1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

It's only confusing if you don't know that quarantine requirements are different from social distancing and mask restrictions. We also are starting to get data that confirms the suspicions of vaccines providing sterilizing immunity.

help me out here.  If you get the vaccine it lowers the risk of you getting it or lessens the impact or severity of it if you do get it right?  But you still wear a mask and stay 6 feet apart and all that.  Because you don't want to get it, or spread it to others.  You still aren't immune though right?

If you come in contact with someone positive with COVID-19, you don't have to quarantine and can still go out with a mask and keep 6 feet apart you don't have to stay holed up in your house.  I'm not connecting the dots.  if the vaccine means no change if you come in contact with someone with it, then what is the need for mask and socially distancing?  I'm not arguing, I don't follow this stuff and don't know.  Thanks in advance.  

3 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Maybe not, but you got super butthurt when I suggested sending covid patients into nursing homes was an awful idea. I believe you said they were uniquely suited to handle coronavirus. That turned out to be epically wrong, of course. 

Anyway, Walsh brings up a good point here. There's a solid chance the ships were kept empty for political purposes. Yes, the implications are that Cuomo would rather kill the elderly than accept help from Trump for political purposes:

If we had real media, this would be a huge scandal. But, you know, Cuomo's a democrat, so instead of criticism, he wins an Emmy. lmfao

Yeah not even close.  I pointed out that there is a big difference between retirement homes and skilled nursing facilities. The latter being the place hospitals offload sick and even dying patients who require ongoing care but don't require hospitalization, especially when they're worried about capacity. I also called Cuomo an a-hole.

23 minutes ago, NOTW said:

help me out here.  If you get the vaccine it lowers the risk of you getting it or lessens the impact or severity of it if you do get it right?  But you still wear a mask and stay 6 feet apart and all that.  Because you don't want to get it, or spread it to others.  You still aren't immune though right?

If you come in contact with someone positive with COVID-19, you don't have to quarantine and can still go out with a mask and keep 6 feet apart you don't have to stay holed up in your house.  I'm not connecting the dots.  if the vaccine means no change if you come in contact with someone with it, then what is the need for mask and socially distancing?  I'm not arguing, I don't follow this stuff and don't know.  Thanks in advance.  

When the first interim results showed 95% efficacy, we suspected some levels of sterilizing immunity. Meaning the antibodies developed by your immune system can start attacking the virus quickly before it has a chance to replicate enough to cause severe disease, but likely also fast enough such that you won't be infectious to others for very long, if at all. The hope being that the antibodies sterilize the virus before it can infect you to the point where you can infect others. We're just now starting to get some data that this might be the case to some degree.

So with that in mind, if you've been vaccinated and you come into contact with someone, quarantining is likely not needed as you should have some degree of sterilizing immunity and coupled with mask wearing, greatly lessens the chance of infecting others even if the virus were to have replicated enough to cause you to be infectious (again, starting to look doubtful based on what we're gathering.)

At the end of the day, you're right that 95% is not 100%. But it's always been about risk mitigation, not absolute elimination. And that 5% risk is greatly mitigated by the fact that you're wearing a mask and keeping 6 ft away from others. Back during the summer, there was a report of hair stylists and barbers who had tested positive and then had to inform all their clients that they were exposed and needed to get tested as well. In the states/cities where mask mandates were in effect and thus both clients and stylists had to wear masks to get their hair cut, not a single client also tested positive. Obviously you can't cut someone's hair from 6 ft away, so the masks must've helped to greatly reduce the client's risk of exposure even though there were in direct contact with someone who later tested positive. 

TL/DR: It's the swiss cheese approach in effect. Mitigation via vaccines, plus masks, plus social distancing means no more quarantines for those in direct contact with someone who was positive. As we gather more data on sterilizing immunity, we can make more informed decisions from a public health policy perspective and return to some semblance of normalcy. Personally speaking, we've been fairly cautious throughout the past 9 months. Limited contact with friends and extended family. Haven't been to a restaurant since last summer. Wear masks when gathering with neighbors so the kids can go sledding etc. That being said, our confidence in the vaccines is high enough that we're discussing potentially planning a vacation sometime in the fall / winter under the assumption we'd both be able to get the shots. If the stars align and our kids can get them too, then we're going balls to the wall to make up for lost time. 

