Jump to content

Menu

CDC mask announcement (a new thread)


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

An opinion piece by a film critic who is full of it is hardly persuasive.

Bill

I don't think you really care about the data. You just want what you want and if you can get the government to impose your will on others, so be it. As long as you feel safe, the rights of others be damned. Who is really the selfish one?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mom0012 said:

I don't think you really care about the data. You just want what you want and if you can get the government to impose your will on others, so be it. As long as you feel safe, the rights of others be damned. Who is really the selfish one?

And clearly, you have plenty of company here. In the well-trained mind echo chamber.

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mom0012 said:

I don't think you really care about the data. You just want what you want and if you can get the government to impose your will on others, so be it. As long as you feel safe, the rights of others be damned. Who is really the selfish one?

You think wrongly.

You have showed your true colors with the other comments. Read you loud and clear.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Mom0012 said:

And clearly, you have plenty of company here. In the well-trained mind echo chamber.

Fortunately, there are a lot of highly-intelligent and well-informed members of this forum.

Bill

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Mom0012 said:

I don't think you really care about the data. You just want what you want and if you can get the government to impose your will on others, so be it. As long as you feel safe, the rights of others be damned. Who is really the selfish one?

I personally care about the data. A lot. But I'm not all that convinced by the data on kids. If I were sure kids transmitted as little as some people have claimed, I'd feel a lot better. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I personally care about the data. A lot. But I'm not all that convinced by the data on kids. If I were sure kids transmitted as little as some people have claimed, I'd feel a lot better. 

I really think it is pretty clear. Kids are safer from covid than they are from the flu. That's been known for a long time. I honestly don't have the emotional energy to try and dig up all of the information, but it's out there.

And I get being scared for your kid. I haven't read through this whole thread, but it seems that whenever anyone does post any actual data, people just dismiss it.

And obviously, you don't have to listen to me. You have no reason to. It just gets so frustrating to try to post any alternative views on these boards over the last number of years. I haven't been on here in ages because of that. I shouldn't have looked at this thread. It's just very upsetting to see so many people truly unaware of what their true risk is.

 

 

Edited by Mom0012
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mom0012 said:

I really think it is pretty clear. Kids are safer from covid than they are from the flu. That's been known for a long time. I honestly don't have the emotional energy to try and dig up all of the information, but it's out there.

I've actually followed the data pretty thoroughly, and that's really not my impression from what I've seen. But honestly, I'm tired today, and I don't want to try to convince you if you aren't interested. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I've actually followed the data pretty thoroughly, and that's really not my impression from what I've seen. But honestly, I'm tired today, and I don't want to try to convince you if you aren't interested. 

Did you read the article I linked? I'm not saying you have to believe that article, but did you look at it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I'll take that as a "I'm not interested in discussing the issue"? I can read it again if you think that's required for a fair exchange of information. 

No. I just appreciate you being polite. I can't get into a big discussion here because I feel like there will be 20 people coming at me from the other side in a matter of minutes and it's just emotionally draining and not something I can manage.

But, thank you very much for your nice reply. I really do appreciate that.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mom0012 said:

No. I just appreciate you being polite. I can't get into a big discussion here because I feel like there will be 20 people coming at me from the other side in a matter of minutes and it's just emotionally draining and not something I can manage.

Oh, yes, I've been in that position. It's unpleasant. I totally get it! 

 

Just now, Mom0012 said:

But, thank you very much for your nice reply. I really do appreciate that.

You really, really don't need to thank me for being polite. 

By the way, I looked up the numbers some more, and I think you're right that for immediate symptoms, COVID looks like it's less risky for kids than the flu. I suppose I knew that before, but this year's teeny flu numbers have kind of fooled me 😉 . So it's a good reminder. 

I'm personally much more paranoid about whether there's a serious (say, 5%) chance of long-term disability from COVID than I am about the initial symptoms. And the problem is that I don't actually feel like I even have a ballpark estimate for this possibility. I hope we know more sometime soon... 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

'm personally much more paranoid about whether there's a serious (say, 5%) chance of long-term disability from COVID than I am about the initial symptoms. And the problem is that I don't actually feel like I even have a ballpark estimate for this possibility. I hope we know more sometime soon... 

