At what point would you lock down again?

[Laura Corin]

1 hour ago, wathe said:

It's correlated well here with hospitalizations and deaths, but percent positivity rises earlier, while hospitalizations and deaths lag behind.

Lots of people are getting covid tests who don't have symptoms here:  Nursing home staff are all tested weekly, every hospital inpatient gets a covid test at the time of admission, no matter what the reason for admission (including obstetrics, orthopaedics, etc), all patients  getting discharged to a nursing home get another test before discharge, all patients having surgery for any reason get a covid test etc.  

This is roughly how it seems here too. Symptomatic people are testing with PCR - there's a problem with what counts as symptomatic by government rules,  but that hasn't changed - and asymptomatic people are using LF tests for various reasons. Again that usage hasn't changed in months. For example, I have taken an LF test almost every week since 9 April in order to see my mum in her care home.

[Bootsie]

8 hours ago, KSera said:

The thought is that since only a certain percent will present with symptoms and only a certain percentage of those will test, it tells us something about how much of the iceberg we’re catching and how big the actual iceberg will be. I do think that falls apart at extremes on either end—when there’s lots of testing of asymptomatic people and when resources are so stretched that fewer people can get tested. 

 

But what does it tell us?  Anything really meaningful.  If 100 people who have symptoms that they think may be COVID test and 20 of them are positive--there is a 20% positivity rate.  That shows you that 80% of the people who think they might have COVID don't.  But, without knowing the "certain percentage" of people with symptoms who test, then you really have no idea how much of the iceberg you are catching.  Knowing the percent of people with symptoms who test would be important for drawing conclusions.  I do not know that we know that.  

Then, even if we are only testing symptomatic people, the percent of them who have COVID is really meaningless to know how much we are catching without knowing the absolute number who are being tested.  We are only measuring the perecent of people who have symptoms who have COVID relative to something else.  If strep, flu, allergies, or anything else is moving through the community and 200 people test because they have symptoms (rather than the original 100) and only 20 have COVID--your positivity rate drops to 10%, but that is simply due to more of something else NOT a change in COVID.  

 

 

[Laura Corin]

29 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

But what does it tell us?  Anything really meaningful.  If 100 people who have symptoms that they think may be COVID test and 20 of them are positive--there is a 20% positivity rate.  That shows you that 80% of the people who think they might have COVID don't.  But, without knowing the "certain percentage" of people with symptoms who test, then you really have no idea how much of the iceberg you are catching.  Knowing the percent of people with symptoms who test would be important for drawing conclusions.  I do not know that we know that.  

Then, even if we are only testing symptomatic people, the percent of them who have COVID is really meaningless to know how much we are catching without knowing the absolute number who are being tested.  We are only measuring the perecent of people who have symptoms who have COVID relative to something else.  If strep, flu, allergies, or anything else is moving through the community and 200 people test because they have symptoms (rather than the original 100) and only 20 have COVID--your positivity rate drops to 10%, but that is simply due to more of something else NOT a change in COVID.  

 

 

The UK Office for National Statistics does periodic random testing of people whether or not they have symptoms.  Here are the latest data

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/9july2021#percentage-of-people-who-had-covid-19-in-england-wales-northern-ireland-and-scotland

[Roadrunner]

Numbers are starting to rise again in CA and in our county as well despite high rate of vaccinations. Frankly I am tired of watching this rollercoaster. I have a feeling CA will start to shut down again in some areas. 
Went to Costco yesterday. 90% were wearing masks. I felt like a criminal without one. 😉

[Bootsie]

25 minutes ago, Laura Corin said:

The UK Office for National Statistics does periodic random testing of people whether or not they have symptoms.  Here are the latest data

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/9july2021#percentage-of-people-who-had-covid-19-in-england-wales-northern-ireland-and-scotland

Thanks; this is interesting.  With all of this context the percent positive rate can provide some insight.  

[Halftime Hope]

21 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

I don't know why you think IVM will cause no side effects. Pretty much every medicine causes SOME side effects. Someone will be allergic. Someone's body will react badly in some other way. It's exactly the same thing as with the vaccines, except MUCH less studied.

