To Vaccinate or Not---The Rat Flu Odyssey Continues

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trackhead

Holy crap, you mean business. Never heard of nasal irrigation with baby shampoo! Can you smell it, or did the covid crush your olfactory nerve:)

6 weeks out from Moderna #4 with symptomatic covid reinforces (in my opinion) why most healthy people don't need 4th shots. Minimal, if any sterilizing immunity when hypothetically your nAbs should be raging high. Time to hang up the old mRNA vax and start fresh, or not at all.

---

Scan around NIH etc and you'll probably find several studies looking at a 1% solution of Johnson and Johnson baby shampoo. I haven't kept up on their results, but I was looking for something like this about a year ago and finding that I assumed it must be safe. I've done it twice and both times it seemed much more effective than just the salt stuff alone, but if you overdo it you get nasty tasting bubbles in the throat--the bubbles are a little annoying, but they sure could leave out the scent. 4 drops in about 5 ounces was milder and still seems to have worked.

The studies are looking to kill virus with it (works really well in vitro) but regardless of that the solution just breaks stuff up better. I don't find irrigation all that helpful without it.

My doctor has been more concerned, which is why I've had to go for two negative tests. I'm compromised and historically that's translated into every bug lasts 2x longer for me than my wife. So far this is the exception. As he's mentioned, negative tests and the very mild symptoms reinforce that disease and immunity are not binary.

They really should update the vaccines, but it's not that or nothing. I held off on #4 until it looked like the update was delayed and I was about to travel but now I'm glad to have it. Dude in Germany took 87 shots. I never get anything but a sore arm. Pretty easy decision at this stage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by subtle plague

I think riser in his 4th Inkarnation has become evil and is dead serious. Leroy has done some research about it and wrote a well structured opinion piece about it.

---

He's got a virtual ball gag so I can't hear him. And don't you dare quote him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jono

That's familiar: my wife had "allergies" Saturday, test Monday was positive so Paxlovid Tuesday. I woke up with some nasal drip Tuesday but tested negative (and again Thursday). Seems like that and fatigue peaked by Wednesday (with noticable help from a sinus rinse--1% baby shampoo) and minor headaches passed as my ears slowly cleared. I think I've coughed maybe 20 times and I'm not rushing out for a bike ride, but hopefully in a day or two. Moderna #4 is about 6 weeks old now.

Her third pfizer was like 8 months ago and she has not had such a good time. Significant chest congestion, a rash, fevers (complete with dreams), very fatigued. She's been improving for a day or two, but if there's a big reset when the Paxlovid ends I think she's gonna be pissed--it's a lot of orange-zest and pennies on her tongue so far.

Pretty likely we were both exposed a couple days before her symptoms, where I was wearing an n95 and she was in a level 3 patient mask. Should have stuck to our routine. Precautions in public are a minor inconvenience, this is a major pain in the ass.

---

https://www.live5news.com/2022/05/26...days-cdc-says/

Got to quarantine 5 days longer when using Paxlovid. Rough news.

Also, in other rough news:

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/healt...inds-rcna30467

Wife and I tested positive last Saturday, I was feeling kind of crappy last week but I thought it was just allergies (and it was, at least in part, Claritin did help). Then she started feeling crappy and took a test and when she was positive I took one too.

I've been pretty much fine, took a test yesterday and was still positive but I have no symptoms other than a runny nose and some fatigue, both of which could also be allergy-related. Wife's been a little sicker but she's fine too. Took another test yesterday and was surprised I'm still positive. Can't imagine I'm contagious but I'm still lying low.

I wonder how long people test positive? 7-10 days?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liv2ski

I wonder how long people test positive? 7-10 days?

---

For me and my family, tested positive for 30 days after the first positive test.

Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk

Fuck me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ötzi

Wife and I tested positive last Saturday, I was feeling kind of crappy last week but I thought it was just allergies (and it was, at least in part, Claritin did help). Then she started feeling crappy and took a test and when she was positive I took one too.

I've been pretty much fine, took a test yesterday and was still positive but I have no symptoms other than a runny nose and some fatigue, both of which could also be allergy-related. Wife's been a little sicker but she's fine too. Took another test yesterday and was surprised I'm still positive. Can't imagine I'm contagious but I'm still lying low.

