Coronavirus: What questions do you have?

SilicdyneTRF
madcow rocketry
the model rocket show
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
boatgeek said:
I turned down going to a rocket launch in part because of hospital census numbers in the area. We had a lot going on, but the final nail was that there weren't hospital beds available within 50 miles of the launch site. I know that serious injuries in rocketry are rare, but I've seen one happen (person didn't look up when LCO called a heads up on a ballistic rocket) and if it happens to me, I want to be able to get seen.
Click to expand...
That is appropriate and less risky.
 
Chuck, are there any good numbers from across the US showing how many healthcare workers are STILL refusing to get vaccinated? Even if it means they get fired?

I found some older citations but nothing good within the last month or so, and a lot has happened lately...
 
Marc_G said:
Chuck, are there any good numbers from across the US showing how many healthcare workers are STILL refusing to get vaccinated? Even if it means they get fired?

I found some older citations but nothing good within the last month or so, and a lot has happened lately...
Click to expand...

I don’t have great numbers but I know it is low. One of our local sister hospitals was the first to mandate locally. They are at 98% of their 8K employees. The rest are required to be tested on their dime twice a week. A few have quit but not many.

I will be able to tell you more when the data is declassified on federal facilities.
 
I saw a policy that a company had which stated:

"After someone tests positive for COVID, they may test positive for up to 2 months after symptoms subside. As a result, medical providers don't do COVID testing following a positive result."

This is the first time I've heard that and am somewhat confused at procedures that many companies required early on that a negative test was used to determine eligibility to return to work. It seems counter intuitive that many companies once did/still do require a negative test and apparently at least one company has alternative acceptance criteria.

As a person who at times travels to other companies for business activities, I've seen many different forms of COVID response at a company level, but this is the first time I've heard that once positive, results might say positive for up to 2 months.

If that is the case, is the person still a shedding risk for 2 months or is a 10 day waiting period after the first symptoms appeared a logical delineation to allow return to work?

Thanks for any insight.

Sandy.
 
Sandy H. said:
I saw a policy that a company had which stated:

"After someone tests positive for COVID, they may test positive for up to 2 months after symptoms subside. As a result, medical providers don't do COVID testing following a positive result."

This is the first time I've heard that and am somewhat confused at procedures that many companies required early on that a negative test was used to determine eligibility to return to work. It seems counterintuitive that many companies once did/still do require a negative test and apparently at least one company has alternative acceptance criteria.

As a person who at times travels to other companies for business activities, I've seen many different forms of COVID response at a company level, but this is the first time I've heard that once positive, results might say positive for up to 2 months.

If that is the case, is the person still a shedding risk for 2 months or is a 10 day waiting period after the first symptoms appeared a logical delineation to allow return to work?

Thanks for any insight.

Sandy.
Click to expand...

You can test positive 90 days after a positive. That does not mean that you are spreading the virus. Also, a negative test will not rule out COVID. A positive PCR test for covid-19 test has more weight than a negative test because of the test’s high specificity but moderate sensitivity. If the incidence is high in a local area, you can have up to 30% false-negative rate. I also suspect that some of the nasal swabbing is not adequate.
 
Sandy H. said:
Understood. Thank you for clarification.

Sandy.
Click to expand...

It is a very misunderstood question and answer. We had a whole section, ICU, in a hospital in a location that will not be named and a school that was shut down because of supervisors bending this CDC recommendation. If you do not understand the limits of the test, you can easily misinterpret the results. This is essentially why most Infectious Disease experts do no like using the term “negative” with this test.
 
Bat-mite said:
You might be able to request data from VAERS.

Chuck will give you the "official" response. But the CDC says this.

It is a known side-effect for a small number of people, mostly young and male. Since one cannot know whether or not he will experience any side effect to any medication, there is always an associated risk to taking any medication. The question that one needs to evaluate is: which risk is bigger? The potential side effects or the illness itself?