17 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Yeah not even close.  I pointed out that there is a big difference between retirement homes and skilled nursing facilities. The latter being the place hospitals offload sick and even dying patients who require ongoing care but don't require hospitalization, especially when they're worried about capacity. I also called Cuomo an a-hole.

lol, no. You pretty much threw a temper tantrum over the suggestion Cuomo made a horrible choice. I specifically remember you challenging me to come up with better options when the topic came up. Whelp, looks like Cuomo's decision was so awful, he had to lie to cover up the extent of the damage he did.

29 minutes ago, mikemack8 said:

Second most deaths in the US next to California, but with HALF the positive cases of CA.  You really showed Trump, Cuomo!  Great job! 

Chief, it was literally the first major metro to be hit with COVID back when no one knew how to properly treat it.  You can't be this brain dead, can you?

7 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

When the first interim results showed 95% efficacy, we suspected some levels of sterilizing immunity. Meaning the antibodies developed by your immune system can start attacking the virus quickly before it has a chance to replicate enough to cause severe disease, but likely also fast enough such that you won't be infectious for very long, if at all. The hope being that the antibodies sterilize the virus before it can infect you to the point where you can infect others. We're just now starting to get some data that this might be the case to some degree.

So with that in mind, if you've been vaccinated and you come into contact with someone, quarantining is likely not needed as you should have some degree of sterilizing immunity and coupled with mask wearing, greatly lessens the chance of infecting others even if the virus were to have replicated enough to cause you to be infectious (again, starting to look doubtful based on what we're gathering.)

At the end of the day, you're right that 95% is not 100%. But it's always been about risk mitigation, not absolute elimination. And that 5% risk is greatly mitigated by the fact that you're wearing a mask and keeping 6 ft away from others. Back during the summer, there was a report of hair stylists and barbers who had tested positive and then had to inform all their clients that they were exposed and needed to get tested as well. In the states/cities where mask mandates were in effect and thus both clients and stylists had to wear masks to get their hair cut, not a single client also tested positive. Obviously you can't cut someone's hair from 6 ft away, so the masks must've helped to greatly reduce the client's risk of exposure even though there were in direct contact with someone who later tested positive. 

TL/DR: It's the swiss cheese approach in effect. Mitigation via vaccines, plus masks, plus social distancing means no quarantines for those in direct contact with someone who was positive. As we gather more data on sterilizing immunity, we can make more informed decisions from a public health policy perspective and return to some semblance of normalcy. Personally speaking, we've been fairly cautious throughout the past 9 months. Limited contact with friends and extended family. Haven't been to a restaurant since last summer. Wear masks when gathering with neighbors so the kids can go sledding etc. That being said, our confidence in the vaccines is high enough that we're discussing potentially planning a vacation sometime in the fall / winter under the assumption we'd both be able to get the shots. If the stars align and our kids can get them too, then we're going balls to the wall to make up for lost time. 

Ah, I see what you're saying.  thank you.

I guess in a practical sense to use your example, say a business owner like a barber gets the rounds of vaccines it helps them to stay open or still be able to work with a mask and following protocols.  That makes sense.

I've been so busy with my work projects and family stuff going on and I basically rarely leave the house anyway.  But I see comments about perhaps things never truly returning to "normal' like they used to be and perhaps there will always be some type of protocols like masks or santizing or whatever.  

I know in Asia people have worn masks in public for years.  That's something that even without COVID at all, I could see sticking.  if you have the cold or a flu or if you are concerned about getting any kind of sickness you can continue wearing masks.  It could help reduce deaths from the regular flu and all too.

3 minutes ago, barho said:

Chief, it was literally the first major metro to be hit with COVID back when no one knew how to properly treat it.  You can't be this brain dead, can you?

The American people deserve better than what these Democratic governors have provided - hiding data and deaths for political means is despicable.  You can't be this brain dead to just ignore that, can you?  

13 minutes ago, NOTW said:

Ah, I see what you're saying.  thank you.

I guess in a practical sense to use your example, say a business owner like a barber gets the rounds of vaccines it helps them to stay open or still be able to work with a mask and following protocols.  That makes sense.