Vaccines and medicines are non-trivial events. If you do a large volume of them, you WILL see things. The rate at which we're seeing serious vaccine issues is small. The rate one will see serious IVM issues is also probably small, but you bet we'll see a few serious things that happens with rates of one in a million or more, and also a few less serious things at much higher rates. 

I apologize, I'll respond after work this evening. 

[Not_a_Number]

9 hours ago, Halftime Hope said:

When we reach 3.7 billion doses of vaccines, let's compare adverse reaction data, OK?  😉  We have that much safety data for IVM already; by comparison, the vaccine safety data is the loser.  (Actually, untreated COVID is the real loser, which brings me back to treating COVID again, and to repurposed, effective drugs.)   

We’re close to that many doses of vaccines, actually. It’s in the billions. And how many of those ivermectin doses were carefully monitored and studied?

[Halftime Hope]

5 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I’m not sure where you’re getting the death rates from death rates per million on worldometer are actually very similar for Mexico and the US?  India’s is somewhat better but it’s widely accepted that that is a massive undercount.  I haven’t honestly seen country level data to be super useful other than for very broad brush trends because there’s so much difference in reporting methods and accuracy between countries.  I still think that is ivermectin was having the kind of results that vaccine is (reduction in hospitalisation and death of around 90pc) we would have some better evidence for it at this point.  That’s not to discount that it may have some impact just that it’s not at the same level. 

I'm so sorry.  I wrote my description incorrectly and will edit the original post.  It should have said, "Their numbers are double ours, 0.15 vs. 0.08, is nothing short of miraculous,"...for a country lacking the healthcare resources.  I was looking for "deaths per 100K", and that data was presented in that manner off the NYT website.  

I find that particular number useful, because while total case or death counts are a measure of sheer human misery, the "numbers per 100K" data yields other useful information on the severity of waves, the efficacy of management or interventions, etc.  The world looked at India and criticized, when at points in time our numbers in the US were far higher per capita.  

Anyway...my day is calling.  

 

[Halftime Hope]

7 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

We’re close to that many doses of vaccines, actually. It’s in the billions. And how many of those ivermectin doses were carefully monitored and studied?

If you think vaccines reactions are being carefully monitored and studied...

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Halftime Hope said:

If you think vaccines reactions are being carefully monitored and studied...

The ones in trials were, and there’s some follow-up for serious stuff, or we wouldn’t know things like the myocarditis. I’d agree that most reactions outside trials aren’t recorded.

But I was asking about ivermectin. Do we have a big trial with monitored reactions?

[Not_a_Number]

4 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

I'm so sorry.  I wrote my description incorrectly and will edit the original post.  It should have said, "Their numbers are double ours, 0.15 vs. 0.08, is nothing short of miraculous,"...for a country lacking the healthcare resources.  I was looking for "deaths per 100K", and that data was presented in that manner off the NYT website.  

I find that particular number useful, because while total case or death counts are a measure of sheer human misery, the "numbers per 100K" data yields other useful information on the severity of waves, the efficacy of management or interventions, etc.  The world looked at India and criticized, when at points in time our numbers in the US were far higher per capita.  

Anyway...my day is calling.  
 

 

Indian numbers are almost certainly a vast undercount.

[whitestavern]

Average daily deaths are the lowest they've been since the beginning of the pandemic. 

https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&pickerSort=asc&pickerMetric=location&hideControls=true&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=false&Align+outbreaks=false&country=~USA&Metric=Confirmed+deaths

 

[Not_a_Number]

1 hour ago, whitestavern said:

Average daily deaths are the lowest they've been since the beginning of the pandemic. 

https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&pickerSort=asc&pickerMetric=location&hideControls=true&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=false&Align+outbreaks=false&country=~USA&Metric=Confirmed+deaths

Well, yeah. The vaccines work to prevent death.

