Isn't the shingles shot supposed to be a one-time event?Cortopassi wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 8:45 pm
I get a "mini flu" for 2-3 days every time I got a flu shot. And shingles shots. I haven't gotten a flu shot for 4 years because of that.
Vinny
Moderator: Global Moderator
Isn't the shingles shot supposed to be a one-time event?Cortopassi wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 8:45 pm
I get a "mini flu" for 2-3 days every time I got a flu shot. And shingles shots. I haven't gotten a flu shot for 4 years because of that.
Sorry to hear that. How serious a case was it?Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 8:48 pm
I had the shingles shot.
Then I got shingles.
No flu shots for me, thanks. Also no more shingles shots, and no pneumococcal vaccine.
I'll probably go for the covid shot if there's no reliable treatment before it comes out, though.
I didn't notice the one day spike.Tortoise wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 8:10 pmI assume you're referring to the big spike in New York's Covid-19 deaths yesterday, right? As Dr. WiseOne explained in the Trump thread, that spike was an artifact of reclassifying a month's worth of "presumed" Covid-19 deaths as actual Covid-19 deaths on a single day. It wasn't a real one-day spike.
Even if it were a real one-day spike, extrapolating a single-day spike to estimate a yearly increase is like extrapolating a stock's single-day spike to estimate its yearly growth. Is that your usual approach?
There are two different type shots. The second one is supposedly a lot more effective in older people. I've had both types with no ill effects (other than a sore arm for a day or so). And according to my doctor, if you do get shingles after the shot, it is a lot less severe. Shingles can be really, really bad. If you get it in your eye - blindness. Most other areas of the body - very painful.
Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 11:14 am IMO people are thinking about this as a problem to solve, and not as a predicament (a problem without a solution). Tyler Cowen has said that America is a country that prioritizes its old people over the young, which seems like a valid heuristic to understanding why we're doing what we're doing.
This guy gets it.The debate about how long to continue the current measures, and when to “reopen” the economy operate on the assumption that there is some sort of happy medium that allows more Americans to get back to work, while minimizing the risk of a faster spread that overwhelms ICU beds and hospitals. U.S. policymakers may soon have to confront the really dire scenario, that there is no happy medium — that changes designed to increase economic activity (and human interaction) will inevitably increase the number of cases in a bad way, and that there is no way to keep the pace of the spread slow really economically destructive quarantine measures.
There is this probably particularly American mentality that if we just study a problem long enough, and are somehow smart enough, we will inevitably discover some option that creates a win-win scenario that avoids both the terrible health consequences (more infections and more deaths) or the terrible economic consequences (a depression that forces all kinds of businesses large and small into bankruptcy). The coronavirus may be presenting the countries of the world with a no-win situation. link
Hi Michigan!The more high-handed the ruling classes were, the more likely they were to be targeted by rumors and revolt. The riots persisted longest, Cohn writes, "where elites continued to belittle the supposed 'superstitions' of villagers, minorities, and the poor, violated their burial customs and religious beliefs, and imposed stringent anti-cholera regulations even after most of them had been proven to be ineffectual. Moreover, ruling elites in these places addressed popular resistance with military force and brutal repression. By contrast, distrust and rumours of purposeful poisoning abated where elite attitudes and impositions changed." As Königsberg and other Prussian cities were rioting in 1831, the authorities in Berlin loosened the local cholera regulations; the government and middle-class charities also organized relief efforts. Berlin did not riot. link
Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 8:25 amThere is this probably particularly American mentality that if we just study a problem long enough, and are somehow smart enough, we will inevitably discover some option that creates a win-win scenario that avoids both the terrible health consequences (more infections and more deaths) or the terrible economic consequences (a depression that forces all kinds of businesses large and small into bankruptcy). The coronavirus may be presenting the countries of the world with a no-win situation. link
James T Kirk wrote:I don't believe in a no-win scenario.
Maybe we need someone to cheat like he did.Xan wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 9:02 amKriegsspiel wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 8:25 amThere is this probably particularly American mentality that if we just study a problem long enough, and are somehow smart enough, we will inevitably discover some option that creates a win-win scenario that avoids both the terrible health consequences (more infections and more deaths) or the terrible economic consequences (a depression that forces all kinds of businesses large and small into bankruptcy). The coronavirus may be presenting the countries of the world with a no-win situation. linkJames T Kirk wrote:I don't believe in a no-win scenario.
