Jump to content

Menu

To vaccine or not to vaccine


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, SKL said:

 

I would again remind people that the logical comparison isn't vaxed vs. symptomatic covid.  It's vaxed vs. not vaxed.  Most people who are not vaxed are still not catching Covid during the pregnancy timeframe, especially if sensible precautions are taken.

Vaxed vs not vaxed in pandemic conditions. 

Lots and lots of people are catching covid during the pregnancy time frame.

Vs no evidence of harm from the vaccinec (and no plausible mechanism for harm)  ETA and very good evidence of protection from the vaccine.

Edited by wathe
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 604
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

For what it's worth, my husband studies toxic torts -- so, essentially, products that turned out to be dangerous -- and he maintains that the things to *really* worry about are (1) things that you con

re scale of vaccinations vs Covid confirmed cases Responding just to this one part of your post-  As of yesterday, there have been 137 million vaccine doses into US arms:https://www.bloomb

For me it’s pretty simple.  Covid is known to cause death, and the mechanisms by which it does are known.  If someone has Covid and dies in the way that Covid is known to kill then Covid is a likely c

Just now, wathe said:

Vaxed vs not vaxed in pandemic conditions. 

Lots and lots of people are catching covid during the pregnancy time frame.

Vs no evidence of harm from the vaccinec (and no plausible mechanism for harm)

I’ve actually seen things about infections early in pregnancy not being great for the fetus. I would be unsurprised if a strong immune response isn’t a good thing in pregnancy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

They are new just released recommendations so it would make sense.  I don’t think an ECG is overly intrusive/expensive so it’s probably just a precaution.  They recommend them as a precaution here any time anyone has had an electric shock.

It is expensive at a systems/population level though.  Most kids with covid have mild cases, and, here at least, most don't get any formal follow up at all (and beyond a test and a public health phone call, many may never have even seen an MD at all throughout their course of illness).  And there are a lot of them.  Necessitating an MD visit for return to rec level sport is a whole lot of MD visits that otherwise wouldn't take place.  I'm interested to see if Canada follows suit - I suspect we won't.

Edited by wathe
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kand said:

 That’s part of what frustrates me about people wanting it both ways—wanting everything open while advocating against the vaccine, while also advising at risk people to keep themselves protected from Covid. Those things are incompatible with one another. 
 

Also, thinking again about having said I would probably wait until the second trimester, looking at the data again, I would probably be wrong to make that decision, even though on an emotional level, I can see myself doing that from a place of fear of doing the wrong thing. But, from looking at the data, I probably would actually be increasing my risk of something happening to the baby if I did that rather than get the vaccine.

Yes to the bolded.

Re what I would do personally if pregnant:  I would vax.  My exposure risk is higher than average and the benefit would clearly exceed the risk.  FWIW, my pregnant (n=3) and breastfeeding (n=3) MD colleagues got vaccinated at the first opportunity (January for us). None declined.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, wathe said:

Yes to the bolded.

Re what I would do personally if pregnant:  I would vax.  My exposure risk is higher than average and the benefit would clearly exceed the risk.  FWIW, my pregnant (n=3) and breastfeeding (n=3) MD colleagues got vaccinated at the first opportunity (January for us). None declined.

I would get vaxxed if I had your levels of exposure. Absolutely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The WHO reads a little more cautious on these vaccines in pregnancy. At first they said “ do not recommend”, but have updated to this:

https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/safety-of-covid-19-vaccines
 

Quote

While pregnancy brings a higher risk of severe COVID-19, at present, very little data is available to assess vaccine safety in pregnancy. However, people at high risk of exposure to the COVID-19 virus (such as health workers), or who have a history of underlying medical conditions that increase their risk of severe disease, may be vaccinated during pregnancy after consultation with their health care provider. There is no evidence that suggests vaccination would cause harm during pregnancy.

It’s such an individual decision. I think if I were in this situation, I’d avoid or delay as far into pregnancy as I could, also hoping that more info would come out one way or the other as I was avoiding. At least the chance of contracting it in the hospital during delivery is probably much lower than it once was.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that pregnant women should instead be careful and limit their exposure (ETA as an alternative to vax) seems flawed to me.  1) lots and lots of pregnant women just can't - essential work etc and 2) even those who think they are being very careful usually aren't as careful as they think they are- limiting exposure is actually really, really hard.  If I had a dollar for every covid patient I've seen who tells me "but I've been so careful" and "I don't go anywhere", I would have quite a lot of money!

