Covid-19 News/Discussion

[Deadpulse]

22 minutes ago, Malfatron said:

getting my first pfizer shot on 4/21

we can be pfizer bros

[BobbyPhil1781]

12 hours ago, BayRaider said:

Does the arm soreness set in asap? Can I drive 2 hours right after?

In my experiences and my wife's, you'll be fine. Her's didn't start hurting until like 24 hours after. Mine was almost right away but the pain wasn't bad by any means. Just noticeable.

[ramssuperbowl99]

11 hours ago, Deadpulse said:

12 hours ago, Malfatron said:

getting my first pfizer shot on 4/21

we can be pfizer bros

#teamPfizer

[Shanedorf]

200,500,000 shots in arms....freaking amazing effort. One interesting note as you look at the daily graph, it didn't bottom out as it had in the past, smaller trough. That suggests both supply and distribution are both getting better

Full Speed Ahead

https://covidvax.live/location/usa

 

[Xenos]

18 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

#teamPfizer

Rams, why do you think there’s so much indecision among the medical professionals in charge of the J&J pause? Are they just overthinking it?

[ramssuperbowl99]

1 minute ago, Xenos said:

Rams, why do you think there’s so much indecision among the medical professionals in charge of the J&J pause? Are they just overthinking it?

I think it's a really complicated decision with a ton of consequences that will be difficult to predict both from a likelihood and impact perspective. It makes sense to me that we are seeing a wide range of takes. I don't know if there is a perfect solution either, which means different people's own risk tolerances/backgrounds might change that opinion too. 

I'm honestly not even sure what my opinion is. I don't think I have enough data or background (on the specifics of the blood clots) to really feel good about any decision either way.

[TVScout]

Not free:

CDC ramps up scrutiny of rare post-vaccination ‘breakthrough infections’.

Quote

The precise number of these breakthrough cases is unknown, but figures released by states suggest it is at least several thousand. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has had a team monitoring breakthrough infections since February, has partial data but has not made it public. Breakthrough infections rarely result in severe illness. Randomized clinical trials last year showed that both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines had close to 100 percent efficacy at preventing hospitalization, and the vaccine rollout to more than 100 million people has confirmed it. In real-life conditions, the vaccines reduced the risk of infection by 80 percent after one shot, and protection increased to 90 percent after the second dose.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/04/09/do-people-get-covid-after-being-vaccinated/

[Shanedorf]

10 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

I'm honestly not even sure what my opinion is. I don't think I have enough data or background (on the specifics of the blood clots) to really feel good about any decision either way.

Same here.

As you well know - we have to weigh risk vs reward. Ironically enough, the risk of blood clots from having the COVID disease are higher than the risks from J&J vaccine ( but those numbers are still coming in)

FDA and MD's make these decisions all the time and we have to accept some risk- its part of the deal.
There is no risk -free medicine.

For those outside the industry think about this:  We approve meds for cancer patients that make their hair fall out, inability to eat solid food, diarrhea, toxins in kidneys, liver, lung, heart problems. Impotence etc. All kinds of nasty effects and we accept that risk because... its better than dying. ( the highest Reward)

For a new nasal decongestant, the FDA and MDs will accept zero risk - because there are a ton of meds already available and because the disease isn't fatal. There is no need to take on any risk for that med

So that's the spectrum of risk/reward that each new medicine/vaccine is weighed against. Since COVID has proven to be fatal for 600K Americans, the FDA are willing to take on some risk with blood clots in a small number of patients. On the flip side, many people have mild COVID and so that shifts the Risk/Reward equation back the other way for those patients

There is no perfect answer here and no matter what the decision is - they'll monitor it closely and be ready to change that decision as needed. Right now Pfizer and Moderna are kicking ***, so there are other options that seem to have less risk and that buys the FDA time to sort it all out. To see if there is a way to segregate patients with clot-risk and come up with a plan to use the J& J in other patients. If we didn't have Pfizer/Moderna- the risk/reward decision looks different

But know this: there are many meds out there that we all take right now - with a greater risk profile than the J&J vaccine, but they aren't politicized with scary posts on Facebook. On top of that, people are inherently bad with numbers and stats- which is why we have thriving lotteries in every state.

[Xenos]

15 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

Same here.

As you well know - we have to weigh risk vs reward. Ironically enough, the risk of blood clots from having the COVID disease are higher than the risks from J&J vaccine ( but those numbers are still coming in)

FDA and MD's make these decisions all the time and we have to accept some risk- its part of the deal.
There is no risk -free medicine.