[Not_a_Number]

10 hours ago, BusyMom5 said:

I just don't know what to do.  I have some kids too young for vaccination, others who are vaccinated.   All of my kids are so ready to be out and about!  I'm not looking forward to telling them we are scaling back.  The older vaccinated ones are just as likely to get the varient and bring it home- its going crazy here, and not just in the unvaccinated!  Feeling like its hopeless and I just need to give up and accept the risk- expect to get sick!

Ugh. I'm really sorry. That sounds difficult. 

Could you do what we're doing and try to stay outside, potentially with masks in crowded situations? While I am suspicious of the idea that there's NO transmission risk outside, it's certainly much lower. 

[Not_a_Number]

11 hours ago, Halftime Hope said:

Ivermectin wins on safety profile hands down, and it seems to be quite effective at preventing and treating COVID. 

Cite both, please. 

[KSera]

11 hours ago, Halftime Hope said:

Ivermectin wins on safety profile hands down, and it seems to be quite effective at preventing and treating COVID. 

Revisiting this statement, when one prevents the majority of illness and almost all deaths, while the other has just dubious or slight impacts preventing both, then the safety profile of relying on the latter rather than the former is disastrous. It doesn’t matter if one has fewer serious rare side effects than the other, which also has very rare serious side effects if the main effect is that people are no longer protected from Covid and many become seriously ill or die that otherwise wouldn’t have. I know that you are advocating that people use both, but that is a rare view, and statements like the above—that taking ivermectin is safer than the vaccine contribute to vaccine hesitancy which leaves people unprotected. I don’t think it makes sense to leave out how much one vs the other protects someone from death when weighing the safety profile (especially at this point in a pandemic where it is widely agreed that it’s no longer if people catch Covid, for the unvaccinated who haven’t had Covid yet, it’s when they catch Covid.)

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, KSera said:

Revisiting this statement, when one prevents the majority of illness and almost all deaths, while the other has just dubious or slight impacts preventing both, then the safety profile of relying on the latter rather than the former is disastrous. It doesn’t matter if one has fewer serious rare side effects than the other, which also has very rare serious side effects if the main effect is that people are no longer protected from Covid and many become seriously ill or die that otherwise wouldn’t have. I know that you are advocating that people use both, but that is a rare view, and statements like the above—that taking ivermectin is safer than the vaccine contribute to vaccine hesitancy which leaves people unprotected. I don’t think it makes sense to leave out how much one vs the other protects someone from death when weighing the safety profile (especially at this point in a pandemic where it is widely agreed that it’s no longer if people catch Covid, for the unvaccinated who haven’t had Covid yet, it’s when they catch Covid.)

But I would guess that people advocating for ivermectin think it's very effective. 

[KSera]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

But I would guess that people advocating for ivermectin think it's very effective. 

So far no one has been able to cite anything but small studies, primarily in other countries, and most frequently with problematic study designs. I’ve said all along it would be great to find out it’s very helpful (heck, we have some on hand for deworming the animals already). I would be surprised to find that it’s anything other than slightly helpful (or neutral) at this point, and I think it’s quite clear that it’s nowhere even remotely in the ballpark of vaccine efficacy. 

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, KSera said:

So far no one has been able to cite anything but small studies, primarily in other countries, and most frequently with problematic study designs. I’ve said all along it would be great to find out it’s very helpful (heck, we have some on hand for deworming the animals already). I would be surprised to find that it’s anything other than slightly helpful (or neutral) at this point, and I think it’s quite clear that it’s nowhere even remotely in the ballpark of vaccine efficacy. 

I didn't say they were RIGHT. I'm just saying that's what people believe. 

When I was looking for ivermectin studies just now, I saw a ton of new studies people are now running in reputable places, so I would assume we will soon know whether it's helpful. I'll be somewhat surprised if it's more than marginally helpful, but I certainly hope that it is. 

[Not_a_Number]

As for why people are so irrational: I have no idea. But I have to say that it's very consistent with everything I know about history. 

I don't even like people a lot of the time, frankly. I mean, I like lots of people locally -- I don't have any trouble getting along with people. But I lean kind of misanthropic when it comes to people en masse 🤷‍♀️.