---

My bout 2 weeks ago was very mild, just nasal congestion and sneezing, no throat/cough issues. I popped Ag+ within 18hrs of getting a sniffle and stayed Ag+ for 9 days. Stayed away from work all week but developed a day drinking habit.

Mrs was neg thru my day 5 then got the chills and a head cold with a bit of a cough, she felt a little flu-ish and a bit of fatigue. Tested neg that day then Ag+ next time 2 days later. Stayed Ag+ thru day 8.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Percy Rideout

https://www.live5news.com/2022/05/26...days-cdc-says/

Got to quarantine 5 days longer when using Paxlovid. Rough news.

Also, in other rough news:

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/healt...inds-rcna30467

---

The conclusion of the authors of the study on long covid is long covid merits further study -
we need to be careful with selecting data points from a study, like, 'vaccination only reduces the incidence of long covid by fifteen percent ... '
But it also was found to reduce respiratory effects more than fifty percent and (blood) clotting complications by more than fifty percent --

I would like to see expectations for advances in covid vaccines using additional vaccine technology
( there is too much written about the potential benefits of an intranasal vaccine for me to not believe work is being done to explore these possibilities... )

The author of the study also acknowledges that the existing vaccines are "miraculous" at preventing 'severe covid resulting in hospitalization or/and death. '

Please don't forget 2020, 2021, or the omicron spike earlier this year -

Vaccination is succeeding at what it was designed to do. we are lucky that omicron is not equally as pathologically-advanced as it was immunity-evasive.

yes, long covid needs further study.


Please be boostered. skiJ

So doing my Google searches while my wife naps, I saw you can test positive for up to 30 days on a Rapid test. They suggested going to a Dr. to document your infection date so you could fly into the USA 10 days later regardless of test results needed. Anyone care to comment on that? Thanks

Good luck to all those that are sick!!

Michael Mina consistently spouts that those that are vaxed, have a known exposure (like a child or spouse), have a short bout of symptoms, and never test positive have successfully fought off the disease and were never infectious. I've never seen a journal/study source for this. Do some exist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liv2ski

So doing my Google searches while my wife naps, I saw you can test positive for up to 30 days on a Rapid test.

---

Where'd you see that? I've consistently seen that pcr will show positive for weeks after an AG test no longer shows positive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skiJ

The conclusion of the authors of the study on long covid is long covid merits further study -
we need to be careful with selecting data points from a study, like, 'vaccination only reduces the incidence of long covid by fifteen percent ... '

---

I believe Topel pointed this out because the % was significantly lower than any other similar study.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trackhead

Holy crap, you mean business. Never heard of nasal irrigation with baby shampoo! Can you smell it, or did the covid crush your olfactory nerve:)

6 weeks out from Moderna #4 with symptomatic covid reinforces (in my opinion) why most healthy people don't need 4th shots. Minimal, if any sterilizing immunity when hypothetically your nAbs should be raging high. Time to hang up the old mRNA vax and start fresh, or not at all.

---

There have been multiple attempts to develop a nasal vaccine since the start with multiple trials ongoing--if it were easy there would be one. It would make sense to release a variant vaccine if only the virus would stop mutating long enough to pick the right variant. In the meantime, no reason for angst over needing multiple doses. Kids have been getting up to five doses per shot (dpt) forever without complaining. (OK, maybe a little complaining. Or maybe a lot.)

Question about long Covid and insurance coverage. I have read concerns that insurance coverage for those experiencing long covid symptoms as a “preexisting” condition if there is no documentation of Covid infection. Is there documented truth to this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bodywhomper

I believe Topel pointed this out because the % was significantly lower than any other similar study.

---

Looks like news, to me: a man bit a dog. Certainly not useless, but the "dog bites man" stories might just have stronger evidence to support them.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s415...01840-0#MOESM1

There are several issues that would tend to bias this study toward "worse news." They don't appear to have stratified by age and, unsurprisingly, the two oldest groups under study were the vaccinated control and the breakthrough group. The group that got the disease was almost 9 years younger than those who had breakthrough infections. (Caveat: key word may be "appear"--I couldn't find it, but if it's in there please correct me.)

