COVID-19 Outbreak Information Updates (Reboot) [over 150.000,000 US cases (est.), 6,422,520 US hospitilizations, 1,148,691 US deaths.] (8 Viewers)

[faceman]

No need. At this point we can just glance at each other, give a nod and nothing else is needed.

It still makes me very angry. The science and numbers are there for anyone who can google. I have to bite my teeth and
not post on their pages, but quiet frankly their minions scare me. I'm an easy man to find. I don't want to leave this world
via a nutcase loaded with a an AK who can track me down.

 

[sammymvpknight]

Yeah, I was having horrific headaches last weekend and couldn't put my finger on it. But, wouldn't surprise me if it was Omicron now that I'm seeing that as a major symptom. I didn't really have any other symptoms at the time so I wasn't thinking about it maybe being Covid.

It was probably COVID. I’ve had migraines before but none that have been this sustained. I’m at about 48 hours

 

[SaintInBucLand]

It was probably COVID. I’ve had migraines before but none that have been this sustained. I’m at about 48 hours

When I had delta back in late July the headaches were the worst part for me honestly. I never had much of a cough with delta either though.

 

[Optimus Prime]

A couple of things are known about ivermectin, the anti-parasitic treatment being promoted by a clutch of conspiracy-mongering mountebanks as a COVID-19 treatment.

First, it doesn't work on COVID. Second, despite that fact, prescriptions for the drug have rocketed higher — from 3,600 a week pre-pandemic to 88,000 in one sample week in mid-August, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Third, the publicizing of ivermectin by anti-vaccine and anti-government activists duped naïve people to take a veterinary preparation of the drug, producing a spike in calls to poison control centers.

This is not the type of high-dollar item that an insurer is normally going to pay attention to. But the cost of inexpensive drugs, when dispensed frequently, can cumulatively add up.

Kao-Ping Chua, University of Michigan


Now, thanks to researchers at the University of Michigan and Boston University, we also know the financial toll of the ivermectin craze. In a research letter published Thursday by the Journal of the American Medical Assn., they estimated that Medicare and private insurers wasted an estimated $130 million last year on ivermectin prescriptions for COVID..........

The researchers' estimate may even be low for two main reasons. One is that their estimate is based on spending by private insurers and Medicare, but not Medicaid, which also covers the drug.

Second, they arrived at their figure by extrapolating from that one week highlighted by the CDC, when the average of new cases in the U.S. was running at about 150,000 a day. On Jan. 12, the daily average of new cases was more than 782,000. If ivermectin claims are tracking new cases, Chua says, then they may be getting filled at more than five times as often as last August.

Finally, consider the indirect cost. "By decreasing financial barriers to ivermectin, insurers are essentially facilitating access to a drug that some people use as a substitute for COVID vaccination," Chua observes. "In that sense, they could be raising their own costs for COVID complications."...........

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[bclemms]

A couple of things are known about ivermectin, the anti-parasitic treatment being promoted by a clutch of conspiracy-mongering mountebanks as a COVID-19 treatment.

First, it doesn't work on COVID. Second, despite that fact, prescriptions for the drug have rocketed higher — from 3,600 a week pre-pandemic to 88,000 in one sample week in mid-August, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Third, the publicizing of ivermectin by anti-vaccine and anti-government activists duped naïve people to take a veterinary preparation of the drug, producing a spike in calls to poison control centers.


Kao-Ping Chua, University of Michigan


Now, thanks to researchers at the University of Michigan and Boston University, we also know the financial toll of the ivermectin craze. In a research letter published Thursday by the Journal of the American Medical Assn., they estimated that Medicare and private insurers wasted an estimated $130 million last year on ivermectin prescriptions for COVID..........

The researchers' estimate may even be low for two main reasons. One is that their estimate is based on spending by private insurers and Medicare, but not Medicaid, which also covers the drug.

Second, they arrived at their figure by extrapolating from that one week highlighted by the CDC, when the average of new cases in the U.S. was running at about 150,000 a day. On Jan. 12, the daily average of new cases was more than 782,000. If ivermectin claims are tracking new cases, Chua says, then they may be getting filled at more than five times as often as last August.

Finally, consider the indirect cost. "By decreasing financial barriers to ivermectin, insurers are essentially facilitating access to a drug that some people use as a substitute for COVID vaccination," Chua observes. "In that sense, they could be raising their own costs for COVID complications."...........

MSN

www.msn.com

That discounts many of the posts I've read on Facebook on Ivermectin's life saving properties.



The dream is to find out down the road that the drug causes infertility and saves America.

