Well, are you more worried about giving it to her, or about her giving it to you? In the former case, I assume you have your shit together and aren’t taking on much more risk than grocery shopping, then her risk of getting it from you is pretty low to begin with, and by the time we get to about a week after the second shot, you’ve cut that by a factor of 20. In the latter, nursing is a decently risky profession, and while her chances of spreading it to you have been cut by a factor of 20, that still may be larger than the sorts of risk you’re taking on. The case you’re worried about with her is that the vaccine wasn’t effective on her, not that she’s protected but can still spread the virus. Being protected but still spreading it is almost certainly a very small to zero risk, even if it hasn’t been demonstrated rigorously in a proper trial yet.
Hmm this kind of changes my thoughts on it. I wasn’t even thinking about the vaccine not being effective. I did the 95% efficacy =100% in my mind. It’s easy to do when you want this to be over.
Well, for 95% of the people, it’s 100% effective ;)
lol yikes
This is a simplification, however. It’s not really the case that most people who are vaccinated are totally immune to the point that they can hang out with 100 other infected and contagious people inside in close quarters with no mask for hours on end and never catch it, while other people have basically no protection. The 95% number is about the relative probability that the vaccinated get symptomatically sick compared to the unvaccinated. In all likelihood, there’s a distribution of the effectivenesses of the vaccine on different people, and there’s a distribution of the amounts of virus they come into contact with, and if the behaviors of the unvaccinanted and vaccinated populations are roughly equal on average (not a bad assumption for a decently large and representative population), then those factors result in 95% fewer people getting sick. Since it’s really hard to measure just how effective the vaccine was on you (in terms of how much of a dose of the virus would it take for it to gain a toehold in you and start replicating faster than your immune system can wipe it out initially), you don’t want to treat vaccination as carte blanche to engage in the riskiest behaviors you can think of without consequence.
Gonna have to rename LA county to Yolo county 2.0.
You’re right. It’s only those snooty rich people who care about the well-being of their children.
I’m sure you have a much better grasp on the thoughts of parents of elementary aged children than someone who spent four decades as a 2nd grade teacher and a counselor.
The majority of people in rural Oklahoma think the virus is a hoax and want their “free” babysitter back. This is a community that I would guess is close to 80-90% Republican.
I mean, it really sucks that little Timmy is going to lose a year of in person learning, but I’d rather people like my mother didn’t have to risk their lives for 40 grand a year to babysit the children of Covid denying dumb fucks.
I get that you’re mad. That anger makes a lot more sense than the nom sequitur arguments you’re posting. I’m not interested in fighting for the sake of being your punching bag so will leave it. Sorry about your mom. Teachers have it really bad right now.
It’s a ludicrous argument. Spread is out of control and school is already a germ factory where cold and flu spread like wildfire.
It’s kind of like the Nazi post the other day. If you’re on the side of Kevin Stitt, you’re probably doing something wrong.
1 week after the second shot, this is probably right.
it may be right, there just isn’t enough data.
it’s very likely the vaccine does reduce transmission but it’s also entirely possible that the reduction in transmission isn’t as good as the reduction in illness. So it may be 95% effective for developing the disease but only 50% effective at transmission. We just don’t know and until there’s more data I wouldn’t be hanging out with people beyond a distanced meeting outside even if we’ve both had the vaccine.
I got my flu shot this year and didn’t feel sore after or anything the next day.
This is extraordinarily unlikely given our understanding of germ theory and respiratory viruses.
That would put the baseline for the fatality rate at around 0.4 right?
I’ve read a few things which say some kids with special needs are doing better at home then in school. Obviously that’s not true for all but it’s not a given all kids are being hurt.
Cfr vs ifr
The cfr is based on known positives. The ifr is on actual infections which is a guess at this time. We spitballed 0.5% itt a couple of weeks back as close enough to make estimations.
It’s tough since not everyone is tested and some of the antibody testing has been inconsistent.
Different countries may vary due to testing and also due to standard of care.