 

Thank you, again. And that is reasonable and something I can totally understand. I don't have young children anymore so I am no longer as emotionally impacted by these types of fears. But, I do remember when the H1N1 flu was being hyped up years ago and I took both my kids and got them the vaccine for that. I had never gotten them a flu vaccine before, but I was worried for them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Mom0012 said:

Thank you, again. And that is reasonable and something I can totally understand. I don't have young children anymore so I am no longer as emotionally impacted by these types of fears. But, I do remember when the H1N1 flu was being hyped up years ago and I took both my kids and got them the vaccine for that. I had never gotten them a flu vaccine before, but I was worried for them.

I really wish there was data out there that would assure me that this probability is teeny and that I don't need to worry!! If you ever find some, please let me know, lol. I don't like worrying. We were never the kind of family who carried our hand-sanitizer everywhere, you know? We've always been relatively easygoing about germs. So this is a change of pace for me, and one I don't like particularly. So if it's irrational, I'd want to be the first to know 😉 . 

Edited by Not_a_Number
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I don't think covid is necessarily more dangerous for kids than flu (the number of deaths in kids for covid vs. in an average flu year supports that). I do think there's a lot we don't know about long term complications. I do think it's foolish to assume covid won't evolve to be more dangerous for kids in the future. And I also think that I don't want my kid to get the flu, either. No, we don't mask regularly for flu season (although they do in some places), but flu is also a lot easier to prevent by staying home when you have symptoms than covid is. I'd be pretty mad if my kid got the flu because someone went to school or wherever when they knew they had symptoms. Unfortunately, staying home when you're sick doesn't cut it for preventing covid transmission; otherwise we'd be done with it by now (like how there's been so little flu this year). I think wearing a mask is pretty much the common courtesy equivalent of staying home when you're sick to prevent flu transmission, and it's also considerably EASIER and less burdensome than staying home when you're sick for most people. And, of course, we DO vaccinate kids for the flu. ETA: and flu outbreaks cause a lot of disruption when they run through schools...particularly in the schools near me that haven't taken basic covid precautions, that has been much more true for covid, with lots and lots of quarantines, teachers out and not enough subs, and not infrequent closures of entire schools for a period of time when numbers got too bad. Even for kids who don't have serious cases of covid, and even if we're not worried about long term side effects, uncontrolled spread can really mess things up for them.

Edited by kokotg
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kokotg said:

I don't think covid is necessarily more dangerous for kids than flu (the number of deaths in kids for covid vs. in an average flu year supports that). I do think there's a lot we don't know about long term complications. I do think it's foolish to assume covid won't evolve to be more dangerous for kids in the future. And I also think that I don't want my kid to get the flu, either.

Yep to all of those. That's exactly how I feel. It just feels like there are a lot of unknowns... 

On the bright side, at least testing is quite robust now, so I feel like we'll get fair warning if cases are going up or kids are getting much sicker... 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, SKL said:

I didn't see that, but I recall reading that about age 55 is where average side effects from the vax exceed the severity of average Covid symptoms.  In other words, those under 55 are likely to have a rougher time from the vax than the virus.

Do you have a link for that? The 45-55 group is still relatively risky for Covid, and the number of people who have more than 1 (possibly 2) days of vaccine side effects is tiny. So, I’d be interested to see that. 

2 hours ago, Mom0012 said:

There was actually TONS of discussion about this article from virologists and epidemiologists when it came out, and I read it then. They were super frustrated with Slate  (and even more so The Atlantic which also published it, since The Atlantic usually has a much higher standard than Slate ) for having published it, because it’s not accurate in so many ways  and the person who wrote it was really not qualified to speak to those issues. I could tell you some of the specific issues with the article, if you are interested.

I saw you said you haven’t been around here in a long time and haven’t read these threads, so you probably missed that there are a lot of people here who are reading a whole lot on this and are quite educated on the facts about what is known about Covid at this point. I don’t see much issue of an echo chamber regarding Covid here, as I believe most of us get our primary information from sources outside TWTM  I don’t consider something posted here as being truth without verifying it, including checking the reliability of the source. There are a few posters who cite their  posts really well, which makes the information they post more trustworthy for me, because I have been able to vet their data and sources.

 

Edited by KSera
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, KSera said:

Do you have a link for that? The 45-55 group is still relatively risky for Covid, and the number of people who have more than 1 (possibly 2) days of vaccine side effects is tiny. So, I’d be interested to see that. 

For the record, most people I knew had more than 2 days of vaccine side effects, although I very much doubt the vaccine is worse than the disease on average for them!! 