 

[DaveXA]

It was probably COVID. I’ve had migraines before but none that have been this sustained. I’m at about 48 hours

Yeah, it was about that for me. By the end of the second day, I went to bed earlier than usual and woke up the next morning feeling a lot better.

 

[gboudx]

Several school districts in DFW are starting to close. Not enough staff. Estimates here is the area is about 2 weeks from the peak.

 

[Eeyore]

My 19 year old son tested positive. He's been sick the last 2 days. Nothing serious, but he can't work for at least 5 days. So that's kind of a bummer. Wife stayed home today. I think we both have it, although it seems very mild at this point. Scratchy throat, stuffy nose. That's about it. I'm assuming we have it, but since I'm working at home and wife calling out sick, we're not gonna get tested. We just assume we have it and will stay put for a week. I'm surprised it took this long since one of my daughters had it a few weeks ago but no one else got sick.

Another of the 219.

 

[bclemms]

I don't think there was much difference in initial timing between the booster effort in the UK and the US. The UK started late September, and that was also when the US's booster dose recommendation was given according to the CDC data tracker (https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccination-trends). The US had been boosting before that, but at a relatively low rate, <100k per day.

The difference, I think, is in scale. In October, the UK was boosting around 200-300K per day, rising to around 350k per day (~0.5%) of the population through November. (https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations). The US was boosting around 400k per day in October, rising to 900k per day in November. But that's still only around half the rate per capita in November for the US compared to the UK.

So prior to Omicron showing up and really kicking in, both countries had started pushing boosters, but the UK had actually been boosting substantially more relative to population than the US already.

And then after Omicron had started making noise, in December, the UK had an additional push which took the levels substantially higher still, up to nearly 900k per day (~1.3% per day). The US only had a small increase over November levels (with a dip over Thanksgiving as well).

So both countries really started pushing boosters around the same time, but the UK has been boosting at a higher rate right from the start of official recommendations in late September, and had an additional really big push in December. The US has just been consistently boosting at a lower rate. At this point the UK has given out over 36 million booster or third doses, which represents 62.9% of over 12 year olds. In the US, it's over 78 million, but that's only 40.6% of over 18 year olds (UK dashboard is giving those percentages in terms of over 12 year olds, and I'm not trying to convert that right now, but you can see it's a substantial difference even without that).

So while it's true to say a higher proportion of boosters in the US were given in the earlier part of the period compared to the UK, that's not because of an earlier big push in the US; rates have risen as time has gone on, they just haven't risen that much, relative to the UK. With the UK consistently boosting at a higher rate, I'd suggest the more significant difference is likely to be the relative absence of boosters, rather than the relative timing.

I have seen some discussion about timing boosters with waves, but I think the problem is in predicting them. So far, Covid hasn't as seasonal as flu, for example.

Really had a good chance to look through the UK data at length.


First, it's a lot better data set than I had thought. I didn't realize they were doing sequencing to parse out Delta.

While there is no denying the booster decreases infection risk vs 2 shots, that increase is quite small, 10-15% increase. That increase holds true as immunity wanes on a sliding scale through week 10 and does so with such a similar pattern that it's pretty safe to assume that continues on beyond week 10. After 5 months preventing contagion is approaching zero again.

It's really consistent across different vaccines, with or without past infection, etc. There are differences. People with past infection tend to do about as well as people with 2 shots. The people fully vaccinated with booster with a past infection do the best but it's not a huge difference.

For me, I basically had 0 protection agianst infection from Omicron despite being fully vaccinated and boosted since I am more than 5 months removed from booster. I kind of already knew this but shame on the Government for leaving that window open for the most susceptible groups of people. They should have been promoting a 4th or even 5th shot for some people by now if the goal is to prevent infection. My wife should have had a coin flip chance of not getting infected 6 weeks past her booster shot. My kids should have had a coin flip chance as well. Unfortunately all three lost their coin flip. Same goes for the rest of my family and most friends regardless of vaccine status, prior infection, etc. So far, in my large circle of friends and family if you get exposed at any decent level your are getting sick.

Also worth considering there is nothing in the way of causation for that data. Does the person who is getting double vaxxed and boosted take more precautions than the person that is unvaxxed? I think we all can agree that is probably the case with a relatively high degree of certainty but we don't know how much that accounts for the differences in the data. So in the real world, the vaccine is likely even less effective at preventing infection but it is impossible to say by how much. It's almost certainly what explains the difference in my group as well. We've quit trying to not get infected and it shows. I say quit, I still don't go into crowded places, still wear masks on airplanes and at airports. Rarely go out to eat. Haven't been to a sporting event, concert, convention, etc. I did have dinner with my family. I have eaten out 3 times in the last 3 months but only in relatively empty places. So even then, I can't say I haven't completely given in. I will now though.

