5 hours after the booster and I won a Fortnite match.
Thanks, Obama.
9 Likes
I got Moderna booster about 22 hours ago. Iâm feeling a little achy and have some chills today. Not bad, but noticeable.
1 Like
I think âeasyâ sacrifices like not going to concerts and wearing masks are more damaging than are given credit for itt, and if weâre going to spend time discussing risk for vaccinated people we should be addressing this as well. The argument about the present uncertainty of the cost plays just as big of a role here. I donât think the dehumanization and further polarization of society over the last 2 years is a coincidence.
whatâs been everyoneâs reaction to the booster? i have to go to dinner with a visiting manager 3 hours afterwards. can i use the booster as an excuse to get out of it?
Nothing but a slightly sore arm for me.
3 hours after seems too quick to be a legitimate excuse. Iâm day after today. I just feel kind of blah. A little achy, some chills. Not bad, but I didnât have any side effects from the first two doses. If I had something important it wouldnât stop me, but I donât, so Iâm laying around watching football all day.
Ditto
I felt like shit for a day, but I didnât feel it at all until ~12hrs post jab. Of course, everyone is different, so if it is an excuse youâre looking for, it will be totally plausible.
1 Like
I donât understand this statement, how is âdamagingâ to no go to concerts and to wear masks?
Takes longer then 3 hours, at least in my experience, to start feeling symptoms.
My experience as well.
Iâm about 7 hours after the booster at the moment and I feel fine, as does my wife. The second shot hit me hard and started about 2 hours afterward, whereas my wife felt pretty much fine on that one, too. Maybe it will floor me later. Who knows?
There is an additional factor. At some point of vaccine coverage we get a significantly reduced odds of catching the virus in the first place due to decreased community spread.
But I still have not seen anything with real solid numbers for relative rate of infection, relative ability to transmit and absolute impact on spread when reaching high vax levels (and of course time since last vax, which vax, and when boosted factor as well).
I do have a raised eyebrow at some of highest vaxxed US states and world countries having surges. Not sure if itâs simple that there is more vaccinated mediated spread than thought or if there is some other facto being overlooked.
My gut is in that 90/10 range in terms of being positive equaling out total cases between vaxxed/unvaxxed, but I suspect the absolute numbers would go down.
I donât think that any answer that Johnny could give to that question would have a substantial impact on this discussion. I mean if he revealed heâs really Fauciâs gimmick account Iâd still evaluate his understanding of the issue based on his (rather lengthy) posts.
1 Like
While data certainly hasnât demonstrated that the R0 is greater than 1, I think this is a little too far the other way.
Unrelated to the discussion you guys are having, but this seems like a pretty misleading and potentially harmful way to present this data, since it strips out the context of how vaccinated the population is. Somebody might conclude that if a third of the people hospitalized with covid are vaccinated, the vaccine must not be as great as everybody says it is. In other words, presented as percentages (62% unvaxxed and 31% vaxxed) makes it seem like the being vaccinated provides a protection factor of 2, when the real number is closer to 20.
Much better imo to include the info as a rate which makes that clear (example from Washington state):
Or even easier to see in a chart format from the CDC:
1 Like
But youâre not taking into account how likely it is that those vaccinated people are positive in the first place?
Edit: What about boosters? The studies seems to indicate that at least in the short term, the boosters restore you to that 90+ percent protection against infection. Are you boosted and if so are you taking that into account?
What I cropped out was related to cases because I wanted to focus specifically on hospitalizations.
I realize the same data might be presented in a better way elsewhere on the page you referenced, but my point was that I donât see why it needs to be presented that way at all.
Also my point wasnât really aimed at you specifically, I was just struck by those percentages in the image you posted when I saw it. It wasnât about what people in this thread know or how they behave, it was how the general public might respond to the data presented in that way. Thatâs all.
In the past we had political differences, but at least we could gather together at a sporting event and root for the same team or support our favorite band together at an event. We did common things like joke around with a waiter or strike up a conversation with a stranger at the bar or airport or park. Many of these baseline human interactions have been severely reduced or eliminated. Maybe it sounds stupid but the simplest one is literally looking and smiling at another human being. It wouldnât be surprising to find out that itâs led to more tribalism, fewer shared values, and deep suspicion with short leashes regarding anyone not in the in-group.
Itâs the same criticism as the one levied against social media, just from the angle of real life interaction getting muted at the same time as digital interaction is already steadily enhancing. No I donât have studies but I bet it has an real impact which should be considered in these cost-benefit analyses beyond âwhatâs the big deal about wearing a mask for an indefinite X more amount of time.â
6 Likes