 

4 minutes ago, KSera said:

There are a few posters who cite their  posts really well, which makes the information they post more trustworthy for me, because I have been able to vet their data and sources.

I probably don't cite enough, frankly 🙂 . It's all kind of tied together in my head and hard to cite sometimes. I can usually cite if forced though, lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

For the record, most people I knew had more than 2 days of vaccine side effects, although I very much doubt the vaccine is worse than the disease on average for them!! 

 

I really think you've had an unlucky sample. I have to go back to the trial data and what they have from v-safe so far, but that doesn't match what I recall at all. Actually, now that I think of it, I can say before even going back to the data, that one of my parents was having side effects on day 3 (but it only started that day, so lasted only 36 hours), everything I was finding said that someone should call their doctor if they had a reaction that lasted more than two days. I'll go find the side effect break down though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I really wish there was data out there that would assure me that this probability is teeny and that I don't need to worry!! 

For data on kids with long Covid, we need kids who have recovered from Covid. Since none of us want kids to get Covid, the data may sadly come from places like India which is still suffering badly from their own B.1.617 variant.

31 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

On the bright side, at least testing is quite robust now, so I feel like we'll get fair warning if cases are going up or kids are getting much sicker... 

I’m following the current news from Singapore and Taiwan.  Both countries have to close schools and revert back to home based learning. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57153195

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, KSera said:

I really think you've had an unlucky sample. I have to go back to the trial data and what they have from v-safe so far, but that doesn't match what I recall at all. Actually, now that I think of it, I can say before even going back to the data, that one of my parents was having side effects on day 3 (but it only started that day, so lasted only 36 hours), everything I was finding said that someone should call their doctor if they had a reaction that lasted more than two days. I'll go find the side effect break down though.

Yeah, to be fair I'm counting people who had less than 24 hours of side-effects but on Day 3. But both DH and I actually had side-effects for more than 1-2 days. I think mine have fully subsided after like 3 weeks, so yes... not a lucky sample. 

I'm going to do a poll on this, I think. My anecdata doesn't seem to match the trial data super well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

For data on kids with long Covid, we need kids who have recovered from Covid. Since none of us want kids to get Covid, the data may sadly come from places like India which is still suffering badly from their own B.1.617 variant.

I think we already have millions of kids who've recovered from COVID, whether we like it or not! We just need to follow them... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, KSera said:

I really think you've had an unlucky sample. I have to go back to the trial data and what they have from v-safe so far, but that doesn't match what I recall at all. Actually, now that I think of it, I can say before even going back to the data, that one of my parents was having side effects on day 3 (but it only started that day, so lasted only 36 hours), everything I was finding said that someone should call their doctor if they had a reaction that lasted more than two days. I'll go find the side effect break down though.

This is the latest v-safe data I have found so far. It's mid-February, but includes millions of people. And I actually think side effects are likely to be slightly over reprented in v-safe, because people with side effects are more likely to participate. Even so, it looks better than your sample has faired (but seems pretty true to what I've seen--seems to me it's been about half and half with people I know having more than sore arm or not, and only about 25% having fever after the second dose (much less after 1st). I want to see the info about how long it lasts for most people though. Somewhere I saw that. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-02/28-03-01/05-covid-Shimabukuro.pdf

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I think we already have millions of kids who've recovered from COVID, whether we like it or not! We just need to follow them... 

 

May 3rd https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/05/03/993141036/children-now-account-for-22-of-new-u-s-covid-cases-why-is-that

What about "long COVID" – are kids showing extended months of symptoms from the disease?

In kids, we have seen it, but it doesn't seem to be as common as adults. We're taking care of a few kids now who are still having symptoms well over a month past their infections. I think, as little as we know about long COVID in adults, we know even less in kids. We really have even less of an understanding of the overall epidemiology of how common it is in kids. 

The other question mark in my mind around this phenomenon is, many viruses can trigger sort of longer-term symptoms. A classic example would be mononucleosis: Some kids will have fatigue and symptoms for six to 12 months, occasionally even longer. So what's unclear to me at this point is if long-term symptoms are more frequent with COVID-19 than with some of the other viruses we've seen. But I wouldn't say that we're seeing sort of an epidemic of long COVID kids the way we have in adults.

How difficult is it to get data on children and COVID-19? I know that for its weekly reports, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children's Hospital Association compile data from 49 states, along with New York City, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia and Guam. That leaves out the rest of New York state. And Texas only reports on the lower age range for a small percentage of the state's cases.

