Sure, but when/where do you draw the proverbial line? Do you get tested every day before you leave your home? If so, where is ‘the science’ that justifies it?
But, most don’t think covid is a big deal anymore. If you don’t think it’s a big deal, then you also aren’t as concerned about passing it along.
It quite probably makes a difference when one knows people who have died from it - and shouldn’t have (50s, healthy, friend of ours), not to mention those who had a rough time of it.
2 Likes
Well I have several health conditions that make me vulnerable which my friend is aware of, as well as being a caregiver for my mother. Would you test in order for me to come over and play Scrabble? I am not angry at my friend. I respect everyone’s choices on these things. But I am still kind of figuring out how this is going to work. Certainly the rate of infection locally is an important factor. Our small town has gone from 144 cases to 17, but not zero. And my friend wears only a surgical mask in up close health care (ophthalmology tech).
absolutely, I’d test if I was hosting something that included vulnerable folks. No different than hosting a dinner party and being aware of folks that have food allergies or other dietary restrictions/preferences.
But work is different, IMO.
1 Like
So it looks like, for those who have been following the US vaccine recommendations for >50 years old, the typically possible vaccine dose combinations are:
- First got P:
- PPP, PPm, PPJ (after first booster)
- PPPP, PPPm, PPmP, PPmm, PPJP, PPJm (after second booster)
- First got M:
- MMm, MMP, MMJ (after first booster)
- MMmm, MMmP, MMPm, MMPP, MMJm, MMJP (after second booster)
- First got J:
- Jm, JP, JJ (after first booster)
- Jmm, JmP, JPP, JPm, JJm, JJP (after second booster)
Note: P = Pfizer, M = Moderna, m = Moderna booster (= 1/2 M), J = J&J.
Note: first booster recommendation was choose any; second booster recommendation was choose P or m unless medically unable to.
Given the number of combinations, that could cloud research results, or limit their applicability to specific combinations (probably the most common ones of PPP and MMm if the research does that). But that leaves open the questions of:
- Are any particular combinations of 3+ doses significantly more or less protective, particularly at the longer term “maintenance” level of immune response? (So far, research has found that 2 doses < 3 doses, for various combinations of 2 and 3 doses. But some recent research suggests that 4+ is not better than 3 except for short term effects based on the recency of the last dose.)
- If any are significantly less protective, what additional dose or other measure should people who had them take?
In a perfect world, where tests were fast, reliable, and free, the answer to this would be a resounding yes. It would have been easily contained and eradicated early, if we had that capacity. Alas, here we are.
7 Likes
Yes, if rapid tests were inexpensively readily available and done immediately before entry into higher risk places (e.g. indoor gatherings), then we could have controlled the virus much better, even before vaccines. But instead we tried to rely on PCR tests that took 2-3 days to get results back, which made them poorly suited for precautionary testings.
2 Likes
The point of getting tested is to know if you are infected in order to protect other people who may be more vulnerable. You seem to think your inconvenience of being quarantined trumped over other people getting infected and possibly getting very sick.
2 Likes
FYI - at work there are a lot of parents with young children who can’t be vaccinated yet. I am going on a trip prior to the workshop. I am going to get tested.
Prior to Covid, we told people to stay if they had a fever or didn’t feel well. Why? Because we didn’t want sick people to infect other people. Therefore why shouldn’t we use test for Covid so sick people could stay home.
A consulting firm i am working with recently had a party. It was a superspreader event. Most of my consultants got sick. I was wondering why and no one would tell me initially. Some people didn’t get very sick and some are still pretty sick after a week. They also got their live in partners sick. These were young healthy people.
your employer can certainly require testing if they believe it of value to the company. (But then the employer has to be ready to handle those that choose not to get tested.)
It’s obvious that you see the risk of these meetings differently than others. Do you have the option to participate remotely?
FWIW, I have been having large in-person meetings about once a week for the last month. There are about 40 people at these meetings, all unmasked and no one has suggested that we test everyone each time before the meeting. Attendees range from those near retirement to young people with small children. The organization running these meetings requires proof of vaccination to attend and the option to participate remotely exists. The general sentiment I hear is that it is so good to be back in person again and without masks. I haven’t heard one person express concern that this could be dangerous.
1 Like
“eradicated”? uh, no. Impossible.
Tell that to smallpox.
1 Like
much different disease. (I did some – very limited – work with D.A. Henderson in a former life.)
There’s are scientific reasons that we have only ‘eradicated’ two viruses in all of human history.
The difficulty with controlling COVID-19 is that it is most contagious before symptoms begin. With many other diseases, contagiousness occurs mainly when the infected person is obviously sick, so others can know to keep away from the sick person, and the sick person probably does not want to go anywhere with other people anyway.
Add to that the problem that vaccination does not provide close to complete protection against infection and contagiousness (although it provides some), meaning that simply having a high enough vaccination rate is not enough to stop the spread.
2 Likes
Here’s a paper that suggests it could be more feasible than polio, but less than smallpox.
Plus, we’re getting lost in the weeds. It’s undebatable that if we tested everyone, everyday, and quarantined positives, that we would be far better off than we are now, eradication or not.
And…vaccines wane, so using “fully vaccinated” as a requirement for entrance may not work well over time.
It was from August 2021. Since then, the following factors have changed to become or became known to be less favorable for eradication of COVID-19:
- The absence of a non-human (or environmental) reservoir: 2 → 1 (since it came from a non-human infection)
- Relatively low transmissibility (basic reproduction number, R0) resulting in low population immunity threshold (PIT) and greater ease of achieving and sustaining sufficient vaccination coverage: 1 → 0 (since R0 was 2.5 then, probably over 10 now)
- Vaccination can be supported by PHSMs, for example, border controls, physical distancing, hygiene, improved ventilation, mask use, contact tracing (with quarantine and isolation) and community engagement: 3 → 1 (since there is now strong political opposition to do any mitigation methods among many populations, which will then continue to be reservoirs of the virus)
- Public and political concern about the health burden from the disease (including on health inequalities): 3 → 1 (see above)
- Public and political concern about the social and economic impacts of the disease (from illness and control measures required): 3 → 1 (political concern is now about impacts from mitigation methods, rather than the disease itself)
- Public acceptability of control measures needed to achieve eradication (vaccination and PHSMs): 2 → 1 (see above)
So total score for COVID-19 changes 28 → 19, or a mean of 1.1 (versus 26 and mean of 1.5 for polio), largely due to anti-mitigation politics but also due to more contagious variants.
From the NY Times Coronavirus Briefing:
"What is the point of getting a second booster when Israeli studies say it’s only good for four weeks ? And that it may not be protective against new variants?
The evidence for a second booster is complicated. How useful it is and for how long depends on your age and other risk factors. Israeli studies show the immunity boost from a fourth shot does wane fast in terms of preventing infection, particularly with the variant BA.2. But in older adults, a second booster shot may enhance protection against severe illness for longer. A study published this month in The New England Journal of Medicine found additional protection against severe illness in adults 60 and up seemed to last at least six weeks after a fourth dose. The benefit was strongest in adults 80 and older. All of the vaccines have proved remarkably resilient so far, even against the Omicron variant, which may sidestep immune defenses. If a new variant emerges and can evade immunity, all of us — regardless of how many doses we’ve had — may need a fresh batch of vaccines tailored to it."
3 Likes