Edited by wathe
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Penelope said:

t’s such an individual decision. I think if I were in this situation, I’d avoid or delay as far into pregnancy as I could, also hoping that more info would come out one way or the other as I was avoiding. At least the chance of contracting it in the hospital during delivery is probably much lower than it once was.

Yeah, I probably would do this if my exposure was low.  

I normally don't mind the outcomes of a strong immune response, but realistically, it IS a whole body phenomenon, and the mother/fetus relationship is very specific. 

Like, I wasn't at all surprised to hear that people were getting breakthrough herpes virus infections after the vaccine -- shingles, etc. I took that seriously enough to get an antiviral, and yep -- I got a cold sore after the first shot. And that's FINE. It's worth it to me. But if I was in early pregnancy and the fetus was developing rapidly? Yeaaah, I don't know about whether the strong immune response would be good for the fetus. 

Now, I don't KNOW that this is true (although I think I've read some evidence that infections early in pregnancy, including "harmless" ones, are actually linked to higher risks), but I would certainly be concerned. And at that point, I'd really have to weigh my rates of exposure. 

(And note that I'm not immediately swayed by the fact that most people that agree with me about the vaccine don't agree with me on this one, lol. I'm not a very compliant member of the sheeple herd, I guess.) 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, wathe said:

The idea that pregnant women should instead be careful and limit their exposure (ETA as an alternative to vax) seems flawed to me.  1) lots and lots of pregnant women just can't - essential work etc and 2) even those who think they are being very careful usually aren't as careful as they think they are- limiting exposure is actually really, really hard.  If I had a dollar for every covid patient I've seen who tells me "but I've been so careful" and "I don't go anywhere", I would have quite a lot of money!

Well, I don't know if all pregnant women SHOULD do that, but I would factor in my rates of exposure when deciding if and when to vax when pregnant. Currently, I have very minimal exposure. We stay home, all the time. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Well, I don't know if all pregnant women SHOULD do that, but I would factor in my rates of exposure when deciding if and when to vax when pregnant. Currently, I have very minimal exposure. We stay home, all the time. 

I think your definition (and practice) of careful might not match the popular reality 🙂

Edited by wathe
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wathe said:

I think your definition (and practice) of careful might not match the popular reality 🙂

Oh yes, I know the "careful" people with their (not really closed!) "pod" who go to restaurants "but only once a week!" 

I'm not really arguing that people can assess this one well on average. I'm just musing about what I would do if I were pregnant... 

Edited by Not_a_Number
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah - when I say I want more data - I want it to include not only what adverse effects occur, but also what time in the pregnancy, and to what specific groups of people (ages, races, blood types etc.).  This for both Covid infections and the vax.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Not_a_Number said:

Oh yes, I know the "careful" people with their "pod" who go to restaurants "but only once a week!" 

I'm not really arguing that people can assess this one well on average. I'm just musing about what I would do if I were pregnant... 

 

Right.  I do think that people in general, under-estimate their real exposure risk, over-estimate how "careful" they are, and misunderstand data and statistics.  Which will lead to excess deaths and excess morbidity in pregnant women who decline the vaccine because they are "careful"

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wathe said:

Right.  I do think that people in general, under-estimate their real exposure risk, over-estimate how "careful" they are, and misunderstand data and statistics.  Which will lead to excess deaths and excess morbidity in pregnant women who decline the vaccine because they are "careful"

Ugh. And that's how public messaging conundrums are born 😕.   

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

Yeah - when I say I want more data - I want it to include not only what adverse effects occur, but also what time in the pregnancy, and to what specific groups of people (ages, races, blood types etc.).  This for both Covid infections and the vax.

I would assume COVID infections are really not great news for pregnancy. Again, my intuition is that even less severe viruses are bad news, so COVID ought to be bad. (Yes, that's not proof, of course. Just a sense.) 

But yes, I'd love more data. 

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

Yeah - when I say I want more data - I want it to include not only what adverse effects occur, but also what time in the pregnancy, and to what specific groups of people (ages, races, blood types etc.).  This for both Covid infections and the vax.

Sure, in and ideal world we'd all like that.  But people who are pregnant ri now, i real world pandemic conditions  now, have to make decisions now, with the data we've got now. Which favours vaccination.  We have to do the best with what we've got. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@wathe -- but theoretically, let's say someone really DID have limited exposure, like I do. Would you still favor vaccination? 