In the case of COVID, the risk is mathematically far higher for going unvaccinated than for the potential side effects of getting vaccinated. Sadly, however, for the person who draws the red marble out of the bag with 9999 white marbles, the math doesn't help. Very sorry for your relative. :(
Click to expand...

Kind of a long time before I followed up but oh well...

I was able to find the number of cases of myocarditis, but I have not been able to find any deaths aside from the aforementioned one in New Zealand. I was wondering if anyone else knows different. Given the wife's history of nutbaggery, I don't necessarily trust that he really died from the vaccine since this is coming from her.
 
Antares JS said:
Kind of a long time before I followed up but oh well...

I was able to find the number of cases of myocarditis, but I have not been able to find any deaths aside from the aforementioned one in New Zealand. I was wondering if anyone else knows different. Given the wife's history of nutbaggery, I don't necessarily trust that he really died from the vaccine since this is coming from her.
Click to expand...

I have looked at deaths from all of the available vaccines including AZ and your risk is very low and almost infestismally low. This vaccine is very safe.
 
May be too early to tell, but any numbers on the quality and duration of acquired immunity from Delta infection?

certainly In no way de-emphasizing that everyone in age groups the vaccines have been tested for SHOULD (preferably voluntarily) GET vaccinated, whether they have had Covid or not,

but I was wondering whether the Delta variant, since it is so much more infectious PRESUMABLY produces a lot more virus particles, so was thinking it would likely expose a much higher volume of antigens to the host, possibly even in vaccinated individuals. So (like the possibility Moderna is slightly better perhaps due to a larger dose of mRNA than Pfizer), Delta survivors may have a more robust and possibly longer duration immunity than original Covid 19 survivors.
 
Chuck, in the same vein as Babar's question, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this:

Essentially, it's a question of dueling experts, studies and reports, about natural immunity.

First, there are many reports such as this one, saying many people (here, 36%) of covid infection survivors demonstrate little or no lasting measurable immunity:

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/9/21-1042_article
On the other hand, we have articles from presumably bona fide researchers such as this "perspective piece" in WaPo by a Hopkins professor, suggesting natural immunity should be more of a policy driver than it is, and that natural immunity appears to be as good or better than vax-derived immunity as relates to mandates.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/09/15/natural-immunity-vaccine-mandate/
I suspect that the issue is in what types of infections (systemic versus minor upper respiratory tract, symptomatic versus asymptomatic, etc) are being used as a basis for comparison.

Edit: And crucially, the need to verify serologic response versus just a positive PCR test is ke.

However, I would love your input on these issues
 
Last edited:
Marc_G said:
Chuck, in the same vein as Babar's question, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this:

Essentially, it's a question of dueling experts, studies and reports, about natural immunity.

First, there are many reports such as this one, saying many people (here, 36%) of covid infection survivors demonstrate little or no lasting measurable immunity:

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/9/21-1042_article
On the other hand, we have articles from presumably bona fide researchers such as this "perspective piece" in WaPo by a Hopkins professor, suggesting natural immunity should be more of a policy driver than it is, and that natural immunity appears to be as good or better than vax-derived immunity as relates to mandates.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/09/15/natural-immunity-vaccine-mandate/
I suspect that the issue is in what types of infections (systemic versus minor upper respiratory tract, symptomatic versus asymptomatic, etc) are being used as a basis for comparison.

Edit: And crucially, the need to verify serologic response versus just a positive PCR test is ke.

However, I would love your input on these issues
Click to expand...

I would like to believe that natural immunity is superior but it is not worth the risk of catching covid or avoiding the immunization. A local hospital had 4 pregnant women on vents that decided to avoid the vaccine because of prior infections last year. They will likely have premature babied that will struggle to live because of crappy advice like this article. I think it needs studied, but putting it out there based on a poorly designed study from Israel that did not look at Moderna at all.

If natural immunity was so much better, we would have herd immunity already. That is probably frustration speaking.