This is where I actually wish I were a credentialed epidemiologist, because I can think of all sorts of interesting and nontrivial questions raised by the observations above. The real questions are: 1) what is the increase in overall death rate, and 2) how much lost life (months, years) is involved? COVID deaths are defined as anyone who dies while known to be infected with COVID, which means that if they died from, say, cancer while infected with COVID, that's counted as a COVID death. We've all seen the charts showing sharp reductions in death from non-COVID causes. I really don't think the explanation is that people aren't traveling and dying of car crashes. That's a very small number especially in NYC where most transportation happens on foot or public transit. And, crime here has skyrocketed thanks to the bail law and the release of violent criminals from city jails, so the argument that people are not going out and being crime victims or getting into bar fights doesn't fly either.Dieter wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 7:24 pm1) Comparing yearly numbers with "so far" numbers. Apples to spaceships.Tortoise wrote: ↑Wed Apr 15, 2020 3:34 pmAre we putting those 30,000 Covid-19 deaths in the proper perspective?
Annual Deaths and Mortality in the U.S. (CDC)
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
- Number of deaths: 2,813,503
- Death rate: 863.8 deaths per 100,000 population
- Life expectancy: 78.6 years
- Infant Mortality rate: 5.79 deaths per 1,000 live births
- Heart disease: 647,457
- Cancer: 599,108
- Accidents (unintentional injuries): 169,936
- Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 160,201
- Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 146,383
- Alzheimer’s disease: 121,404
- Diabetes: 83,564
- Influenza and Pneumonia: 55,672
- Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis: 50,633
- Intentional self-harm (suicide): 47,173
Almost 2,500 people died of COVID yesterday. ~900,000 a year at that rate.
Would be the leading cause of death in the US.
2) Not just deaths, but the impact to the health care infrastructure.
WiseOne, is the best case scenario for somebody to get the disease with a low viral load? Would that give immunity without getting very sick?WiseOne wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 11:06 amAlso, the risk of severe complications for young, healthy people appears related to viral dose. e.g. health care workers are 20% of the deaths. If the goal were shifted from avoiding ALL exposure to avoiding high levels of exposure, that would make increased activity far easier to manage while waiting for the vaccine to become available.
My guess would be no. But it depends upon your level of security needs. I have neither. I'm really home now all the time but I also had neither when I'm out of the house for 12 hours at a time.
That's my theory. I'm hoping that I manage to get just a teeny whiff of the virus while out walking on the river path or on the way to the grocery. That would be truly ideal. However, I wouldn't recommend hosting a "covid-19" party. Gatherings (large Italian family in NJ, choir in Seattle) where people do a lot of loud talking or singing have fared VERY badly.Xan wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 11:08 amWiseOne, is the best case scenario for somebody to get the disease with a low viral load? Would that give immunity without getting very sick?WiseOne wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 11:06 amAlso, the risk of severe complications for young, healthy people appears related to viral dose. e.g. health care workers are 20% of the deaths. If the goal were shifted from avoiding ALL exposure to avoiding high levels of exposure, that would make increased activity far easier to manage while waiting for the vaccine to become available.
Xan wrote: WiseOne, is the best case scenario for somebody to get the disease with a low viral load? Would that give immunity without getting very sick?
WiseOne wrote: That's my theory. I'm hoping that I manage to get just a teeny whiff of the virus while out walking
..
That might not be the best idea, even if WiseOne’s right. If knuckleheads are congregating because they think they’re invincible, what’s going to happen after scientists with the best of intentions, give them a low dose? They’ll still ignore all instructions.
The idea for the general public is to avoid large doses of virus. That's the best reason to wear a face mask, it won't totally block the virus but it will reduce the cell count.dualstow wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 1:37 pm { activate quote untangler.. }Xan wrote: WiseOne, is the best case scenario for somebody to get the disease with a low viral load? Would that give immunity without getting very sick?WiseOne wrote: That's my theory. I'm hoping that I manage to get just a teeny whiff of the virus while out walking
..That might not be the best idea, even if WiseOne’s right. If knuckleheads are congregating because they think they’re invincible, what’s going to happen after scientists with the best of intentions, give them a low dose? They’ll still ignore all instructions.
“I’ve got my antibodies. I can do whatever I want now.” Human nature.
Not to mention resistance. I can understand why even on this small forum there are people who don’t want a flu shot or a shingles shot. I don’t think 100% of the population is going to trust being purposely infected by a brand new bug that, unlike the flu, has only recently become a household word. Even though, paradoxically, they would risk getting it if the bars were open.
WHAT????MangoMan wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 4:53 pm Gilead stock surges 15% after report says coronavirus drug trial shows encouraging early results.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/16/gilead- ... sults.html