[Not_a_Number]

The older I get, the shorter the distance in time to historical atrocities seems to me, too. I was born in 1984. If you go back another one of my lifetimes back from my birthday, we won't be far past World War II, when people were trying to exterminate people like me 😛 . There's only so much I can expect from a world like that, you know? 

Sorry, I know that's both rather bleak and off-topic. It's just how I feel. I don't expect much from people on average. 

[KSera]

7 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I didn't say they were RIGHT. I'm just saying that's what people believe. 

When I was looking for ivermectin studies just now, I saw a ton of new studies people are now running in reputable places, so I would assume we will soon know whether it's helpful. I'll be somewhat surprised if it's more than marginally helpful, but I certainly hope that it is. 

Oh, I understood you weren't saying they were right. I was just jumping off that. 
 

Good, reputable studies would be very helpful. As it is, when I look it up, mostly what I see are people who are saying that ivermectin is 100% effective at preventing Covid (clearly untrue) coupled with a whole lot of nonsense about vaccinated people shedding virus, government conspiracies, etc. And I’ve noticed they like to put the word “vaccine“ in quotes. That’s a tell when you see that. 

Edited July 14, 2021 by KSera
WEREN’T not WERE

[Halftime Hope]

11 hours ago, Pen said:

 

@BusyMom5
this is exactly the type situation where being aware that there is not just a zero-sum game possible makes sense IME 

if you look into the treatment and prophylaxis options that exist — whether for use “instead of” or “in addition” to vaccines your family has had or has not had  (depending on person) may perhaps help you to feel less hopeless 

 

also though you will perhaps just consider  such things as “conspiracy theory” it is possible that getting more of a handle on how people who see things differently than the dominant current view here on Wtm (and mainstream media) could possibly help you to feel less hopeless

 

“Accepting risk” with some medicines, etc, on hand feels different than accepting risk with a sense of personal helplessness and believing that there will be no treatment offered or possible short of getting sick enough for hospitalization/icu type stage

 

This is plain gaslighting on the part of healthcare in the US.  My PCP and colleagues (a group of 8 docs) are not treating ANY upper respiratory illness at all. Period. If you come down with something, you are OOL. It's insanity. 

[KSera]

8 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

This is plain gaslighting on the part of healthcare in the US.  My PCP and colleagues (a group of 8 docs) are not treating ANY upper respiratory illness at all. Period. If you come down with something, you are OOL. It's insanity. 

What? Can you explain? I mean, sure, most colds there’s no treatment for, but I’ve not heard of anyone else in the US say their doctors won’t treat them if they have a treatable URI condition. Maybe you need different doctors?

[mommyoffive]

Sigh.  One green state on Covidactnow.gov today...

The county where we do things had .9 cases per 100k population on June 27, yesterday it was 2.3 cases per 100k.

This should not be happening here when we can all be vaccinated. 

 

[Pen]

1 hour ago, Halftime Hope said:

This is plain gaslighting on the part of healthcare in the US.  My PCP and colleagues (a group of 8 docs) are not treating ANY upper respiratory illness at all. Period. If you come down with something, you are OOL. It's insanity. 

 

Yes. Insanity is a good word for it!

 

 I appreciate the doctors who seem to be trying to treat patients and people like Dr Been (Mobeen Syed) who seem to be trying to figure out what to do and not just to look at the ptb approved do nothing other than vaccines approach. Even his own family members apparently each having taken a different vaccine, while he at least continues to prophylax with ivermectin and other such approaches (both together rather than a one or the other approach) is interesting to me. 
 

also the concept of what is “reputable” as to studies has totally changed for me 

My science upbringing was such that I used to consider things like Lancet to be “reputable”. However, since Surgisphere and other problems and since better learning to “follow the money” I have changed. It isn’t a “conspiracy theory” it is rather a matter of gaining wisdom and coming to understand that “reputable” may have name recognition and long tradition, but not necessarily things I care about such as accuracy and caring about the health of patients who will ultimately be affected by studies/articles. 
 

There was an interview where Hector Carvallo explained why he/they publish in smaller journals so that he/they can remain independent of big finance influences. I think it’s worth a listen - unfortunately I don’t recall where it was. Maybe Trial Site News. 
 

