines getting to market. I mean, the administration has put more dollars into vax research, removing red tape, and speeding progress to hopefully put the brakes on a virus thats killed over 200k people here and that is supposed to be a fault??? If they were *not* putting money into it and not removing government barriers to quicker approval they would be criticized for that, no? I'm not a Trump voter or supporter, so that doesn't even enter into it. I admit to being a bit cynical that vax roll out won't be botched like with H1N1, but that has nothing to do with efficacy or safety.

Again, the US is not the only country doing research or trying to get a vax out. A govt official here in the states has already said (today?) that they won't accept the vax reaearch coming out of the UK either. Denigrating the work of scientists and vax progress worldwide now because ??reasons?? is going to have long lasting repercussions for vaccination rates in the future.

If we want to make an argument for not taking the vax because of efficacy and safety that seems to be a reasonable, pro-science argument.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I am free to respond on a message board? To anyone? Wth?

The administration doesn't put out vaccines. So it's not coming out of this administration. The data from phase III trials globally doesn't come out from this White House.

Of course we've seen nothing like this before because we haven't had a pandemic like this in our lifetimes, haven't had such an urgent need for a vax, and haven't really confronted how prospective loss of capital and bureaucracy confound drugs and vaccines getting to market. I mean, the administration has put more dollars into vax research, removing red tape, and speeding progress to hopefully put the brakes on a virus thats killed over 200k people here and that is supposed to be a fault??? If they were *not* putting money into it and not removing government barriers to quicker approval they would be criticized for that, no? I'm not a Trump voter or supporter, so that doesn't even enter into it. I admit to being a bit cynical that vax roll out won't be botched like with H1N1, but that has nothing to do with efficacy or safety.

Again, the US is not the only country doing research or trying to get a vax out. A govt official here in the states has already said (today?) that they won't accept the vax reaearch coming out of the UK either. Denigrating the work of scientists and vax progress worldwide now because ??reasons?? is going to have long lasting repercussions for vaccination rates in the future.

If we want to make an argument for not taking the vax because of efficacy and safety that seems to be a reasonable, pro-science argument.

Of course you’re free to respond. Seeing as how I’m not the only one espousing this view and you went out of your way to quote me, I’m simply in search of your point. We disagree. End of story.

Edited by Sneezyone
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, EmseB said:

I am free to respond on a message board? To anyone? Wth?

The administration doesn't put out vaccines. So it's not coming out of this administration. The data from phase III trials globally doesn't come out from this White House.

Of course we've seen nothing like this before because we haven't had a pandemic like this in our lifetimes, haven't had such an urgent need for a vax, and haven't really confronted how prospective loss of capital and bureaucracy confound drugs and vaccines getting to market. I mean, the administration has put more dollars into vax research, removing red tape, and speeding progress to hopefully put the brakes on a virus thats killed over 200k people here and that is supposed to be a fault??? If they were *not* putting money into it and not removing government barriers to quicker approval they would be criticized for that, no? I'm not a Trump voter or supporter, so that doesn't even enter into it. I admit to being a bit cynical that vax roll out won't be botched like with H1N1, but that has nothing to do with efficacy or safety.

Again, the US is not the only country doing research or trying to get a vax out. A govt official here in the states has already said (today?) that they won't accept the vax reaearch coming out of the UK either. Denigrating the work of scientists and vax progress worldwide now because ??reasons?? is going to have long lasting repercussions for vaccination rates in the future.

If we want to make an argument for not taking the vax because of efficacy and safety that seems to be a reasonable, pro-science argument.

What would you consider adequate safety data for a phase 3 trial?  To me one month is really not enough.  Then there is the question of number of participants.  For example the Astra Zeneca vaccine has had two cases of transverse myelitis which is typically a 4.6 in a million people incidence according to wiki.  They determined that they most likely weren’t related to the vaccine but there’s not much information out there about how they worked that out.  Is it trustworthy?  
The previous fastest new vaccine creation was four years.  We are less than a year into this pandemic.  Every government everywhere is desperately trying to save their economy while keeping people healthy.  We have already seen a tonne of flawed research released about COVID.  It seems like a perfect storm for potential for unsafe and unproven treatments and vaccines.  So I totally understand why the FDA are trying to slightly tighten the regulations around vaccine EUA.  That makes sense to me.  

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2020 at 5:18 PM, Catwoman said:

Are you finding that many businesses require masks? Has the situation changed at all over the past several months? 

 

 

On 10/6/2020 at 6:46 PM, Murphy101 said:

Snort. I’m in Oklahoma where we do not have a mask mandate and never have. The city next to me does but not the county.  It has had zero affect on my household masking. We mask everywhere we go and we do not do business with any establishment that doesn’t insist on on masking indoors. 
 

 

 

I mentioned earlier in the thread that my state never had a mask mandate and that local mandates were hit and miss. However, some businesses required masking and even now that we're in Phase 3, many still do while some are gleefully anti-mask. I belong to a local facebook group about businesses and their mask policies. The group is pro-mask so we post what a local business' policy is, and have a set of files where we can list that information. The goal is to help people avoid those places that don't require masks for either employees or customers, and to go out of our way to patronize businesses that do. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2020 at 1:34 PM, hopeallgoeswell said:

I am glad production of the covid vaccines are bring the concerns "anti-vaxxers" have had to light and are actually giving them credence.  