I've been so busy with my work projects and family stuff going on and I basically rarely leave the house anyway.  But I see comments about perhaps things never truly returning to "normal' like they used to be and perhaps there will always be some type of protocols like masks or santizing or whatever.  

I know in Asia people have worn masks in public for years.  That's something that even without COVID at all, I could see sticking.  if you have the cold or a flu or if you are concerned about getting any kind of sickness you can continue wearing masks.  It could help reduce deaths from the regular flu and all too.

Exactly. I know some people get their panties bunched up at the thought of wearing masks for the next 12-18 months, but beyond that, I highly doubt we'll still see mandates for most regions. And like you said, if we can start returning to normal, congregating, keeping businesses open, etc, then wearing a mask is a small price to pay after all we've been through. 

It's one of the few tools we have that has worked really well with basically no downside unlike indoor capacity restrictions, mandatory quarantines, etc.

 

EDIT: here's the study I was talking about in my previous post

 

Hairstylists with COVID-19 didn't infect any of their 139 clients. Face masks may be why.

By Nicoletta Lanese - Staff Writer July 14, 2020

Two hair stylists in Missouri interacted with a total of 139 clients and six coworkers before learning they both had COVID-19 — thankfully, the stylists didn't pass the virus on to any of these contacts, according to health officials. 

...

"This is exciting news about the value of masking to prevent COVID-19," Clay Goddard, director of the health department, said in the statement. 

Health officials also conducted phone interviews with 104 of the 139 clients, and of these, 98% reported wearing face coverings for their entire appointment, while 2% report wearing face coverings part of the time, the MMWR report said. The type of face covering used by clients varied, with the majority wearing cloth face coverings or surgical masks, and a few wearing N95 masks.

https://www.livescience.com/hair-stylists-infected-covid19-face-masks.html

9 minutes ago, mikemack8 said:

The American people deserve better than what these Democratic governors have provided - hiding data and deaths for political means is despicable.  You can't be this brain dead to just ignore that, can you?  

Whoa whoa whoa chief... "governors"?  We've seen one.  And yes it was despicable.  There should be investigations into Pennsylvania Governor Wolfe's administration but until there is a showing that this has happened in more than one state, this is just political hackery to say "these democratic governors" as if it was some large democratic scheme.  

The TN governor was pressuring Memphis and Nashville schools to reopen.  The Nashville Metro Superintendent was insistent on not reopening until the risk scale they were using was under 7.  It was hovering around 9 the last few months, maybe dipped to 8 ish (it would be like 9.7, then 9.2, then 8.9, etc.).  The weekly email to parents would show the chart and she was making the case that they are following this and when it gets below 7 they will reopen.  I think it was a good way to say don't blame me, we're following this science and unspoken - hey follow the guidelines to slow the spread and we can reopen.

Well the Governor a few weeks ago was putting pressure but she said she wouldn't reopen just because the Governor wanted them to.  So...

The Governor had the risk model changed which lowered the risk number to under 7.  Schools just reopened this week in person.

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Smokesdawg said:

Whoa whoa whoa chief... "governors"?  We've seen one.  And yes it was despicable.  There should be investigations into Pennsylvania Governor Wolfe's administration but until there is a showing that this has happened in more than one state, this is just political hackery to say "these democratic governors" as if it was some large democratic scheme.  

What one does they all do - it's what we do here in CVON  

7 minutes ago, NOTW said:

The TN governor was pressuring Memphis and Nashville schools to reopen.  The Nashville Metro Superintendent was insistent on not reopening until the risk scale they were using was under 7.  It was hovering around 9 the last few months, maybe dipped to 8 ish (it would be like 9.7, then 9.2, then 8.9, etc.).  The weekly email to parents would show the chart and she was making the case that they are following this and when it gets below 7 they will reopen.  I think it was a good way to say don't blame me, we're following this science and unspoken - hey follow the guidelines to slow the spread and we can reopen.

Well the Governor a few weeks ago was putting pressure but she said she wouldn't reopen just because the Governor wanted them to.  So...

The Governor had the risk model changed which lowered the risk number to under 7.  Schools just reopened this week in person.

 

 

 

What do you mean by reopening?  Is that a hybrid model, or is it all students in-person?

