OG doc. AMA on COVID-19

Many docs still think this is as well. Weird.

Where is the data on personnel-patient transmission?

Combining data from that article with the BMJ article a few posts above seems to indicate that 1 shot after infection should be recognized as fully “immunized” or protected from covid in the US. That BMJ article did not sound encouraging with that status being recognized soon based on how the CDC views things. They seem to be pretty far behind the curve.

It seems that getting a 2nd shot after you’ve been infected effectively does nothing and seems to only expose you to risk and potential unknown immune system effects. The BMJ article was long but very in depth.

After my 3 days of down time and heart fatigue after my 1st shot I just don’t see any reason why I should get a 2nd. That’s why I’m planning on getting a t-cell test and antibody test just so I have it on hand for all the lazy regulations that seem to be coming.

I hope this shit doesn’t happen

Re the statement in bold above- Vaccines are actually acting as prophylactics now?

Or, are they “less likely” because vax folks are asymptomatic and aren’t being tested?

Edit:

A few posts above, somebody linked a BMJ piece that had the following:

More recently, the CDC made headlines with an observational study aiming to characterise the protection a vaccine might give to people with past infections. Comparing 246 Kentuckians who had subsequent reinfections with 492 controls who had not, the CDC concluded that those who were unvaccinated had more than twice the odds of reinfection.[30] The study notes the limitation that the vaccinated are “possibly less likely to get tested. Therefore, the association of reinfection and lack of vaccination might be overestimated.”

1 Like

Haox?

1 Like

Using memes that can’t spell 4 letter words correctly isn’t hlepign yuor cuase. :wink:

4 Likes

If you are unable to comprehend the meaning of a meme because of one spelling error you don’t have much to add to the discussion. Thanks for trying.

The data is arguably crappy for COVID. I’m not finding robust peer-reviewed data. But there is no doubt nosocomial transmission went way down after the application of masks. Just consider how long we’ve been using N95 for respiratory viruses and how nosocomial transmission is unusual when n95 is used. Interestingly, COVID infection rates in health care workers is 4-10x that in the general population, but not in COVID wards where N95 are used.

Some reports:

“In the few outbreaks that have been reported in hospital settings during universal masking, several recurrent features have emerged. Duke Health in North Carolina found that “unmasked exposure to another [health care worker] rather than exposure to known infected patients resulted in the most [SARS-CoV-2] cases among staff after implementation [of universal masking]”

“Transmission leading to a cluster of at least 55 infections at Baystate Medical Center in Massachusetts in July 2020 was traced back to “staff who convened in a breakroom and removed their masks.”

“In an outbreak at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston in September 2020 that was associated with infections in 42 health care workers and 15 patients, hospital epidemiologists identified a number of important contributing factors, including that “many patients were not masked during clinical care” and “[that there was a] lack of physical distancing among staff while unmasked while eating.”

My wife does infection control in 2 hospitals and has reported as such in her institutions. Almost all transmission they have reported was with infected (asymptomatic) health carriers to patients or other personnel. Same at my NY hospital. I can’t report data in my own hospital in Montreal because we were essentially using cloth and surgical masks until a few months ago (…). After that, vaccination clouds that picture. But even with cloth and surgical masks, nosocomial infections went way down.

Other soft data for those interested:

If masks were that inefficient, you’d expect massive transmission to personnel. Consider that at the peak in January, there were 130 000 hospitalized patients in the US with COVID.

I’m not sure what you mean by “prophylactics”.

All vaccines reduce the risk of infections to some extent. For the flu vaccine it’s from 10-60% in the last 15 years. For measles, it’s about 97%. For Hep B, it’s about 90%. Same with the COVID vaccines: that number depends on the variant, and on other factors (like data on waning immunity, age).

I got the data you posted. But there are literally 100 studies showing some degree of protection. As of now, with Delta, and with 3-4 weeks interval, that protection is around 50-70%.

Doctor, some studies have shown that having natural immunity from a previous infection plus getting the vaccine after provides more robust protection.

What are your thoughts on breakthrough infections? Do you think it is more/less/unknown likely that this would also provide more robust protection?

Doc, I’ve been following the number of vaccinated / partially vaccinated / fully vaccinated trend in some Canadian hospitals and it seems recurrent that the partially vaccinated always seems to be the lowest percentage. Is that true also in the hospitals you work at? If yes, what do you think the reason is for this?

One example below:

2nd Pfizer yesterday… but worse news, kid is getting sent home from college after I just spent 1500+ moving her… Fuck this…

Why?

College shutting down after Alberta’s new lockdown announcement last night.

1 Like

How are the numbers there?

1 positive in a few thousand at SAIT. Alberta’s numbers are higher with 70+% vaxxed vs when nobody was vaxxed… it’s ridiculous.

Bloody hell that sucks

1 Like

Wow that’s insane. Common sense has been abandoned.

2 Likes

Is anyone aware of a good reputable risk assessment tool especially one that includes assessment for cancer patients?

My work is trying to overcome vaccine hesitation among cancer patients