 

On 10/7/2020 at 2:08 PM, SKL said:

Yes, I was thinking this too.  I hear people saying they aren't going to blindly follow xyz down the Covid vax path.  That's exactly how I feel about this and every vax.

First, please don't think I'm discounting your experience @hopeallgoeswell. That is truly scary. However, those of us who are pro-vax understand that the vaccines we get and encourage other people to get have had years of trials, not months. The side effects are known and the lists of who shouldn't take a vaccine are also known. The occasional unexpected reaction happens and when it does, yes, it's awful. For the most part however, such vaccines are proven safe and effective. That's not the case if the Covid-19 vaccine is rushed through for approval. It won't have gone through the kind of rigorous trials that our current vaccines have been through. It's apples and oranges really.

Edited by Lady Florida.
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/5/2020 at 7:13 PM, kbutton said:

Ah, that was broader than what I was thinking.

I was definitely not sheltered from germs, dust, bugs (played with them), animals (had pets, spent time on dairy farms, had bats in the attic), dirt (frisbee mud pies were my spec-i-al-ity, and we had a hand-dug basement), the outdoors (most of the county was state forest land), puking children (classmates, kids I was babysitting) plants (had houseplants, gardened, and regularly picked weeds for my mud pies) etc. growing up, and I developed severe allergies as an adult (NO family history of it either)--to the point that I couldn't walk from my front door to the car without my airways tightening up. And my heightened response to rodents? Insane--I can *feel* a mouse in my house via my airways before I can find evidence of one. That's my anecdata, lol! 

Yeah,  I did not grow up in a super clean house and my kids didn't either.  They played outside, had pets, dug in dirt, etc and still have really bad allergies, especially my third.  Both dh and I developed allergies as adults.  I do not believe the hygiene hypothesis because it doesn't make sense/

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

Yeah,  I did not grow up in a super clean house and my kids didn't either.  They played outside, had pets, dug in dirt, etc and still have really bad allergies, especially my third.  Both dh and I developed allergies as adults.  I do not believe the hygiene hypothesis because it doesn't make sense/

Germs vs allergies are not the same issue. You can have a super clean house but if your allergy is pet dander - clean won’t change that. I literally grew up in a zoo and playing in lakes and creeks. I have asthma. That said, moving out of the house where my mother chain smoked was the best thing I ever did for my asthma. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lady Florida. said:

 

 

I mentioned earlier in the thread that my state never had a mask mandate and that local mandates were hit and miss. However, some businesses required masking and even now that we're in Phase 3, many still do while some are gleefully anti-mask. I belong to a local facebook group about businesses and their mask policies. The group is pro-mask so we post what a local business' policy is, and have a set of files where we can list that information. The goal is to help people avoid those places that don't require masks for either employees or customers, and to go out of our way to patronize businesses that do. 

Someone on my FB feed was posting a “rosary for our country” in front of Sprouts today. Someone asked why sprouts? The reply was because Sprouts is “treating people like human virus vectors”.  
 

and myself and another were like um because we ARE?! 
 

I posted that I will happily pray a rosary and for a company using science based policy to do their patriotic duty to care for their neighbors masking policy.  I haven’t be inside Sprouts in 6+ months but I’m absolutely going to wear my mask and shop inside there today.

I’m going to chant it to the day I die.

What work of mercy or beatitude are they basing that on? Because THAT comes before any so-called civil freedoms.  I can’t fathom how that is a Christ first response. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's a difference between making the vax available to those who want it vs. mandating it.  In the case of mandated vaxes, if they are ever justified, then yes, they should be tested and proven safe for almost everyone over a number of years IMO.  But I also believe that people should be allowed to exercise "informed consent" to get a vax much sooner than that, especially if they are adults.  So, if an adult wanted to go get this vax today, I would say, fine, your choice.  Know the risks and unknowns and make your decision.  Just don't expect me to do the same.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

Yeah,  I did not grow up in a super clean house and my kids didn't either.  They played outside, had pets, dug in dirt, etc and still have really bad allergies, especially my third.  Both dh and I developed allergies as adults.  I do not believe the hygiene hypothesis because it doesn't make sense/ 

Some of that parent blaming "your kid has allergies because your house was too clean" attitude reminds me of when I was in college. My major was special education and studies on autism were still in their infancy even though it had long been identified. In the late 70s they actually thought one of the causes of autism was infants not being cuddled enough. This theory was actually put forward in my college textbooks! Imagine the guilt parents (and especially mothers) were feeling when told that. 

Anyway, it's off topic but reminds me of it. People who grew up in clean environments develop allergies. People who grew up in dirty environments have allergies. The hygiene hypotheses not only doesn't make sense but wrongly places blame, 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve often wondered with the hygiene hypothesis if there’s more of a relationship between chemical exposures from cleaning products than actual cleanliness.  We live on a farm and my oldest has bad allergies.  That said we were in the city and he was indoors and everything was much cleaner when he was in those early pivotal years that I think the hygiene hypothesis is based on and my other two don’t have the same issues.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...