I figure my risk of catching COVID if I only go to doctor's appointments in a mask is quite low. Not, like, 0.1% low, but in the single percent. Whereas my chance of an unpleasant vaccine reaction is quite large. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kand said:

My understanding is that this is most related to fevers in early pregnancy being a risk. That’s the main reason I would delay the vaccine to the second trimester if I were in a position to stay home and have my family all at home. If I didn’t feel confident I could remain shielded from the virus, then I would get the vaccine and use Tylenol to prevent any temperature spikes. that despite the fact that I normally would not be one to be taking Tylenol in the first trimester. but again, pandemic. That’s why we need to not just keep letting this virus run all over.

Yes, that's what I remember reading. But is it just "fevers," or is actually just that fevers are part of an immune response, and when we measure fevers, we're just noticing a correlation with immune system activation? When I was scouring the literature for this stuff, they weren't actually sure that things like saunas (which raise the temperature as well!) were bad... if I remember correctly, that is. I did this most a long time ago, when I was pregnant with DD8. 

So it's possible that have an activated immune system is bad for the fetus, which would kind of make sense, given that it's an alien body and that your immune system is supposed to be suppressed to allow for it (if I'm remember correctly.)

If I'm saying nonsense, someone like @wathe should call me on it 😂. Unlike the DNA/mRNA stuff, I haven't been reading this stuff with DD8 recently or anything -- I just have vague memories from pregnancies of trying to disentangle risks. (My conclusion was that sushi wasn't that risky, if anyone wants to know 😉. But I tried not to take medication, because I couldn't tell.) 

Edited by Not_a_Number
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

@wathe -- but theoretically, let's say someone really DID have limited exposure, like I do. Would you still favor vaccination? 

I figure my risk of catching COVID if I only go to doctor's appointments in a mask is quite low. Not, like, 0.1% low, but in the single percent. Whereas my chance of an unpleasant vaccine reaction is quite large. 

Speaking for myself, If I were in your situation, during pandemic conditions, I probably would.  Because the virus is a sneaky little devil.  Because the actual vaccination data that we have, limited as it is, is reassuring.  Because even the most careful can't control their future exposure - illness, accident, mishap, or situational emergency necessitating contact with the outside world can happen at any time (household emergencies necessitating repair people in the house, or medical emergencies including minor ones like for stitches).  The probability of something going wrong in life that necessitates contact with the outside world, over the course of 40 weeks, is actually pretty high, I think.

We do have a lot of experience with flu vaccines in pregnancy, (which, like all vaccines, triggers an immune response) with reassuring data, FWIW.

Edited to replace "flawed" with "limited" - a better word for what I'm trying to convey

Edited by wathe
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, my perspective on this tends to be from a population point of view.  Populations are, of course, made up of individuals making individual decisions - I recognize that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, wathe said:

The probability of something going wrong in life that necessitates contact with the outside world, over the course of 40 weeks, is actually pretty high, I think.

Yes, but the probability of a single exposure resulting in COVID is low! High exposure people have REPEATED exposure. Each one exposure gives you a risk of like 1/1000 of catching COVID. Yes, all those add up (well, 1 minus those multiply down would be the way to say it, really), but I'm not all that worried about a few contacts with the outside world. 

 

6 minutes ago, wathe said:

We do have a lot of experience with flu vaccines in pregnancy, (which, like all vaccines, triggers an immune response) with reassuring data, FWIW.

I've had a flu vaccine and so had DH, and I have to say that the level of immune response was just different from this vaccine. Now, it's possible this is anti-scientific nonsense, but I've never had a cold sore right after any other vaccine, either. 

I'm not comfortable generalizing from the flu vaccine to this one. 

 

8 minutes ago, wathe said:

Because the actual vaccination data that we have, limited as it is, is reassuring.

Very mildly. Last I checked, infections in pregnancy were linked with all sorts of stuff later on, most of which you wouldn't be able to measure until the kids are actually grown. So... I'm glad that there's very mild evidence that the vaccine isn't causing miscarriages, but that's not the limit of what could go wrong with vaccines. 