I am not sure about the evidence that 36% survivors have poor or short lasting immunity. I suspect that is true. We have a very obese society that is not very fit so it absolutely could be true. Also, it could be that we are not using good measures of immunity. WQe focus so much on antibody levels but that may be a poor test on long lasting immunity because it ignores T ano B cell immunity.

We know the vaccine works and is safe. I am so tired fo politicians and so called news people.
 
cwbullet said:
I am swearing off posting without my readers, I wish i could get that vision back.
Click to expand...

At first, I thought you meant 'readers' as forum members who are paying attention, but that made absolutely no sense. This is a very interactive thread.

Then, I realized you likely meant 'readers' as glasses and now I understand for sure. I opted for multiple pairs of glasses vs. bi-focals/progressives and hate that decision quite often thus far. I imagine I will hate bi-focals/progressives as well, but the biggest failure is not keeping 20/20 vision for my entire life. . . I know a few reasons it went bad, but probably some is just getting older, so I guess that's a win.

You've got plenty of readers here that are sharing your good information with others, but feel free to put on the glasses if it helps spread the word.

Sandy.
 
How funny. It really is a test image to how imprecise our language can be. One sentence can have multiple meanings based on context and interpretation.

Sandy H. said:
At first, I thought you meant 'readers' as forum members who are paying attention, but that made absolutely no sense. This is a very interactive thread.

Then, I realized you likely meant 'readers' as glasses and now I understand for sure. I opted for multiple pairs of glasses vs. bi-focals/progressives and hate that decision quite often thus far. I imagine I will hate bi-focals/progressives as well, but the biggest failure is not keeping 20/20 vision for my entire life. . . I know a few reasons it went bad, but probably some is just getting older, so I guess that's a win.

You've got plenty of readers here that are sharing your good information with others, but feel free to put on the glasses if it helps spread the word.

Sandy.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cwbullet said:
How funny. It really is a test image to how imprecise our language can be. One sentence can have multiple meanings based on context and interpretation.
Click to expand...
“I never said he stole money.”
This six word sentence has six different meanings depending on which word you stress.
So you can see how emails and forum posts can be misconstrued.
 
I'm hearing a lot of anecdotal chatter that the false-negative rate of the quick tests is substantially higher for breakthrough cases. (Compared to the unvaccinated).
Are there peer-reviewed studies that actually find that? Studies in progress? Just anecdotal?
Click to expand...

The data simply does not support this. Depending on the source, 70-80 percent of all positive tests are in the unvaccinated group. It is rising. Either way, the rate of infection is immaterial in. the vaccinated group. It is lower, but that is not the purpose of the vaccine. The number of hospitalization and death is less than 1% in vaccinated. The folks are passing anecdotal data of personal accounts as fact. On. test site tests 100-800 people per day and 98% of their infections are the Delta Variant (projected based on surveillance testing). Of those, 30-40% of those tested are vaccinated today. Of the total positives, the vaccinated is about 14%. 3% are partially vaccinated. The unvaccinated group is about 83% of all positives. The reason that the data is skewed is that the vaccinated group is likely less often coming to get tested and less often symptomatic.

The type of test ordered and if the test is ordered on an asymptomatic exposure also affects the data. The quick tests are inaccurate in those exposed without symptoms. Too many administrative or exposure tests also skew the data.
 
Update:

I am not sure is this going on nationwide, but I am recommending a change. Contact tracing teams are tracking eight clusters of infection that came up based on the CDC guidelines that people can return to work at 5 days if they test negative and are immunized. I am suggesting they nix that. There have been reported a number of clusters that wiped our sections of hospitals and businesses because the source of the exposure was an intimate partner. I think that is one that you have the approach those differently and assume any negative testing is a false negative.
 
cwbullet said:
think that is one that you have the approach those differently and assume any negative testing is a false negative.
Click to expand...
if you operate under the assumption that any negative test is a false negative, there is no point in doing the test in the first place.
 