So from the time of booster to having a less than 50% chance of preventing infection, the window is only about 10-11 weeks and that is under the assumption that people getting vaccinated and boosted are taking similar precautions to those that aren't getting vaccinated.

I really think this is strong evidence that suggests if we are going to do booster shots we need to greatly increase capacity to roll shots out and focus on booster drives at the appropriate time. While the waves aren't exact with seasonal change they have been consistently been within a few weeks. Then again, that window of preventing contagion is so small that it may just delay the inevitable and spread the wave out over a longer period. If our goal is to reduce infection then we need to come up with a booster schedule that includes boosters 5 times a year for everyone to reduce infections by 50% with the understanding that 50% probably also involves some mitigation efforts to reach that level of effectiveness.

Let me know when this starts to sound silly.

The good news, the data also shows that Omicron is indeed much less severe across the board on magnitudes of a sheet ton and vaccines tend to hold up for longer against severe disease than they do to prevent infection.

 

[SaintInBucLand]

If our goal is to reduce infection then we need to come up with a booster schedule that includes boosters 5 times a year for everyone to reduce infections by 50% with the understanding that 50% probably also involves some mitigation efforts to reach that level of effectiveness.

Definitely sounding silly, but definitely...

 

[bclemms]

Definitely sounding silly, but definitely...

If that is what it took to prevent severe disease against a strain doing as much damage as Delta then fine, it sucks but is what it would take.

If we are trying to prevent some spread, some of the time with highest immunity levels as well as levels of highest disease combined with the groups highest at risk to all be completely random then we should stay the course.


What's the goal right now? I'm struggling to understand. Policy is once again lagging real world data and when that happens it causes people to lose trust in the system. Then again, if we see yet another big policy shift to keep up with changing circumstance, you will be the first one lined up to try and politically weaponize it.

 

[SaintInBucLand]

If that is what it took to prevent severe disease against a strain doing as much damage as Delta then fine, it sucks but is what it would take.

If we are trying to prevent some spread, some of the time with highest immunity levels as well as levels of highest disease combined with the groups highest at risk to all be completely random then we should stay the course.


What's the goal right now? I'm struggling to understand. Policy is once again lagging real world data and when that happens it causes people to lose trust in the system. Then again, if we see yet another big policy shift to keep up with changing circumstance, you will be the first one lined up to try and politically weaponize it.

If Omicron was a dangerous as Delta then sure, especially for portions of the population that are compromised, but it's not so it's a moot point. But like you even said, policy is lagging behind real world data and will continue to do so, just like the fact we have Phizer talking about having a shot tailored to Omicron in March when it has burned itself out, but that won't stop the policy telling everyone you need to get your new booster for Omicron, once again making the company and stockholders very happy. The messaging from the CDC has been all over the place during this pandemic and it's honestly not getting better. From their messaging on masks to the vaccine itself, it's been one misstep after another. Shifting policy is fine if you communicate that mistakes were made.

 

[Optimus Prime]

More on covid and sick leave
===================
(KTVX) – As the omicron variant rips through our communities, it seems like we all have a friend, family member, or coworker who is sick with or has recently recovered from the coronavirus.

But despite the recent surge, some companies have reduced COVID sick time to align with the amended CDC policy, which states that people with COVID need only to quarantine for a minimum of five days, as opposed to the previous ten. Walmart recently announced its policy would align with the CDC guidance, and cut its COVID paid sick leave in half.

After the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFRCA) – which provided resources to those affected by COVID-19, including mandatory two-week paid sick leave – expired at the end of 2021, some workers aren't afforded any extra time off for COVID-related concerns.

"It's really a huge problem," said Eileen Appelbaum, co-director of the progressive think tank, the Center for Economic Policy and Research, and an expert in labor economics and paid sick leave. "It's a problem for the frontline workers, the health care workers, the people who clean offices. They don't have any time off like this."

Low-wage workers are especially vulnerable. Only 33% of workers whose wages are at the bottom 10% get paid sick leave, compared with 95% in the top 10%, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

If essential workers get sick with omicron, it not only affects their health, but it can cause a ripple effect in the economy.

"I think what a lot of people are really worried about is that we're going to see really large-scale staffing shortages in key industries," said Dean Baker, a visiting economics professor at the University of Utah. "In the hospitals, we know a lot of health care personnel have been getting sick. We're already short-staffed at many hospitals, so if, on top of that, you have 5% or 10% of your workforce out because they have COVID, that's a really big deal."

And with the new absence of COVID-allotted paid sick leave, experts say workers may be prompted to come into work with mild symptoms, or while they are awaiting test results. According to reporting by the Los Angeles Times, the California Department of Public Health has amended its policies to allow asymptomatic health care workers who have tested positive for the virus to return to work immediately...............