I feel worried about this one for the same reason I feel very worried about kids getting COVID, despite the fact that many kids have very easy initial infections -- when an organism is young, LOTS of things can go wrong in a way that affect the rest of their life. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

Yes, but the probability of a single exposure resulting in COVID is low! High exposure people have REPEATED exposure. Each one exposure gives you a risk of like 1/1000 of catching COVID. Yes, all those add up (well, 1 minus those multiply down would be the way to say it, really), but I'm not all that worried about a few contacts with the outside world. 

 

I've had a flu vaccine and so had DH, and I have to say that the level of immune response was just different from this vaccine. Now, it's possible this is anti-scientific nonsense, but I've never had a cold sore right after any other vaccine, either. 

I'm not comfortable generalizing from the flu vaccine to this one. 

 

Very mildly. Last I checked, infections in pregnancy were linked with all sorts of stuff later on, most of which you wouldn't be able to measure until the kids are actually grown. So... I'm glad that there's very mild evidence that the vaccine isn't causing miscarriages, but that's not the limit of what could go wrong with vaccines. 

I feel worried about this one for the same reason I feel very worried about kids getting COVID, despite the fact that many kids have very easy initial infections -- when an organism is young, LOTS of things can go wrong in a way that affect the rest of their life. 

 

All of this is valid, of course.  What you would do during your hypothetical pregnancy, and what would worry you,  sounds different than what I would do, and what would worry me.  The individual R/B analysis will be imperfect, because the data are limited.  Good individual R/B analysis might even be impossible for this right now, because we don't have enough granularity in the data yet.  I think that we do have enough to make recommendations on a population level though.  That strongly colours my opinion

(Obviously, everyone should weigh the risks and benefits for themselves and make a well-reasoned decision that makes sense for them.)

I think my main point in this thread is that, in pandemic conditions, waiting for more data is, in of itself, risky, and on a population level, in this case, waiting for more data is higher risk than vaccinating.  People, in general, like to think that they are exceptional and that what's true for the population isn't true for them.  And that they're often wrong about that.

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

I think my main point in this thread is that, in pandemic conditions, waiting for more data is, in of itself, risky, and on a population level, in this case, waiting for more data is higher risk than vaccinating.  People, in general, like to think that they are exceptional and that what's true for the population isn't true for them.  And that they're often wrong about that.

I can't argue with that. That's why I think most people should get the vaccine in the first place! I would probably even agree that most people should get the vaccine in pregnancy... thinking about what I personally would do doesn't affect that. 

We've been ridiculously careful about limiting contact. We do have a pod, but it's really almost airtight -- my SIL had a couple of masked pediatrician's appointments for the newborn and that's all. No one has gone to stores or seen friends or gotten a haircut or anything! 

So when I say that we're careful... I really mean it. I know that's not true for most people, but so what? 

It's like... I am pretty sure most people shouldn't teach their kids math without curriculum 😂. On average, it's a terrible idea. But that's not going to stop me 😉.

Edited by Not_a_Number
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, we're really doing a bad job of agreeing on everything, aren't we? 😂 It's almost like we actually each have our own opinions and risk assessments, and since we're all science-minded, we agree 80% of the time 😉 . 

Nah, couldn't be.

Come on, sheeple, get yourselves together!! 🐑 🐑 🐑

Edited by Not_a_Number
  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

 

We've been ridiculously careful about limiting contact. We do have a pod, but it's really almost airtight -- my SIL had a couple of masked pediatrician's appointments for the newborn and that's all. No one has gone to stores or seen friends or gotten a haircut or anything! 

So when I say that we're careful... I really mean it. I know that's not true for most people, but so what? 

It's like... I am pretty sure most people shouldn't teach their kids math without curriculum 😂. On average, it's a terrible idea. But that's not going to stop me 😉.

Oh, I know how careful you are, and I absolutely believe that you really are as careful as you think you are.  And, if I were hypothetically pregnant in a similarly tight bubble, I'd still vaccinate. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were pregnant, I probably would vaccinate, but I'd also probably wait until the second trimester, even if I was limiting my contact with the outside world.  (And I've been not quite as careful as @Not_a_Number, but more careful than almost anyone I know in real life.....occasional trips into grocery stores, a few medical appointments, picking up takeout from inside restaurants.)  

