Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[MikeT14]

Getting my first test tomorrow. Been in contact with two positives recently. Wish me luck!

[MWil23]

16 minutes ago, Xenos said:

That’s why I think any in person schools need to vaccinate their staff. 

1. For right or for wrong, schools cannot mandate vaccinations for staff

2. Even if all staff gets it, what are the odds that the virus mutates? 

3. What are the odds for spread continuing until a pediatric component is created?

These are serious questions btw, because I don't know the answer to this.

[Xenos]

10 minutes ago, MikeT14 said:

Getting my first test tomorrow. Been in contact with two positives recently. Wish me luck!

Good luck! Hopefully the encounter was outdoors, social distanced, and everyone wore masks. Unless this is an app notification.

[Xenos]

26 minutes ago, BayRaider said:

It should not be mandatory anywhere..... that's ridiculous.

I mean vaccines in general are mandatory at a lot of places though. But with regards to this particular vaccine, if they want in person schools then you either have to get people vaccinated or you put a lot of mitigation tools in place like continued mask wearing. Or just have remote learning altogether which is not a good idea in the long term especially when you have a vaccine.

Edited December 14, 2020 by Xenos

[BobbyPhil1781]

Apparently Sputnik offers 91% efficacy and since J&J is built similarly (IIRC both use ad26), then we can expect good results from it as well. I know J&J just recently ended their enrollment and w/ cases going in the direction they are, I would hope we hear something by second week of 2021 if not sooner.

[MikeT14]

54 minutes ago, Xenos said:

Good luck! Hopefully the encounter was outdoors, social distanced, and everyone wore masks. Unless this is an app notification.

It was at work - we all wore masks but I was in a room with two of the people for a long time. I can guarantee one of them did not have it on 100% of the time.

[Shanedorf]

36 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

2. Even if all staff gets it, what are the odds that the virus mutates? 

3. What are the odds for spread continuing until a pediatric component is created?

These are serious questions btw, because I don't know the answer to this.

2) the virus will mutate, but whether those changes impact immunity/efficacy seems unlikely (currently being studied) - but its a low probability right now.
So get the vaccine because you already know this version of COVID is prevalent & nasty. Even IF a new mutation arises that impacts immunity, it will not completely erase this version of the virus.  

3) Pediatric versions of the vaccines are already in development and they are split as follows:

neonates up to 6 months
6 months - 2 years
2 years - 5 years
6 years - 12 years
12 yrs through 18 yrs

The reason they are split is because of physiological changes that take place. Your immune system and major organs are very different early on, its not just "little" lungs or "little" livers - they're actually very different organs for young people

12-18 year olds were dosed in October. Data review and ongoing monitoring underway now. Approval is likely in Spring 2021
6-12 years is in process at a Children's Hospital known for being on the cutting edge of pediatric development

So most school- age children will likely have a pediatric vaccine available before the 2021 Fall semester

2-5 years- those studies are designed and going through Independent Review Board for approval. No info yet on if/when they will launch
neonates - 2 years They may never be dosed in a trial, depending on results of other studies. It is possible that those doses will be set based solely on modeling/simulation work that can predict a pediatric dose in silico instead of in human babies and generally speaking they aren't high risk. 

[BobbyPhil1781]

I can only imagine the complexity and carefulness needed to be observed for "neonates" (new word for me lol) - 2 year old and even the 2 - 5 years of age group. I couldn't handle that pressure. Good for those people!

[incognito_man]

3 hours ago, MikeT14 said:

Getting my first test tomorrow. Been in contact with two positives recently. Wish me luck!

i hope you studied

[incognito_man]

3 hours ago, BayRaider said:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/12/10/covid-vaccine-debunking-claims-causes-infertility-sterilization/6497018002/

While this is "debunking" claims of infertility, the expert is simply only giving an opinion that it will not, not an actual fact. It's too early to tell if it will cause a spike in infertility percentages. Although he's probably 99% correct, there's no reason for her and I to rush to get it and take that 1% risk.

"It's very unlikely that the immune system will confuse these two because it’s a very small part of the molecule," Minkin said. "They don’t look similar enough that the body would create an antibody to attack it." 

That is an opinion. An expert opinion. But still an opinion nonetheless.

Plus, even without that, if you are not in the risk category, we still do not know if there are long-term effects of the vaccine are, if any.