 

Edited July 14, 2021 by Pen
Shortening!

[KSera]

23 minutes ago, Pen said:

If I notice something that seems to be a genuine question rather than baiting I sometimes try to answer still, though more and more think it is pointless. 

Genuine question, not baiting, but so far no one has answered this and I’m genuinely curious: how do you look at the statistics that of the ~10,000 Covid deaths last month in the US, less than 1 % were vaccinated and more than 99% were not? Does that make you question whether it’s still wise to be discouraging vaccination? because that means in the next month it’s going to be another 10,000+ unvaccinated people who will die who would have lived had they been vaccinated.

[Not_a_Number]

1 hour ago, KSera said:

Genuine question, not baiting, but so far no one has answered this and I’m genuinely curious: how do you look at the statistics that of the ~10,000 Covid deaths last month in the US, less than 1 % were vaccinated and more than 99% were not? Does that make you question whether it’s still wise to be discouraging vaccination? because that means in the next month it’s going to be another 10,000+ unvaccinated people who will die who would have lived had they been vaccinated.

Probably more, with Delta.

[KSera]

17 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Probably more, with Delta.

Unfortunately, undoubtedly more. I had more understanding where that viewpoint might come from when we had just started vaccinating people, but at this point I’m not sure how people are rationalizing still discouraging (or worse) the vaccine in light of the outcomes. I’m genuinely wanting to know. 

[regentrude]

2 hours ago, mommyoffive said:

Sigh.  One green state on Covidactnow.gov today...

The county where we do things had .9 cases per 100k population on June 27, yesterday it was 2.3 cases per 100k.

This should not be happening here when we can all be vaccinated. 

My county has , drumroll, 274 per 100k.

Rural conservative Midwest. Those politicians who made all manner of Covid precautions about political leanings have blood on their hands.

[mommyoffive]

1 minute ago, regentrude said:

My county has , drumroll, 274 per 100k.

Rural conservative Midwest. Those politicians who made all manner of Covid precautions about political leanings have blood on their hands.

Yes.  I was just saying that this week.  I mean that is what it is at this point.  I just don't even have words to describe how low and awful I feel for people who are convincing people to not get a vaccine or spreading the misinformation about covid. 

We were locked down a lot.  My kids didn't do anything in-person until Feb this year a few of my kids did an in studio taping of a show for ballet.  Then nothing until we traveled around Memorial day.  Dh and I were fully vaccinated, my 2 who are old enough had one dose.   We road tripped, wore masks anytime we were around others, and stayed in houses we rented.  We had plans to do a lot of face to face things this summer and then got a bit scared.  Although looking back we should have done a lot of face to face things all summer.  Their main interest is dance which is indoors.  WE are taking that risk right now.  Hoping that they can get a few weeks or month of it.  Their ballet school is still having masks for everyone and parents can't go in except for the real littles.  I have seen other ballet schools nearby with no masks on anyone.  Hoping incase we have to scale back that they get some time with kids right now.  I am also letting them play outside with no masks with other kids.   I have noticed that kids of all ages are not good about keeping distance at all.   I don't know if that is the right call with Delta or not.   I think they need this so we are taking the risk to do it.   I imagine that I might pull back if things keep getting worse, which seems like they will.

[whitestavern]

4 hours ago, KSera said:

So far no one has been able to cite anything but small studies, primarily in other countries, and most frequently with problematic study designs. I’ve said all along it would be great to find out it’s very helpful (heck, we have some on hand for deworming the animals already). I would be surprised to find that it’s anything other than slightly helpful (or neutral) at this point, and I think it’s quite clear that it’s nowhere even remotely in the ballpark of vaccine efficacy. 

 

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/ivermectin-can-a-drug-be-right-wing

This past week, for instance, Oxford University announced it was launching a large-scale clinical trial. The study has already recruited more than 5,000 volunteers, and its announcement says what little is known to be true: that “small pilot studies show that early administration with ivermectin can reduce viral load and the duration of symptoms in some patients with mild COVID-19,” that it’s “a well-known medicine with a good safety profile,” and “because of the early promising results in some studies, it is already being widely used to treat COVID-19 in several countries.”