That's correct. There have been problems with data around this pandemic all along, including this particular situation. I think as long as you're comparing apples to apples, recognizing the limitations, I think that you can interpret the data. But, yeah, it's clearly an undercount.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Found it. This has a good break down of side effects by age group, separated by local vs systemic. For the over 18 age group:

"Overall, the median onset of systemic adverse events in the vaccine group in general was 1 to 2 days after either dose and lasted a median duration of 1 day. " (bolding mine)

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/pfizer/reactogenicity.html

Also:

"For both age groups, fatigue, headache and new or worsened muscle pain were most common. The majority of systemic events were mild or moderate in severity, after both doses and in both age groups. Fever was more common after the second dose and in the younger group (15.8%) compared to the older group (10.9%)"

 

For the 12-15 year olds, it does say a median duration of 1-2 days for systemic effects. That data is at the bottom.

Edited by KSera
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KSera said:

Found it. This has a good break down of side effects by age group, separated by local vs systemic. For the over 18 age group:

"Overall, the median onset of systemic adverse events in the vaccine group in general was 1 to 2 days after either dose and lasted a median duration of 1 day. " (bolding mine)

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/pfizer/reactogenicity.html

 

For the 12-15 year olds, it does say a median duration of 1-2 days for systemic effects. That data is at the bottom.

So, this is pure laziness on my part, but did they only let people keep the diary for 7 days? That's what the site seems to suggest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

So, this is pure laziness on my part, but did they only let people keep the diary for 7 days? That's what the site seems to suggest. 

I don't know. V safe starts checking weekly after the initial week (or maybe it's after 10 days?). It says that side effect diminished each day after peaking on day 1, so I would expect there just werent' many people that still had anything to report on day 7 (my dh wanted to stop doing v-safe after 5 days, because he didn't see the point of them continuing to ask, and I told him he had to keep doing it as long as they ask!)

Also, the data I linked is the Pfizer one. I just realized that. You can click in the side bar to switch to Moderna or JJ.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KSera said:

I don't know. V safe starts checking weekly after the initial week (or maybe it's after 10 days?). It says that side effect diminished each day after peaking on day 1, so I would expect there just werent' many people that still had anything to report on day 7 (my dh wanted to stop doing v-safe after 5 days, because he didn't see the point of them continuing to ask, and I told him he had to keep doing it as long as they ask!)

Also, the data I linked is the Pfizer one. I just realized that. You can click in the side bar to switch to Moderna or JJ.

This looks like trial data to me, not VSafe data, though? 

Let me go find their actual paper. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

For the record, most people I knew had more than 2 days of vaccine side effects, although I very much doubt the vaccine is worse than the disease on average for them!!

How many people do you know under 55 who had Covid, and of those people, how many had a really bad case?  Was the average really worse than 2+ days of post-second-vax crud?

Even over 55, there are still many people who are completely asymptomatic.  I have a 60yo friend who found out she had antibodies.  They told her it was from a recent case.  She can't remember any time she felt even a little sick in the past 9 months.

I'm thinking about all the people I know who have had Covid.  Almost none of them felt particularly bad.  Maybe 4 people out of all of them, and they had multiple other health issues before getting Covid.  The ones I know who felt bad were achy for a couple days.  Which sounds exactly like the typical side effects from the vax.

I still decided to get my kids and myself vaxed, but not to protect us.  We want to be able to see old/at-risk folks without worrying, and we don't like the disruption of being quarantined.  We decided the pain was worth the gain for us.  But more info is needed before the same can be said for little kids IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, KSera said:

I don't know. V safe starts checking weekly after the initial week (or maybe it's after 10 days?). It says that side effect diminished each day after peaking on day 1, so I would expect there just werent' many people that still had anything to report on day 7 (my dh wanted to stop doing v-safe after 5 days, because he didn't see the point of them continuing to ask, and I told him he had to keep doing it as long as they ask!)

Also, the data I linked is the Pfizer one. I just realized that. You can click in the side bar to switch to Moderna or JJ.

After the first week of daily check ins the weekly check in asks if there have been any symptoms within the last week.  So even if you noted all side effects for days 1 to 7, didn't get asked on day 8, you can still report day 8's symptoms once you are asked. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

This looks like trial data to me, not VSafe data, though? 

Let me go find their actual paper. 