I don't understand why a completely fabricated claim about a non-existent side effect has any bearing on a decision of whether or not to take it.

I understand being risk averse, but it's not an actual risk. Listen to the science and the scientists. If you are truly not anti-vaxxers, invented claims from anti-vaxxers would not factor into the decision.

It's truly unfortunate the scientists are forced to respond to such nonsense. But, since they are rational people, they are forced to used non-definitive language despite knowing it's nonsense.

It's like asking me "will you be killed by 7 monkeys next Tuesday?." Well, hell - I wasn't worried about it until you asked me! I don't think so? But I guess I can't rule it out. It's unlikely.

Edited December 14, 2020 by incognito_man

[BayRaider]

13 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

I don't understand why a completely fabricated claim about a non-existent side effect has any bearing on a decision of whether or not to take it.

I understand being risk averse, but it's not an actual risk. Listen to the science and the scientists. If you are truly not anti-vaxxers, invented claims from anti-vaxxers would not factor into the decision.

It's truly unfortunate the scientists are forced to respond to such nonsense. But, since they are rational people, they are forced to used non-definitive language despite knowing it's nonsense.

It's like asking me "will you be killed by 7 monkeys next Tuesday?." Well, hell - I wasn't worried about it until you asked me! I don't think so? But I guess I can't rule it out. It's unlikely.

Still, it’s a super rushed vaccine and I’d rather avert caution. Nobody knows any long term effects of this, no matter how many scientists scream at you they do. They don’t. Period. I do follow science, 100,000%. That’s why I’m not taking this right away. My brother is head of his lab and was the first lab in the country to start on a vaccine for this virus, and has studied the virus 16 hours a day since March. My fiancee and most people I know work in health care as Doctors, NP’s (mostly), and RN’s. Don’t EVER tell me again that I am not following science. My brother and most of those health care workers have also decided not to get the vaccine right away and will be waiting a while. Are they not following science? Give me a break. You have quite some nerve. 
 

There is nothing wrong with hesitating on the vaccine and not rushing in to get it, and seeing if any complications arise after several months to a year. 

Edit: And many independent polls have shown that people do not want to get the vaccine right away. I’ve seen multiple polls, in California of all places, that 70 to 80% do not want the vaccine right away. 
 

 

Edited December 14, 2020 by BayRaider

[incognito_man]

7 minutes ago, BayRaider said:

Still, it’s a super rushed vaccine and I’d rather avert caution. Nobody knows any long term effects of this, no matter how many scientists scream at you they do. They don’t. Period. I do follow science, 100,000%. That’s why I’m not taking this right away. My brother is head of his lab and was the first lab in the country to start on a vaccine for this virus, and has studied the virus 16 hours a day since March. My fiancee and most people I know work in health care as Doctors, NP’s (mostly), and RN’s. Don’t EVER tell me again that I am not following science. My brother and most of those health care workers have also decided not to get the vaccine right away and will be waiting a while. Are they not following science? Give me a break. You have quite some nerve. 
 

There is nothing wrong with hesitating on the vaccine and not rushing in to get it, and seeing if any complications arise after several months to a year. 

Edit: And many independent polls have shown that people do not want to get the vaccine right away. I’ve seen multiple polls, in California of all places, that 70 to 80% do not want the vaccine right away. 
 

 

Very sensitive.

But yes, they are not following science if they choose not to get the vaccine when it's recommended they do based on their "spot in line". 

There is a lot wrong with hesitating beyond the recommended scheduling. It unnecessarily puts society at further risk than our best science indicates for perceived personal gain.

I have a huge issue with a scientist that would recommend "others" take a vaccine while eschewing it themselves. That's perhaps the most f'd up thing I've read in this thread, if true. I certainly hope that's not the case with your family members.

[Deadpulse]

11 minutes ago, BayRaider said:

Edit: And many independent polls have shown that people do not want to get the vaccine right away. I’ve seen multiple polls, in California of all places, that 70 to 80% do not want the vaccine right away. 

I was with you until this lol

[incognito_man]

For the record, when I say "spot in line", that's inclusive of the sum of an individual's personal medical situation. i.e. if docs recommend those trying to get pregnant wait, then duh, that's the right choice for that individual.

[candyman93]

My GF tested positive.

 

*&$#