Some of the information has hard to find, the article states, due to censorship and the politicization of the drug. 

Edited July 14, 2021 by whitestavern

[ieta_cassiopeia]

19 hours ago, regentrude said:

Several folks mentioned using positivity rates as a measure. Why? Wouldn't the positivity rate entirely depend on how many and how sick people test? If there's a ton of testing, like mandated on schedule,  rate will be much smaller than if there's only a few sick folks testing and noone else.

Primarily I use it here because other people are using it, and because it's easy to calculate from the local statistics.

The other stats I keep an eye on is the number of people in my local hospital (the overload number's sufficiently low that I suppress that figure from the forum to prevent disclosure through differencing), and nationally. A month ago, the cases were going up but the national hospital figures weren't, so I believed the link between the two was broken and that "living with the virus" might be feasible if that pattern continued. However, hospitalisations have risen quite a lot recently, so the connection has been re-established.

My county's fortnightly COVID surveillance report, which yields these figures, also has the community test statistics. Two areas of my county are under enhanced surveillance because of case explosions; I don't count those because near-enough-mandatory door-to-door testing is happening. The three other non-healthcare sites that have had enough tests to make positivity figures from tests reliable (one is my local area) have just as bad a positivity score as either of the ones where door-to-door testing due to case explosions are happening. This indicates that in those areas, lots of people who probably should be tested aren't doing so before coming to hospital - and yes, I've noticed that a significant amount of the positivity in my area is contributed by people from my area testing positive in hospital or other healthcare settings, despite a relatively low number of nursing homes and the like within its boundary (which do indeed mandate on schedule).

As for the other twenty areas of my county, your guess is as good as mine... They've had about 4000 tests between them in the last fortnight - for a population of over 300,000 people. Three of them have done exactly zero tests and another twelve did fewer than 100 each. Lots of people can't get to testing facilities and many can't afford the self-isolation requirement if they test positive (so prefer to remain ignorant to avoid getting fined for going to work). So, a lot of sick people are likely not testing, even if symptomatic - they'd rather put their symptoms down to something else if possible, or allow themselves to be sent home and return to work as soon as possible if not. (Most employers are not empowered to order symptomatic employees to take a test, call/check the 111 non-emergency service, nor to stay away from work without an official confirmation of positivity or contact with a confirmed positive case).

In short, I use the positivity rate as a conservative estimate of what's going on in my area for cases due to clear limitations in the test regime, but I also use hospital numbers as triangulation points.

For the ivermectin issue: in the UK, the NHS started investigating ivermectin for the second time 3 weeks ago, with a view to potentially adding it to its list of COVID treatments. It is unknown why it took the manufacturers 10 months to get from the application stage to trial stage given that COVID-19 research is expedited to some extent in the UK, however until that trial is completed, nobody in the UK can receive ivermectin.

[KSera]

34 minutes ago, whitestavern said:

 

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/ivermectin-can-a-drug-be-right-wing

This past week, for instance, Oxford University announced it was launching a large-scale clinical trial. The study has already recruited more than 5,000 volunteers, and its announcement says what little is known to be true: that “small pilot studies show that early administration with ivermectin can reduce viral load and the duration of symptoms in some patients with mild COVID-19,” that it’s “a well-known medicine with a good safety profile,” and “because of the early promising results in some studies, it is already being widely used to treat COVID-19 in several countries.”

Some of the information has hard to find, the article states, due to censorship and the politicization of the drug. 

I think it's great that this trial will be done. I think it's ridiculous that medications and everything else about this pandemic has been politicized. I blame those who have done the politicizing. 

[ScoutTN]

5 hours ago, Halftime Hope said:

This is plain gaslighting on the part of healthcare in the US.  My PCP and colleagues (a group of 8 docs) are not treating ANY upper respiratory illness at all. Period. If you come down with something, you are OOL. It's insanity. 

Find a different practice. I had no trouble getting antbx for a sinus infection earlier this year. All of our family’s docs are open for business as usual. 