Right. Sorry, I was talking about two different things in the same sentence. It was a little stream of conscious. I don’t know how they did it for the trial, but it does say in the trial data that symptoms peaked on day one and lessened each day, so I was just speculating that there likely wasn’t much left to report by day seven. Then I jumped to saying how v-safe does it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, KSera said:

Right. Sorry, I was talking about two different things in the same sentence. It was a little stream of conscious. I don’t know how they did it for the trial, but it does say in the trial data that symptoms peaked on day one and lessened each day, so I was just speculating that there likely wasn’t much left to report by day seven. Then I jumped to saying how v-safe does it.

I'd be curious about the tail past 7 days, I guess. I've seen enough people report side-effects after 7 days on here that I'm sure it does happen. Tracking for 7 days doesn't seem quite sufficient for this one. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I'd be curious about the tail past 7 days, I guess. I've seen enough people report side-effects after 7 days on here that I'm sure it does happen. Tracking for 7 days doesn't seem quite sufficient for this one. 

I expect they were still tracking them in some way, since they are still following them. It just wasn’t in this particular report. I agree that would be interesting to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SKL said:

How many people do you know under 55 who had Covid, and of those people, how many had a really bad case?  Was the average really worse than 2+ days of post-second-vax crud?

Even over 55, there are still many people who are completely asymptomatic.  I have a 60yo friend who found out she had antibodies.  They told her it was from a recent case.  She can't remember any time she felt even a little sick in the past 9 months.

I'm thinking about all the people I know who have had Covid.  Almost none of them felt particularly bad.  Maybe 4 people out of all of them, and they had multiple other health issues before getting Covid.  The ones I know who felt bad were achy for a couple days.  Which sounds exactly like the typical side effects from the vax.

I still decided to get my kids and myself vaxed, but not to protect us.  We want to be able to see old/at-risk folks without worrying, and we don't like the disruption of being quarantined.  We decided the pain was worth the gain for us.  But more info is needed before the same can be said for little kids IMO.

My kid’s 54 yr old adult friend died. No prior conditions. My piano student, age 9, was very sick for a week-sicker than her mother was. Healthy kid, no issues. A music teacher friend of mine in her 40’s was miserable for a week and still doesn’t fully have her taste and smell back, and she had it in December. Basically everyone I know who had it was pretty miserable for a week or two, and most said it was harder than the flu. Having said that, I don’t know anyone who was tested while asymptomatic who was positive. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, SKL said:

How many people do you know under 55 who had Covid, and of those people, how many had a really bad case?  Was the average really worse than 2+ days of post-second-vax crud?

Even over 55, there are still many people who are completely asymptomatic.  I have a 60yo friend who found out she had antibodies.  They told her it was from a recent case.  She can't remember any time she felt even a little sick in the past 9 months.

I'm thinking about all the people I know who have had Covid.  Almost none of them felt particularly bad.  Maybe 4 people out of all of them, and they had multiple other health issues before getting Covid.  The ones I know who felt bad were achy for a couple days.  Which sounds exactly like the typical side effects from the vax.

I still decided to get my kids and myself vaxed, but not to protect us.  We want to be able to see old/at-risk folks without worrying, and we don't like the disruption of being quarantined.  We decided the pain was worth the gain for us.  But more info is needed before the same can be said for little kids IMO.

Most under 55s I know who had covid had much longer lasting symptoms than anyone I know who had vaccine side effects. I don't know anyone personally who felt bad for more than 2 days post vaccine. My brother had "a cold" that dragged on for weeks and turned out to be covid. My cousin had a mild initial illness but took a very long time to regain her sense of taste. Another friend had maybe a week or two of flu like symptoms. My friend's SIL and my SIL'S SIL both described illnesses so bad they couldn't walk across the room easily. Another friend, late 40s, had covid early on and long covid symptoms that have finally started to get better since she got vaccinated. My aunt's neighbor, healthy guy in his 40s, died. So, yes, on average way worse than 2 days of feeling bad post vaccine. And, as I've said, at least half the people I know who've gotten the vaccine haven't had any significant symptoms. I also don't know anyone who's died or been hospitalized because of the vaccine. I keep thinking of more--high school friend and his wife, in their 40s, both had nasty cases that lasted for at least a week. Honestly, I know a lot more people who've been surprised by how bad/weird covid was for them than who had super mild symptoms or asymptomatic cases. The only one I can think of offhand is my son's baseball coach, who was diagnosed a few days after the vaccine and initially dismissed his fatigue as a vaccine side effect, but it turned out to be covid.