BABAR said:
if you operate under the assumption that any negative test is a false negative, there is no point in doing the test in the first place.
Click to expand...

I do not think that is true. A positive is still positive.
 
What do you think of Rachel Walensky, head of CDC, entirely discounting the CDC vaccine advisory committee recommendation to provide boosters for >65 and immunocompromised, by announcing that she, unilaterally and without providing data-based justification, expanded booster access to "frontline" workers including grocery store employees?

Because, as she said, "It was my call to make.". She saw the exact same data that had been deliberated on, and voted down by the FDA advisory committee last week, and again in part by the CDC advisory committee.

It complicates their message of "listening to the science" when the policy deciders don't even heed their own expert panels' advice.
 
I am disappointed by how this decision was made.

However, these boosters are fully voluntary and not a required thing, and are not a requirement for any job or activity. In absence of any data pointing to serious harms likely to happen, it including from Israel where 3M people have gotten the booster, making a choice available to those that desire it doesn't seem horrible. Just, I wish this had been framed differently.
 
Marc_G said:
I am disappointed by how this decision was made.

However, these boosters are fully voluntary and not a required thing, and are not a requirement for any job or activity. In absence of any data pointing to serious harms likely to happen, it including from Israel where 3M people have gotten the booster, making a choice available to those that desire it doesn't seem horrible. Just, I wish this had been framed differently.
Click to expand...
That's what they said about the original vaccine series. By all of our policy makers and government mouthpieces. Fully voluntary. As recently as June/July. That outlook reversed, though. Do you think boosters are really going to remain "voluntary"? They will be mandated very soon, if the original mandates pass muster in court. To not mandate boosters would by hypocrisy by the hypocrites, because their protective effects, just like the initial vaccine series, will also fade over time. But that'll be just in time for the Delta-specific vaccine roll-outs. Perhaps just as Delta fizzles out to endemic on its own.

And the steadily increasing breakthrough infection rates (Israel and highly vaccinated Vermont) in fully vaccinated support the possibility that we're creating a huge population of asymptomatic superspreaders with our leaky vaccines. It's interesting to see Israeli case rates skyrocket in parallel with the booster administration, with no apparent quenching a week or 2 later when boosted antibodies should be maximal. Hospitalizations and deaths in vaccinated remain well below in the unvaccinated, but these events, too appear to be trending upwards. But this has been largely ignored so far.
 
Last edited:
Chuck,

I'm coming up for my Moderna booster availability soon. I haven't gotten my flu shot yet.

What should be the first priority? Flu or booster? My understanding is I will have to wait 2-4 weeks between them.

Thanks
 
mach7 said:
Chuck,

I'm coming up for my Moderna booster availability soon. I haven't gotten my flu shot yet.

What should be the first priority? Flu or booster? My understanding is I will have to wait 2-4 weeks between them.

Thanks
Click to expand...

Get both, the wait is no longer needed.
 
Marc_G said:
I am disappointed by how this decision was made.

However, these boosters are fully voluntary and not a required thing, and are not a requirement for any job or activity. In absence of any data pointing to serious harms likely to happen, it including from Israel where 3M people have gotten the booster, making a choice available to those that desire it doesn't seem horrible. Just, I wish this had been framed differently.
Click to expand...

I am not sure there is any true documented harm. Do you have a source for this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

stealth6
The Economy
2
Replies
47
Views
854
lr64
L
Angel_of_the_Skies
How did you start / maintain yourself in the hobby ?
Replies
10
Views
558
cwbullet
cwbullet
Marc_G
Windows geeks: Silly performance monitor logging question
Replies
5
Views
192
cwbullet
cwbullet
Banzai88
3D Printing P1P/P1S/Bambu questions
Replies
14
Views
440
Banzai88
Banzai88
J
Do you have any tips for a beginner?
Replies
7
Views
686
BABAR
B

Latest posts

Back
Top