[Danae]

5 hours ago, Halftime Hope said:

This is plain gaslighting on the part of healthcare in the US.  My PCP and colleagues (a group of 8 docs) are not treating ANY upper respiratory illness at all. Period. If you come down with something, you are OOL. It's insanity. 

Don’t project your PCP’s ridiculousness onto the rest of the US.  Practices here are seeing people as normal.  Many have a separate waiting area for people with respiratory symptoms, or ask you to wait in your car until called, but people are being seen and treated.

[SKL]

Why are people using vaccinations to push back against medicines in this thread, which is about kids too young to be vaccinated?

I am glad they are doing more testing of meds, which was slowed for political reasons.  There will always be some people who can't benefit from the vaccine for one reason or another.

[historically accurate]

7 hours ago, Halftime Hope said:

This is plain gaslighting on the part of healthcare in the US.  My PCP and colleagues (a group of 8 docs) are not treating ANY upper respiratory illness at all. Period. If you come down with something, you are OOL. It's insanity. 

That's just weird.

I just went to the doctor a week ago for what turned out to be a cold. Ended up tested for Covid and Flu. Nothing really to be done for a cold, so no meds, but yeah, I went to see a doctor. No trouble being seen even when I told them that I was pretty sure it was just a cold (I wanted to be seen because my fever was pretty high). 

[Not_a_Number]

If anyone's interested in our current stance, I told the kids that they will be masking in crowded outdoor situations from now on. They were mildly grumpy about it but adjusted quickly. However, I need to buy some more Happy Masks to hold in reserve for when their masks get soaked in the sprinklers. 

DD8's birthday party is in 1.5 weeks, and I really hope the situation doesn't change rapidly enough that I have to do something different for it -- we were going to have it at a playground, and she's very excited about it. (The most we'd change is having it at a park that's not a playground. But I don't expect that to happen. Fingers crossed.) 

[brehon]

7 hours ago, Halftime Hope said:

This is plain gaslighting on the part of healthcare in the US.  My PCP and colleagues (a group of 8 docs) are not treating ANY upper respiratory illness at all. Period. If you come down with something, you are OOL. It's insanity. 

I don’t know of anyone in my area who can’t see their PCP for URIs. 

 

7 hours ago, Halftime Hope said:

“Accepting risk” with some medicines, etc, on hand feels different than accepting risk with a sense of personal helplessness and believing that there will be no treatment offered or possible short of getting sick enough for hospitalization/icu type stage

I’m sorry if the bolded is the case in your area. It is completely different in many of the areas in the US. Doctors are seeing and treating patients for a variety of illnesses, including various respiratory ailments, without issue. There may be additional precautions, but pts are being treated well prior to needing hospitalizations/ICU stays. 

[KSera]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

Why are people using vaccinations to push back against medicines in this thread, which is about kids too young to be vaccinated?

I am glad they are doing more testing of meds, which was slowed for political reasons.  There will always be some people who can't benefit from the vaccine for one reason or another.

It evolved as threads tend to do here. That part of the discussion really had nothing to do with kids. And everyone has agreed it’s good more testing is being done. 

[Terabith]

8 hours ago, KSera said:

What? Can you explain? I mean, sure, most colds there’s no treatment for, but I’ve not heard of anyone else in the US say their doctors won’t treat them if they have a treatable URI condition. Maybe you need different doctors?

Our doctors will not see anyone with anything remotely upper respiratory, or gastrointestinal.  They tell everyone to go to urgent care.  I could get a tele-health appointment with my doctor for a sinus infection, but when I thought I had an ear infection, they said I had to go to urgent care, because ear infection might have been caused by something respiratory, and they aren't seeing people who are sick with potentially contagious ailments.  Which is kind of a nice gig for doctors, but kinda sucky for the urgent care folks.  

Edited July 15, 2021 by Terabith

[Teaching3bears]

Are they developing a vaccine against the Delta variant or tweaking the current vaccine to be more effective against it?

[Not_a_Number]

16 minutes ago, Teaching3bears said:

Are they developing a vaccine against the Delta variant or tweaking the current vaccine to be more effective against it?

