Testing Rules are Changing...

[rongoodman]

Did my pushups there in Walmart. Not very pretty pushups, and it was probably comical even watching me get back up, but done.

I have to ask--what in the world are you talking about?

 

[DandyDon]

I have to ask--what in the world are you talking about?

I do a few pushups after any shot so my arm won't get sore. It doesn't take many, but sooner the better.

 

[Lorenzoid]

Despite your attempt to distract with unrelated information, the Polio Vaccine was new when it was first introduced (that should be obvious and maybe even redundant), and it ultimately saved millions of lives. New does not necessarily mean bad.

I agree wholeheartedly with all of that. What "attempt to distract"? From the original topic of this thread, which a number of us are guilty of veering from? I simply meant, without disagreeing with what you said, that we might also consider the sociopolitical climate of the era as a factor in the wide acceptance of the polio vaccine in the 1950s. Probably a minor factor, though. The more powerful motivator was almost certainly that in the 1950s many people knew someone who had been paralyzed for life by polio. I vividly recall someone in a wheelchair whom I was told was a polio victim when I was a child in the 1970s. I'm certain that planted the seed of my enthusiasm for vaccines and public health.

 

[rongoodman]

I do a few pushups after any shot so my arm won't get sore. It doesn't take many, but sooner the better.

Makes sense, I guess. The way you described it, it sounded like a Walmart requirement or something. I got my Moderna booster yesterday, a little punky this morning but nothing like the second shot.

 

[drrich2]

And shingles

I got my flu shot and first shingles shot a couple of weeks ago.

I know it's a tangent but this one is worth it. Some time back one of my e-mail link stories (medically related) had an article on the big increase in cases of shingles with ocular involvement, though no one seemed to know why. An older man we know through my wife's side of the family got ocular shingles, it was a protracted course, and from what she tells me he may have permanent damage.

Even 'plain old' shingles can be miserably painful, but when it messes with your eye, that's another level of dangerous. I was waiting when I turned 50 to pounce in Shingrix, and I got it.

I noticed Hep. A mentioned; traveling in the Caribbean and not knowing the backstory of some of the food, this seems like a good one to get. I got it many years ago at the local county health department. IIRC, it cost me nothing. Earlier this year I was there for health screening (to save on insurance), and asked if I needed a Hep. A booster, but no, apparently after the 2 shots 6-months apart, it's a done deal. I did get a tetanus (TDAP) shot that day.

 

[Centrals]

And the world will continue to "reel" as long as they are focused on "cases" rather than deaths. Not a single word in that article about hospitalizations or deaths.

HK has one of the toughest entry requirement for whatever reason the stupid gov could come up with.

https://www.chp.gov.hk/files/pdf/local_situation_covid19_en.pdf

Total case: 12,338
Death: 213
Fatality rate: 1.73%
Still hospitalized: 56

SARS 2003:
Total case: 1,755
Death: 299
Fatality rate: 17%

Are we over reacted now?

 

[waterone]

Other than your personal feelings and view, that means nothing.

While I do appreciate you pointing that out, I still like to talk a bit

Actual studies show that the opposite is usually the case.

CNN - Breaking News, Latest News and Videos

View the latest news and breaking news today for U.S., world, weather, entertainment, politics and health at CNN.com.

lite.cnn.com

The study, published by CDC Friday, describes 469 Massachusetts residents who were infected in a July outbreak in Barnstable County, which includes the summer vacation destination Provincetown. No deaths were reported among them. About 74% -- or 346 cases -- had been fully vaccinated.

'We're in a very unstable place right now': Viral load consistent regardless of vaccination status

The medical experts all know that the changing science regarding COVID is frustrating - especially after a new study run by local scientists this summer.

www.channel3000.com

The study, done by Public Health Madison Dane County, Exact Sciences and UW Health, found that viral load, the amount of virus a person carries, is virtually equal between vaccinated and unvaccinated people.

MSN

In a yearlong study of 621 people in the U.K. with mild Covid-19, scientists found that their peak viral load was similar regardless of vaccination status, according to a paper published Thursday in The Lancet Infectious Diseases medical journal. The analysis also found that 25% of vaccinated household contacts still contracted the disease from an index case, while 38% of those who hadn’t had shots became infected.

So it still seems to me that if they are going to test, that everybody should be held to the same standards.

 

[DandyDon]

So it still seems to me that if they are going to test, that everybody should be held to the same standards.

I guess that they are accepting the limits of what they think they can control and are going with the odds. The vaxed are not as likely to be infected and spreading, so testing is required but infections are less likely so testing is relaxed...

Experts say that vaccination makes it less likely that you'll catch Covid-19 in the first place -

While keeping in mind that...

- but for those who do, this data suggests they could have a similar tendency to spread it as unvaccinated folks.

Pandemic control would be much easier if everyone able got vaxed, but there's too much pushback from the unvaxed rebels. They're also more likely to be unmasked and avoid other controls.

 

[drrich2]

I simply meant, without disagreeing with what you said, that we might also consider the sociopolitical climate of the era as a factor in the wide acceptance of the polio vaccine in the 1950s.

It was very important. That was before the Vietnam involvement that damaged government credibility, but there's more to it than that.

1.) The degree of animosity and 'culture war' these days is much greater. Some tie that to the influence of Newt Gingrich. Humans are inherently tribalistic (e.g.: my family/extended family/neighborhood/school/state/county is more important to me than yours), and once people identify as members of a tribe (e.g.: political party, religion), there's a biasing influence to agree with positions seen as being held by that tribe.

2.) Mass media then was produced, edited and distributed by professionals in formal media outlets such as newspapers and broadcast t.v. news shows. Yes, there were fringe types, but if you weren't accepted in the mainstream, your social networking opportunities were limited.

3.) Social media (yeah, I basically mean Facebook) gave the common man a public voice. Blogging did the same thing, but not everyone is connected to your blog; Facebook is about as universal as such a platform gets. Now everyone can be a news publisher (if only by using Like and Share to pass on articles he/she favors).

4.) The culture war as contributed to media outlets with tribal affiliations. The mainstream media tends to be low grade pervasively liberal (it's produced in big cities, which skew left). Fox News and talk radio saw opportunity in giving voice to others, and were more vigorously conservative. Do you read Mother Jones or National Review? The Atlantic or Wall Street Journal?

5.) The Internet lets people Search or click on provided links and read up on things themselves. But they can use that to dial in to credible expert discussions and advice, or paranoid conspiracy theorists.

People now are often more informed, but not necessarily better informed.

I'm not knocking Facebook and wishing to go back to the 1950s. There is a price to pay for widespread free speech (e.g.: Holocaust deniers, anti-vax. people, white supremacists), and there is a price to pay for the lack of it.

 

[waterone]

I guess that they are accepting the limits of what they think they can control and are going with the odds.

I can speculate many reasons that I think might be true as well on why they are doing as they are. However for me, the carrot and the stick discussed earlier comes to mind.

Experts say that vaccination makes it less likely that you'll catch Covid-19 in the first place

Going off what they cover in the articles above, when they say less likely and while this is true with any vaccination, it doesn't seem as strong to me.