Edited by kokotg
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife was high school friends with an under 55 man who was known locally as Patient Zero, as he was one of the very first Covid victims. Near death in the hospital for 64 days, 30 on a ventilator, became septic, developed pneumonia, kidneys failed, and he was given a 1% chance of survival.

Eventually he pulled through. But he lost fingers and toes to amputation as a result of having Covid. Stoked to be alive.

Bill

  • Sad 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

My wife was high school friends with an under 55 man who was known locally as Patient Zero, as he was one of the very first Covid victims. Near death in the hospital for 64 days, 30 on a ventilator, became septic, developed pneumonia, kidneys failed, and he was given a 1% chance of survival.

Eventually he pulled through. But he lost fingers and toes to amputation as a result of having Covid. Stoked to be alive.

Bill

I went to high school with one of the first Covid patients in my area as well. Mid forties and healthy and he also ended up on a ventilator for weeks near death’s door. He made it fortunately. His case made me know right from the start that any of us could end up with that kind of case and I wanted no part of having that happen. 
 

 I know another guy in his thirties. Mountain climber with no health conditions who ended up super sick last year. I don’t believe he ended up hospitalized, but he was sick for weeks and took months to get back to semi normal. Last I knew, he still wasn’t able to do the kinds of physical activities he did before this. 
 

  • Sad 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

To answer the question do I know anyone under 55 who had Covid worse than vaccine reaction...
 

This story is about a high school friend of mine. He was 49 or 50 when this happened.

I have two friends whose husbands spent a month to six weeks hospitalized with Covid. Both had moments where they said goodbye to their children because they weren’t expected to stay off a vent through the night. Both are under 55. Neither is expected to recover fully. One was a firefighter, and will never be able to work that job again. The other has yet to go back to work. I think he came out of the hospital in March. 

My brother-in-law, aged 49, was hospitalized with Covid in October. He was down for about two weeks, and has fully recovered. My sister, 48, was down for about a week with it. 

I also have a friend whose 10 year old has long Covid. She got it last March. She still runs a fever maybe once a week. She has lost cognitive skills. She has broken bones twice from falling from being dizzy. She cannot concentrate for long periods of time. She was one of the first people I knew who got tested fo Covid. 

A college friend, age 51, had Covid, had a stroke, and is slowly regaining use of his right side. 

I don’t know anyone who had more than one day of side effects from either vaccine. I know lots of people who have been vaccinated because I work in a school. 

Edited by Caroline
  • Sad 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Caroline said:

I don’t know anyone who had more than one day of side effects from either vaccine. I know lots of people who have been vaccinated because I work in a school. 

You know, you can think COVID is terrible and dangerous (I do!) and still know people with more than a day’s worth of side effects... at the very least, you know people on here that are like that. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more people who choose not to get vaccinated, the more chances the virus has to mutate, creating variants. That's what I'm really worried about. Eventually, one of these variants may make even the best vaccines less effective, or even completely useless. So it's not really true that people choosing not to vaccinate has no effect on vaccinated people. 

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/17/2021 at 8:34 AM, HeartString said:

I was curious so I went looking for some information.  I know that Arkansas lifted its mask mandate March 30.  I looked to see how that had affected cases in the state.  I can tell you most people that I know there are not masking unless they are required, and not even all of the time then.  The people I know are probably 50/50 on being vaccinated.  So it's a good test case for the new CDC guidelines.  As of today Arkansas has 39% of the state with at least 1 dose, 29% fully vaccinated, so less than the national level.  

It doesn't seem like lifting the mask mandate in March has made a bit of difference in their cases, even with the relatively low vaccination rate.  It's been holding steady at less than 200 cases a day.  I'm guessing there is enough immunity between vaccine and natural infections to keep it that low even without masking.  

*I'm not saying masking isn't important or helpful*  It just seems like the vaccines are doing the heavy lifting at this point and the sky hasn't fallen in this particular state with no mask mandate. 

I'm honestly surprised, I thought for sure cases would have exploded, especially because they opened restaurants back to 100% capacity at the same time and they were PACKED last time I was there.

image.png.5cff6c8082f772b01c60fade60169b4e.png

 

https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-states/state/arkansas

I think the lag time for effects to be seen is longer than we think. I just saw a chart today, shared by Dave Blake Jr showing that the states with lowest vaccination rates, of which Arkansas is one, have higher infection rates. It doesn’t seem high maybe, because cases are so much lower everywhere, but the potential for spread may be there, and we don’t know what will happen.

image.png.4ba74959ec1c4ce2dcfe3dbd5cef2581.png

The states bolder red are the ones with the lowest vaccination rates. The ones bolder blue have the highest vaccination rates. Chart is from Dave Blake Jr.