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[sammymvpknight]

Really had a good chance to look through the UK data at length.


First, it's a lot better data set than I had thought. I didn't realize they were doing sequencing to parse out Delta.

While there is no denying the booster decreases infection risk vs 2 shots, that increase is quite small, 10-15% increase. That increase holds true as immunity wanes on a sliding scale through week 10 and does so with such a similar pattern that it's pretty safe to assume that continues on beyond week 10. After 5 months preventing contagion is approaching zero again.

It's really consistent across different vaccines, with or without past infection, etc. There are differences. People with past infection tend to do about as well as people with 2 shots. The people fully vaccinated with booster with a past infection do the best but it's not a huge difference.

For me, I basically had 0 protection agianst infection from Omicron despite being fully vaccinated and boosted since I am more than 5 months removed from booster. I kind of already knew this but shame on the Government for leaving that window open for the most susceptible groups of people. They should have been promoting a 4th or even 5th shot for some people by now if the goal is to prevent infection. My wife should have had a coin flip chance of not getting infected 6 weeks past her booster shot. My kids should have had a coin flip chance as well. Unfortunately all three lost their coin flip. Same goes for the rest of my family and most friends regardless of vaccine status, prior infection, etc. So far, in my large circle of friends and family if you get exposed at any decent level your are getting sick.

Also worth considering there is nothing in the way of causation for that data. Does the person who is getting double vaxxed and boosted take more precautions than the person that is unvaxxed? I think we all can agree that is probably the case with a relatively high degree of certainty but we don't know how much that accounts for the differences in the data. So in the real world, the vaccine is likely even less effective at preventing infection but it is impossible to say by how much. It's almost certainly what explains the difference in my group as well. We've quit trying to not get infected and it shows. I say quit, I still don't go into crowded places, still wear masks on airplanes and at airports. Rarely go out to eat. Haven't been to a sporting event, concert, convention, etc. I did have dinner with my family. I have eaten out 3 times in the last 3 months but only in relatively empty places. So even then, I can't say I haven't completely given in. I will now though.

So from the time of booster to having a less than 50% chance of preventing infection, the window is only about 10-11 weeks and that is under the assumption that people getting vaccinated and boosted are taking similar precautions to those that aren't getting vaccinated.

I really think this is strong evidence that suggests if we are going to do booster shots we need to greatly increase capacity to roll shots out and focus on booster drives at the appropriate time. While the waves aren't exact with seasonal change they have been consistently been within a few weeks. Then again, that window of preventing contagion is so small that it may just delay the inevitable and spread the wave out over a longer period. If our goal is to reduce infection then we need to come up with a booster schedule that includes boosters 5 times a year for everyone to reduce infections by 50% with the understanding that 50% probably also involves some mitigation efforts to reach that level of effectiveness.

Let me know when this starts to sound silly.

The good news, the data also shows that Omicron is indeed much less severe across the board on magnitudes of a sheet ton and vaccines tend to hold up for longer against severe disease than they do to prevent infection.

Or we just don’t do boosters except for those most suspectible. I’m treating Omicron as my booster, and it’ll probably provide better protection from a better variety of coronavirus than giving your body something it’s seen twice already.

And to answer your question: “Does the person who is getting double vaxxed and boosted take more precautions than the person that is unvaxxed?” Absolutely.

 

[superchuck500]

Or we just don’t do boosters except for those most suspectible. I’m treating Omicron as my booster, and it’ll probably provide better protection from a better variety of coronavirus than giving your body something it’s seen twice already.

And to answer your question: “Does the person who is getting double vaxxed and boosted take more precautions than the person that is unvaxxed?” Absolutely.

My friend is 50 and in good health. He and his wife got vaxxed in March. In late summer he decided to get the shingles vaccine, and when the boosters came around, he was still in the window on his shingles vax and couldn’t get boosted. His wife did.

Over Christmas he and his wife got covid, presumably omicron. She had a couple of days of cold symptoms, he got his arse kicked - he’s still dealing with it and at its worst, his oxygen was below 90% and he got supplemental O2.

I think we’re fortunate that omicron is milder on the whole but it’s still a potentially serious infection - and it’s not just the classically susceptible that face risk from it. I got my booster in November and I’m certain it helped me fight of my infection as more of an inconvenience rather than a medical concern. But I definitely felt it and can easily imagine how it could have been more serious and how much that would have sucked.

I don’t know if endless boosters is necessary but I’m not sure we’re at the point yet where the endemic virus is not a significant threat to people’s health without recent antibodies in one form or another.