Breastfeeding, I'd absolutely vax in a heartbeat.  No question.  Pregnancy is more of a gamble.  I grappled with the question of risk with regard to medications I was on when I was pregnant....at the time, there was no evidence of harm from them but also we know crippling depression of the mother is bad for the fetus.  I think probably the risk of the vaccine is less than risk of the virus, but I don't think the immune response and fever from the vaccine is super great for the fetus either.  I would probably minimize exposure/ medical appointments and try to get to the second trimester and then vax, figuring that my odds of no emergency is less for 12 weeks than for 40.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, wathe said:

Oh, I know how careful you are, and I absolutely believe that you really are as careful as you think you are.  And, if I were hypothetically pregnant in a similarly tight bubble, I'd still vaccinate. 

And I have no clue what I'd do 😂. I really don't know. Probably, like @kand, I'd split the difference and vaccinate in the 2nd trimester -- there are more exposures later on, and the fetus is more developed. 

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

If I were pregnant, I probably would vaccinate, but I'd also probably wait until the second trimester, even if I was limiting my contact with the outside world.  (And I've been not quite as careful as @Not_a_Number, but more careful than almost anyone I know in real life.....occasional trips into grocery stores, a few medical appointments, picking up takeout from inside restaurants.)  

Breastfeeding, I'd absolutely vax in a heartbeat.  No question.  Pregnancy is more of a gamble.  I grappled with the question of risk with regard to medications I was on when I was pregnant....at the time, there was no evidence of harm from them but also we know crippling depression of the mother is bad for the fetus.  I think probably the risk of the vaccine is less than risk of the virus, but I don't think the immune response and fever from the vaccine is super great for the fetus either.  I would probably minimize exposure/ medical appointments and try to get to the second trimester and then vax, figuring that my odds of no emergency is less for 12 weeks than for 40.  

Jinx, lol. That's what I just said!! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Man, we're really doing a bad job of agreeing on everything, aren't we? 😂 It's almost like we actually each have our own opinions and risk assessments, and since we're all science-minded, we agree 80% of the time 😉 . 

Nah, couldn't be.

Come on, sheeple, get yourselves together!! 🐑 🐑 🐑

Yes, we are 🙂

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, in my personal sample, the only people who did Vsafe were the ones who either a)really like science and data collection or b) were statistically more likely to have side effects. So I'm guessing it's skewed a bit, but not the same way that VAERS is since it's choosing to sign up immediately after the vaccine vs only after a negative medical response, which may or may not be linked. 

 

 

1 hour ago, kand said:

No. They are reported via the v-safe app and then compared to background rates. So, there’s a potential for selection bias there, but in which direction, I don’t know.  One might think that if someone experienced an adverse effect, they would be more likely to join the v-safe program so they could report it. On the other hand, the population of people who enroll in v-safe from the start is almost certainly not random. For example, I did so as I was sitting waiting my 15 minutes, while my 18-year-old daughter, when I asked her about it later, said she didn’t do it because I was holding her phone for her and she just never thought to do it later.  My parents said they never even knew it was a thing. They never did it ( which I would expect is most common among the elderly set, but as far as this particular statistic goes, they’re not going to be the ones getting pregnant 😉). 

If I were still breast-feeding, it wouldn’t even be a question, I would absolutely do it. And I would be especially eager to, to help provide protection to my child as well. And this coming from someone who has been very cautious in my schedule of vaccinating my kids in the past.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Terabith said:

If I were pregnant, I probably would vaccinate, but I'd also probably wait until the second trimester, even if I was limiting my contact with the outside world.  (And I've been not quite as careful as @Not_a_Number, but more careful than almost anyone I know in real life.....occasional trips into grocery stores, a few medical appointments, picking up takeout from inside restaurants.)  

Breastfeeding, I'd absolutely vax in a heartbeat.  No question.  Pregnancy is more of a gamble.  I grappled with the question of risk with regard to medications I was on when I was pregnant....at the time, there was no evidence of harm from them but also we know crippling depression of the mother is bad for the fetus.  I think probably the risk of the vaccine is less than risk of the virus, but I don't think the immune response and fever from the vaccine is super great for the fetus either.  I would probably minimize exposure/ medical appointments and try to get to the second trimester and then vax, figuring that my odds of no emergency is less for 12 weeks than for 40.  