I think they are currently just trying to figure out how effective the current vaccines are... the range of efficacies people have come up with has been really large. 

Edited July 15, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[alisoncooks]

NM

 

Edited July 15, 2021 by alisoncooks

[Halftime Hope]

3 hours ago, ScoutTN said:

Find a different practice. I had no trouble getting antbx for a sinus infection earlier this year. All of our family’s docs are open for business as usual. 

Of course I already did. 

[Corraleno]

23 minutes ago, Teaching3bears said:

Are they developing a vaccine against the Delta variant or tweaking the current vaccine to be more effective against it?

Pfizer is definitely working on it, but the trial on the Delta-tweaked version of the shot isn't scheduled to start until next month. They said they plan to ask the FDA for an EUA next month, but it's for a 3rd dose of the original vaccine, not the Delta version. I have also read that Moderna is working on one, but I don't have any links for that.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/07/08/world/covid-19-vaccine-coronavirus-updates/pfizer-and-biontech-will-test-a-vaccine-against-the-delta-variant

[wathe]

42 minutes ago, Terabith said:

Our doctors will not see anyone with anything remotely upper respiratory, or gastrointestinal.  They tell everyone to go to urgent care.  I could get a tele-health appointment with my doctor for a sinus infection, but when I thought I had an ear infection, they said I had to go to urgent care, because ear infection might have been caused by something respiratory, and they aren't seeing people who are sick with potentially contagious ailments.  Which is kind of a nice gig for doctors, but kinda sucky for the urgent care folks.  

We have this problem here now.  some family practices still aren't seeing patients in person, or are declining to see respiratory illness.  So we end up seeing these people in our over-crowded, understaffed emergency department.  For complaints that really should go to primary care.  The patients wait a long time to have their non-emergencies seen (because, of course, in an emergency department, they get bumped by emergency cases) and then get upset because their "doctor called ahead" and somehow this gives people the idea that I am waiting for them with nothing else to do......

Emerg staff are so very tired.

Edited July 15, 2021 by wathe

[KSera]

3 hours ago, Terabith said:

Our doctors will not see anyone with anything remotely upper respiratory, or gastrointestinal.  They tell everyone to go to urgent care.  I could get a tele-health appointment with my doctor for a sinus infection, but when I thought I had an ear infection, they said I had to go to urgent care, because ear infection might have been caused by something respiratory, and they aren't seeing people who are sick with potentially contagious ailments.  Which is kind of a nice gig for doctors, but kinda sucky for the urgent care folks.  

Oh; I see what you mean. Yeah, that is tough. I don’t know how my doctor is doing it because I haven’t had anything like that and haven’t actually ever been to the dr for a URI (knock on wood) but the kids’ pediatrician has divided patients between sick and healthy into different clinics. It makes sense not to have potential Covid cases come into the regular clinic. I’d be super upset if I took a healthy kid in for a well child check and we all came home with Covid. We didn’t go to the dr at all except for a couple emergencies until we felt we could do It without unreasonable risk. There does of course need to be some way for people to be seen. Telehalth for those that can is good. And of course, to beat a dead horse, if everyone got vaccinated, this wouldn’t be a big issue for adults. 

2 hours ago, alisoncooks said:

[removed]

I was wondering about you earlier. How are you and your family now? Did your other dd stay negative?

Edited July 15, 2021 by KSera

[wathe]

3 hours ago, Danae said:

Don’t project your PCP’s ridiculousness onto the rest of the US.  Practices here are seeing people as normal.  Many have a separate waiting area for people with respiratory symptoms, or ask you to wait in your car until called, but people are being seen and treated.

She might mean this (PCP's declining to see patient with URI symptoms), 'cause that's definitely still happening in some communities, but I think she instead means that PCP's aren't treating respiratory symptoms with the treatments that she believes are indicated, which might include non-mainstream treatments, or treatments outside standard practice guidelines.  I think that interpretation fits better with the theme of the posts leading up to this one.  

Perhaps @Halftime Hopewill clarify.