For those outside the industry think about this:  We approve meds for cancer patients that make their hair fall out, inability to eat solid food, diarrhea, toxins in kidneys, liver, lung, heart problems. Impotence etc. All kinds of nasty effects and we accept that risk because... its better than dying. ( the highest Reward)

For a new nasal decongestant, the FDA and MDs will accept zero risk - because there are a ton of meds already available and because the disease isn't fatal. There is no need to take on any risk for that med

So that's the spectrum of risk/reward that each new medicine/vaccine is weighed against. Since COVID has proven to be fatal for 600K Americans, the FDA are willing to take on some risk with blood clots in a small number of patients. On the flip side, many people have mild COVID and so that shifts the Risk/Reward equation back the other way for those patients

There is no perfect answer here and no matter what the decision is - they'll monitor it closely and be ready to change that decision as needed. Right now Pfizer and Moderna are kicking ***, so there are other options that seem to have less risk and that buys the FDA time to sort it all out. To see if there is a way to segregate patients with clot-risk and come up with a plan to use the J& J in other patients. If we didn't have Pfizer/Moderna- the risk/reward decision looks different

But know this: there are many meds out there that we all take right now - with a greater risk profile than the J&J vaccine, but they aren't politicized with scary posts on Facebook. On top of that, people are inherently bad with numbers and stats- which is why we have thriving lotteries in every state.

This is great. Can I share/steal this post lol?

[Shanedorf]

29 minutes ago, Xenos said:

This is great. Can I share/steal this post lol?

of course, share as needed

[BayRaider]

Edit: Found my answer

Edited April 16, 2021 by BayRaider

[WizeGuy]

2 hours ago, Shanedorf said:

200,500,000 shots in arms....freaking amazing effort. One interesting note as you look at the daily graph, it didn't bottom out as it had in the past, smaller trough. That suggests both supply and distribution are both getting better

Full Speed Ahead

https://covidvax.live/location/usa

 

We're approaching 50% total population receiving one dose in my county. We'll be hitting that threshold just before May. We had a little surge (not sure I'd even call it that) the past month (ICU admissions and deaths went up slightly/ hospitalizations have gone up at a higher rate), but it look to be plateauing.

I have to believe this is COVIDs (the pandemics) last jab for a long while with such a high percentage of the community vaccinated + seasonality coming in. I truly believe we're leaving this behind us in June. Obviously variants and the such are of concern, but if nothing crazy emerges- I think we're done with restrictions sometime this summer. Vaccine passports may linger for a while longer, but that's about it. NY doesn't even have a mask mandate outside of bars/restaurants/mass gathering events (NHL games, etc...) 

[BobbyPhil1781]

Just saw Pfizer is saying a 3rd booster might be needed 12 months from now. Obviously we won't know until the time comes but just throwing it out there. Not sure when the first people who enrolled in the trial got their 2nd jab but that would be a good indicator and I'm sure that's what they're basing this projection off of.

[WizeGuy]

1 hour ago, Shanedorf said:

Same here.

As you well know - we have to weigh risk vs reward. Ironically enough, the risk of blood clots from having the COVID disease are higher than the risks from J&J vaccine ( but those numbers are still coming in)

FDA and MD's make these decisions all the time and we have to accept some risk- its part of the deal.
There is no risk -free medicine.

For those outside the industry think about this:  We approve meds for cancer patients that make their hair fall out, inability to eat solid food, diarrhea, toxins in kidneys, liver, lung, heart problems. Impotence etc. All kinds of nasty effects and we accept that risk because... its better than dying. ( the highest Reward)

For a new nasal decongestant, the FDA and MDs will accept zero risk - because there are a ton of meds already available and because the disease isn't fatal. There is no need to take on any risk for that med

So that's the spectrum of risk/reward that each new medicine/vaccine is weighed against. Since COVID has proven to be fatal for 600K Americans, the FDA are willing to take on some risk with blood clots in a small number of patients. On the flip side, many people have mild COVID and so that shifts the Risk/Reward equation back the other way for those patients

There is no perfect answer here and no matter what the decision is - they'll monitor it closely and be ready to change that decision as needed. Right now Pfizer and Moderna are kicking ***, so there are other options that seem to have less risk and that buys the FDA time to sort it all out. To see if there is a way to segregate patients with clot-risk and come up with a plan to use the J& J in other patients. If we didn't have Pfizer/Moderna- the risk/reward decision looks different

But know this: there are many meds out there that we all take right now - with a greater risk profile than the J&J vaccine, but they aren't politicized with scary posts on Facebook. On top of that, people are inherently bad with numbers and stats- which is why we have thriving lotteries in every state.

This is an excellent post, and the bolded was brought up by the FDA (I believe). If we didn't have an excellent supply of game changing vaccines- I think the FDA would've made a different decision- perhaps halting it for younger women only. 

As I've said all along, we are so lucky to have these mRNA vaccines. We'd be in craps creek if we didn't have them.

[Deadpulse]

I overheard a nurse in my office spreading vaccine hesitancy today and I am a bit disgusted by it. She was stating that she "know people" who got their vaccine and still got covid. This is a freaking nurse, she should understand that no vaccine is 100% and that the BIG factor here is reducing symptoms and severity and therefore cutting longterm effects and hospitalizations. SHE SHOULD KNOW THIS STUFF. 

Infuriating.