I would also imagine it would depend on how high risk you are.  In my case, if I were pregnant now, knowing my history, I'd want the vax ASAP because by the second trimester of pregnancy, I'm usually either in doctor's offices an average of twice a week or in the hospital, (often moving between both on a weekly basis), and the move from "we're monitoring, but things look fine to" "Uh, not fine" has, in both pregnancies, happened very rapidly, like within a span of hours.  But I'm a pretty extreme case when it comes to risk during pregnancy, and have had, in the past, to roll the dice on things like "This medication has the best results in preventing seizures in a mother, which can cause brain damage to a developing fetus, but also has a black box warning due to causing cleft lip and palate deformities, however, the rate drops substantially if the medication is not begun until after 18 weeks...". 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, wathe said:

It is expensive at a systems/population level though.  Most kids with covid have mild cases, and, here at least, most don't get any formal follow up at all (and beyond a test and a public health phone call, many may never have even seen an MD at all throughout their course of illness).  And there are a lot of them.  Necessitating an MD visit for return to rec level sport is a whole lot of MD visits that otherwise wouldn't take place.  I'm interested to see if Canada follows suit - I suspect we won't.

Wouldn't they just tack on a test to the normal, annual sports physicals that are required to play sports?  MD visits are happening anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TCB said:

I, myself, don’t have a lot of negative emotion around  people choosing not to be vaccinated. I think that is because it is the first thing that people can do to really protect themselves without having to rely on the good will and good actions of others. I think I just feel resigned.  I’m extremely thankful that everyone here has the opportunity to get it and get protected. I am  very sorry for those who are unable to get vaccinated due to health reasons and I would like this virus to be crushed so that they aren’t at risk. I really hope that the at risk population in my area are getting vaccinated if at all possible, because I don’t want to watch them going through the suffering and death that could come again.

I will say, though, that many of the people in my area who seem to be ideologically against this vaccine have also been the same ones who have done absolutely nothing to help during this pandemic. They started out by scoffing and saying it was the flu, they were militantly anti-mask and anti making changes to protect people, and now they are spreading disinformation about the vaccines. I am so incredibly sad that many of them are my friends and acquaintances. Fortunately for me my family are not in this group. This is the greatest disillusionment with people that I have experienced in my 57 years. I guess I’m lucky I made it to 57 before I experienced it. 

I'm so sorry!  I feel ya, but for a different reason. Same disillusionment, but not with people around me who've been pretty conscientious. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

Last I checked, it looked like the heart damage thing wasn't being borne out -- COVID wasn't been worse than other viruses. Is that right, or has there been alarming stuff? I haven't kept good track, I just Googled at some point. 

Do you mean in kids or adults? I thought heart damage from COVID in adults was a known effect. And my nephew who had MIS-C had abnormal ECGs in the ICU, although they were normal a few weeks later at the follow-up with a cardiologist. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, KungFuPanda said:

 

Wouldn't they just tack on a test to the normal, annual sports physicals that are required to play sports?  MD visits are happening anyway.

"Sports physicals" aren't really a thing here for youth recreational sports.  They might be for elite athletes (I don't know), but that's not most kids in sport.

And presumably these would be extra visits for return-to-play clearance post acute covid.  Some youth sports do have requirements like this for return-to-play post concussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Longtime Lurker said:

Do you mean in kids or adults? I thought heart damage from COVID in adults was a known effect. And my nephew who had MIS-C had abnormal ECGs in the ICU, although they were normal a few weeks later at the follow-up with a cardiologist. 

I thought there wasn't a ton of support for there being an abnormal amount of heart damage -- that is, heart damage above what you'd get with an infection like the flu. So, temporary damage as opposed to long-term damage. 

But I haven't kept great track. I know there was a LOT of concern in the summer, but I had the impression that this wasn't totally born out by later data. But I'm not sure about that or anything. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I thought there wasn't a ton of support for there being an abnormal amount of heart damage -- that is, heart damage above what you'd get with an infection like the flu. So, temporary damage as opposed to long-term damage. 

But I haven't kept great track. I know there was a LOT of concern in the summer, but I had the impression that this wasn't totally born out by later data. But I'm not sure about that or anything. 

Okay, that makes sense. My nephew's heart damage was only temporary. And he had MIS-C, so more severe than just an average case of COVID. My sister, on the other hand, has ongoing heart issues that her cardiologist attributes to her case of COVID last March (2020). Despite intubating COVID patients all day long in early March of 2020, her case of COVID was not horrible. However, the long term effects have been more of an issue. Her cardiologist also recommended against the vaccine due to the heart issues, which is frustrating for her.