4 minutes ago, mikemack8 said:

What one does they all do - it's what we do here in CVON  

16 minutes ago, NOTW said:

The TN governor was pressuring Memphis and Nashville schools to reopen.  The Nashville Metro Superintendent was insistent on not reopening until the risk scale they were using was under 7.  It was hovering around 9 the last few months, maybe dipped to 8 ish (it would be like 9.7, then 9.2, then 8.9, etc.).  The weekly email to parents would show the chart and she was making the case that they are following this and when it gets below 7 they will reopen.  I think it was a good way to say don't blame me, we're following this science and unspoken - hey follow the guidelines to slow the spread and we can reopen.

Well the Governor a few weeks ago was putting pressure but she said she wouldn't reopen just because the Governor wanted them to.  So...

The Governor had the risk model changed which lowered the risk number to under 7.  Schools just reopened this week in person.

 

 

 

Seems fishy. I guess there may have been a good reason to change the model but sounds like the Gov just wanted to get schools open. 

On 5/15/2020 at 10:29 AM, DEagle7 said:

It's a **** situation but what's the alternative for skilled nursing facilities taking these patients though? Unless the family is willing and able to take care of them, or willing to pay for private care, it's really either make SNFs take them or keep them in the hospital forever.  A good friend of mine is an NP/manager at a SNF in Philadelphia and they essentially are putting all the COVID patients in the same building.  It's a Fing nightmare but again what are the alternatives?

 

On 5/15/2020 at 1:13 PM, Kz! said:

There's quite simply no alternative than forcing facilities with the most vulnerable populations to accept actively infected patients. None. 

LMFAO, imagine believing this.

 

On 5/15/2020 at 1:36 PM, DEagle7 said:

LMFAO imagine being this ignorant about the actual role and capabilities of nursing facilities yet still feeling confident enough comment on the subject.

 

On 5/15/2020 at 3:57 PM, Kz! said:

LMFAO, imagine touting the capabilities of nursing homes when they account for nearly a third of all US deaths of coronavirus.  

So capable! Send the patients right in there! lmao

 

On 5/15/2020 at 4:23 PM, DEagle7 said:

LMAO at having such a poor grasp of statistics that you're somehow shocked that  deaths from a disease that disproportionately affects old people are coming from places that house old people

LMAO at still not being able to come up with any coherent response for "what's the alternative" because you have absolutely zero clue what you're talking about.

 

On 5/15/2020 at 6:30 PM, DEagle7 said:

Oh gee whiz of course! Why didn't I think of that? So clearly the better solution is to just let them sit in hospitals, increasing hospital burden and increasing exposure risk there?  Or just send them to rag-tag volunteer-based acute centers that are not qualified to take care of patients with any significant complexity that don't exist in large swatches of the country?

Brilliant!  Way better solutions than sending them to the facilities specifically and qualified to manage sick, complicated and sometimes dying patients who are no longer benefitting from a hospital. 

Keep up the good work Anthony Fauxchi 

Oh man, it's better than I ever could have imagined.  

7 minutes ago, xzmattzx said:

What do you mean by reopening?  Is that a hybrid model, or is it all students in-person?

Oh, hybrid.  We started the school year all virtual, then in Oct opened for anyone who selected they'd want to go in person vs virtual.  About 2/3 said in person.  They had to allocate teachers and resources so whatever you picked was set for the semester.  You could change during the winter break survey.  

19 minutes ago, NOTW said:

The TN governor was pressuring Memphis and Nashville schools to reopen.  The Nashville Metro Superintendent was insistent on not reopening until the risk scale they were using was under 7.  It was hovering around 9 the last few months, maybe dipped to 8 ish (it would be like 9.7, then 9.2, then 8.9, etc.).  The weekly email to parents would show the chart and she was making the case that they are following this and when it gets below 7 they will reopen.  I think it was a good way to say don't blame me, we're following this science and unspoken - hey follow the guidelines to slow the spread and we can reopen.

Well the Governor a few weeks ago was putting pressure but she said she wouldn't reopen just because the Governor wanted them to.  So...

The Governor had the risk model changed which lowered the risk number to under 7.  Schools just reopened this week in person.

 

 

 

"When the facts don't fit the Theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein.