I’m in a neighboring state to Arkansas, not really near the border, and we had patients from there transferred up to our hospital, during the last surge, because their bed shortage was so acute. I hope the spread remains low there.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

You know, you can think COVID is terrible and dangerous (I do!) and still know people with more than a day’s worth of side effects... at the very least, you know people on here that are like that. 

Other than you and your husband--whose experiences I don't discount and you have my sympathies--I have literally heard of no one in my circle who has experienced more than a sore arm and a day of feeling bad after the second shot of Pfizer or Moderna.

And shots, availability, and reactions have been a hot topic of conversation in recent months.

Sorry to know you two are exceptions.

Bill

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/17/2021 at 1:51 PM, Not_a_Number said:

Right. There are many reasons for spread. All of them involve exchanging germs. 

Masks don't cause spread. Masks are a mitigation tool for spread. 

For decades HCWs in the OR have been wearing masks to protect the patient so it always seems so strange to hear people deny their protective effects. They are also worn in many other settings to protect both sides, and have been for a long time. I find the denial of the benefit of mask wearing hard to comprehend. I should add that it is not a complete protection of course, but it seems strange to deny any meaningful protection from them.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, TCB said:

For decades HCWs in the OR have been wearing masks to protect the patient so it always seems so strange to hear people deny their protective effects. They are also worn in many other settings to protect both sides, and have been for a long time. I find the denial of the benefit of mask wearing hard to comprehend. I should add that it is not a complete protection of course, but it seems strange to deny any meaningful protection from them.

Right. I’m also wondering how the people who deny any benefit from masks explain the almost non existent flu season this year. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This came out yesterday, about how hospitalized children were over counted.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2021/05/study-number-of-kids-hospitalized-for-covid-is-overcounted.html?__twitter_impression=true

 

The reported number of COVID-19 hospitalizations, one of the primary metrics for tracking the severity of the coronavirus pandemic, was grossly inflated for children in California hospitals, two research papers published Wednesday concluded. The papers, both published in the journal Hospital Pediatrics, found that pediatric hospitalizations for COVID-19 were overcounted by at least 40 percent, carrying potential implications for nationwide figures.

Dr. Monica Gandhi, an infectious-diseases specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, and Amy Beck, an associate professor of pediatrics, also at UCSF, wrote a commentary for Hospital Pediatrics that accompanied the two studies. They wrote, “Taken together, these studies underscore the importance of clearly distinguishing between children hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 found on universal testing versus those hospitalized for COVID-19 disease.” The studies demonstrate, they said, that reported hospitalization rates “greatly overestimate the true burden of COVID-19 disease in children.” Gandhi told Intelligencer that while the studies were both conducted with data from California hospitals, “there is no reason to think these findings would be exclusive to California. This sort of retrospective chart review will likely reveal the same findings across the country.” 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, pinball said:

This came out yesterday, about how hospitalized children were over counted.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2021/05/study-number-of-kids-hospitalized-for-covid-is-overcounted.html?__twitter_impression=true

 

The reported number of COVID-19 hospitalizations, one of the primary metrics for tracking the severity of the coronavirus pandemic, was grossly inflated for children in California hospitals, two research papers published Wednesday concluded. The papers, both published in the journal Hospital Pediatrics, found that pediatric hospitalizations for COVID-19 were overcounted by at least 40 percent, carrying potential implications for nationwide figures.

Dr. Monica Gandhi, an infectious-diseases specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, and Amy Beck, an associate professor of pediatrics, also at UCSF, wrote a commentary for Hospital Pediatrics that accompanied the two studies. They wrote, “Taken together, these studies underscore the importance of clearly distinguishing between children hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 found on universal testing versus those hospitalized for COVID-19 disease.” The studies demonstrate, they said, that reported hospitalization rates “greatly overestimate the true burden of COVID-19 disease in children.” Gandhi told Intelligencer that while the studies were both conducted with data from California hospitals, “there is no reason to think these findings would be exclusive to California. This sort of retrospective chart review will likely reveal the same findings across the country.” 

Anyone know if similar was done with child death counts?  Or counts of serious "symptoms" that could also be symptoms of something else?

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...