  • Sad 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Longtime Lurker said:

Okay, that makes sense. My nephew's heart damage was only temporary. And he had MIS-C, so more severe than just an average case of COVID. My sister, on the other hand, has ongoing heart issues that her cardiologist attributes to her case of COVID last March (2020). Despite intubating COVID patients all day long in early March of 2020, her case of COVID was not horrible. However, the long term effects have been more of an issue. Her cardiologist also recommended against the vaccine due to the heart issues, which is frustrating for her.

Ah 😞 . I'm really sorry about your nephew's and your sister's heart issues. 

I really haven't kept good track of the data, so I'm not sure what's happening on average. Anyone who's been keeping track of the stats should link them up... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Ah 😞 . I'm really sorry about your nephew's and your sister's heart issues. 

I really haven't kept good track of the data, so I'm not sure what's happening on average. Anyone who's been keeping track of the stats should link them up... 

True, what's happening on average would be more relevant in determining whether kids with ordinary COVID (not MIS-C) should have ECGs post-COVID. And my sister's case could be on the rare side also. It may be due to the high viral load she was exposed to??? She caught COVID right before they started recommending/providing adequate PPE and she did a lot of intubations. After she returned to work, she wore a space-suit looking outfit 🙂

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

True, what's happening on average would be more relevant in determining whether kids with ordinary COVID (not MIS-C) should have ECGs post-COVID.

I'd assume MIS-C is not great on many levels 😞 . Definitely one of the reasons I really don't want my kids to catch the virus. 

 

1 minute ago, Longtime Lurker said:

And my sister's case could be on the rare side also. It may be due to the high viral load she was exposed to??? She caught COVID right before they started recommending/providing adequate PPE and she did a lot of intubations. After she returned to work, she wore a space-suit looking outfit 🙂

It sounds like they really had bad luck 😞

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I'd assume MIS-C is not great on many levels 😞 . Definitely one of the reasons I really don't want my kids to catch the virus. 

 

It sounds like they really had bad luck 😞

Yes 😞 Although they are both continuing to improve 🙂  I skimmed the articles you linked and it is good news that heart damage is not widespread!

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

Yes 😞 Although they are both continuing to improve 🙂  I skimmed the articles you linked and it is good news that heart damage is not widespread!

Fingers crossed they stay on their upwards trajectory!!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

I've had a flu vaccine and so had DH, and I have to say that the level of immune response was just different from this vaccine. Now, it's possible this is anti-scientific nonsense, but I've never had a cold sore right after any other vaccine, either. 

FWIW (2nd data point of one) I get cold sores relatively often when I get colds (even if very mild) and I did NOT get one with my first vaccine.    I did get very tired the next day but no other reactions (haven't had 2nd shot yet).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, LaughingCat said:

FWIW (2nd data point of one) I get cold sores relatively often when I get colds (even if very mild) and I did NOT get one with my first vaccine.    I did get very tired the next day but no other reactions (haven't had 2nd shot yet).

Yeah, I’m not arguing everyone would get a cold sore 🙂 . Just that my observations are that the average reaction is strong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

Yeah, I’m not arguing everyone would get a cold sore 🙂 . Just that my observations are that the average reaction is strong.

That's interesting!  Have you gotten cold sores from time to time before?  Because I've heard that either you have that virus in you -- like my dh does, and you get them from time to time when the conditions are just right, or you don't ever get them.  So just wondering if this is a brand new thing for you...

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, J-rap said:

That's interesting!  Have you gotten cold sores from time to time before?  Because I've heard that either you have that virus in you -- like my dh does, and you get them from time to time when the conditions are just right, or you don't ever get them.  So just wondering if this is a brand new thing for you...

Yes, Ds actually somehow got the virus on his cheek when he was little. He was almost admitted to the hospital due to fears it was going to spread into his eyes. Now, a decade later he still will have it pop up in the same spot (but much smaller) if he gets sick or overly stressed. So, I’m not telling him about the possibility of it happening because then it will for sure happen due to him worrying about it. 🤪 I did make sure he has unexpired meds in case though.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J-rap said:

That's interesting!  Have you gotten cold sores from time to time before?  Because I've heard that either you have that virus in you -- like my dh does, and you get them from time to time when the conditions are just right, or you don't ever get them.  So just wondering if this is a brand new thing for you...

Oh yeah, I get cold sores 🙂. I do have the infection floating around. But they do tend to need a trigger! So I actually haven't had one in 2 years -- the last year was probably extra good due to lack of germs. 

  • 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...