41 minutes ago, barho said:

Chief, it was literally the first major metro to be hit with COVID back when no one knew how to properly treat it.  You can't be this brain dead, can you?

Imagine still trying to defend Cuomo after everything that's come out. Remarkable. 

10 minutes ago, NOTW said:

Oh, hybrid.  We started the school year all virtual, then in Oct opened for anyone who selected they'd want to go in person vs virtual.  About 2/3 said in person.  They had to allocate teachers and resources so whatever you picked was set for the semester.  You could change during the winter break survey.  

Same.  About 2/3 in person.  Our SD made you choose option for the rest of the year by October 31.  About 25% of those who were remote came back into schools in November.... no surprise, we had many more shutdowns and quarantines after that point just because of the amount of kids in class.  

The schools are doing an awesome job and our local health officials have said that the majority of cases are coming from unprotected contact from outside of the schools.  Case in point, what i am concerned about is that our local gym (which we used pre-covid) is still having "Kids Night Out" where they will not enforcing masks and kids will be eating playing and swimming together indoors.  In fact this most recent one was is a sleepover.  Just a horrible idea. 

I don't understand why parents would let their kids go to this.  The kids aren't in danger but they are carriers.   I've gone this long through COVID and i'll be damned if i get it because i sent my kid, unmasked into a gym to play with other masked kids.  One of the parents of my child's best friend was in and out of the hospital for severe pneumonia and has been off work for the better part of a month with COVID.  

 

21 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Oh man, it's better than I ever could have imagined.  

And the point still stands: what's the alternative?  You either keep them in hospitals or send em to a step down facility. 

Everyone was worried that the kids would be careless.  They are actually little rule followers (at least the younger ages).  They self-police, my son said a friend of his wasn't allowed to play at recess because he accidentally touched someone and the other kids said you're not being socially distant.  They are religious about wearing their masks.  If we go somewhere my son puts his mask on in the house and wears it in the car.  I say you don't have to wear it yet, but he likes it.  Kids like wearing super hero costumes and masks and stuff so he has Spider-Man and dinosaur masks and he thinks it's fun anyway.

We got my son his own Baby Yoda themed hand sanitizer bottles as well.  He's good about using it.  This is the world these young kids know right now.

2 minutes ago, NOTW said:

Everyone was worried that the kids would be careless.  They are actually little rule followers (at least the younger ages).  They self-police, my son said a friend of his wasn't allowed to play at recess because he accidentally touched someone and the other kids said you're not being socially distant.  They are religious about wearing their masks.  If we go somewhere my son puts his mask on in the house and wears it in the car.  I say you don't have to wear it yet, but he likes it.  Kids like wearing super hero costumes and masks and stuff so he has Spider-Man and dinosaur masks and he thinks it's fun anyway.

We got my son his own Baby Yoda themed hand sanitizer bottles as well.  He's good about using it.  This is the world these young kids know right now.

The kids are great in schools... especially elementary age.  My Kindergartener and 3rd grader don't give any problems.  

However, we have heard from friends that people are knowingly sending their kids to school with positive covid tests and not reporting it.  That's negligent indifference.  

12 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

And the point still stands: what's the alternative?  You either keep them in hospitals or send em to a step down facility. 

The alternative is literally anything besides becoming the Covid death capital of the entire US and effing up so bad you have to intentionally misrepresent the numbers for PR purposes.  

Cuomo screwed up. He should be called out on it. And he was, when it was revealed by the press (which is part of why the free press is so important).

He also, as I understand it, corrected the policy when it was brought to his attention. 

Unlike you Trump worshipping dingbats, the rest of us don't treat governors and presidents as infallible deities gracing us lowly humans with their leadership. Governors and presidents are flawed figureheads who may not have a deep understanding of every policy position down the line, because much of that is delegated to staff whose full-time job is to generate detailed policy guidelines based on the guidance from the executive.

Cuomo is still popular because unlike Trump he at was at least engaged with the press, demonstrated that he was doing everything he thought was necessary to lead NY through the pandemic, and didn't just sit back and throw his hands up. He didn't demonstrate that he was only concerned with how it impacted the stock market, he showed that he did give a crap about how this was impacting people. 

It's pretty telling how much queefing there's been about DeSantis in this thread, but nary a peep about Cuomo.