The higher survival rate in the BTI group makes comparison to the infection group vulnerable to survivorship bias, too, as the likely worst cases in the infection group died before they had a chance for long COVID.

Has there been a study with long covid-related results that had good quality data? I’m not aware. Last week Jha gave several interviews where long covid was brought up and part of his response was that there needs to be better research done. I bet he had a preview of last week’s CDC MMWR, which pointed at many problems with data quality that inhibited and restricted the quality of the conclusions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bodywhomper

Has there been a study with long covid-related results that had good quality data? I’m not aware. Last week Jha gave several interviews where long covid was brought up and part of his response was that there needs to be better research done. I bet he had a preview of last week’s CDC MMWR, which pointed at many problems with data quality that inhibited and restricted the quality of the conclusions.

---

I'm not aware of one, either, but it's worth noting that we'd still want better research on a lot of aspects even without these specific biasing issues. That linked Nature article is getting a lot of click-bait headlines for the one conclusion about vaccination but that wasn't their only conclusion, either. Baiters gonna bait.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

There have been multiple attempts to develop a nasal vaccine since the start with multiple trials ongoing--if it were easy there would be one. It would make sense to release a variant vaccine if only the virus would stop mutating long enough to pick the right variant. In the meantime, no reason for angst over needing multiple doses. Kids have been getting up to five doses per shot (dpt) forever without complaining. (OK, maybe a little complaining. Or maybe a lot.)

---

There's no angst. Typing on TGR does not offer inflection and things are taken out of context.

My view is from clinical picture. Still have seen very low disease burden from a pulmonary/ARDS perspective since Omicron. Certainly quite nominal in those under 65. Non-existent under 50. Just my opinion. I think clinical picture/anecdote is meaningful in this context. Even at peak Omicron last winter we had very few on vents, all unvaccinated. Completely different clinical picture than Delta. Yes, I know deaths were still super high. But 4th shots for otherwise healthy offer little, if any, significant clinical benefit. I don't think that concept is widely disputed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jono

I'm not aware of one, either, but it's worth noting that we'd still want better research on a lot of aspects even without these specific biasing issues. That linked Nature article is getting a lot of click-bait headlines for the one conclusion about vaccination but that wasn't their only conclusion, either. Baiters gonna bait.

---

Was recently long covid study published that ran all routine test, and some non-routine, that would typically be carried out in primary care setting and/or pulmonology/cardiology. Conclusion = essentially long covid not identifiable by tests/diagnostics utilized in study.

Tested things like
1. Cardiac MRI, echo, CTPA, etc.
2. D-dimer, CRP, ferritin, ANA, troponin,
etc, etc.

The long covid armada was not happy, but having a study point out what tests are typically normal in long covid does help direct the clinician or researcher into looking into other work-ups. That said, the tests ran were pretty thorough, inclusive, and beyond what most clinics would typically do on initial visit. Most would start basic, and end up with pulmonology/cardiology referrals.

Isn’t there a relation between severity of disease with timing of last vaccination?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liv2ski

So doing my Google searches while my wife naps, I saw you can test positive for up to 30 days on a Rapid test. They suggested going to a Dr. to document your infection date so you could fly into the USA 10 days later regardless of test results needed. Anyone care to comment on that? Thanks

---

For entry requirements a 10-180 day old positive test was the golden ticket for Canada, sounds like the same for US?

See also:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mofro261

A negative Ag after a positive /symptomatic infection is a good correlate to no longer transmissible. A negative without a pos or symptoms gives you a result for that time point only, and can miss pre-symptomatic or asym. early Infections during day 0-3.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trackhead

Was recently long covid study published that ran all routine test, and some non-routine, that would typically be carried out in primary care setting and/or pulmonology/cardiology. Conclusion = essentially long covid not identifiable by tests/diagnostics utilized in study.

Tested things like
1. Cardiac MRI, echo, CTPA, etc.
2. D-dimer, CRP, ferritin, ANA, troponin,
etc, etc.

The long covid armada was not happy, but having a study point out what tests are typically normal in long covid does help direct the clinician or researcher into looking into other work-ups. That said, the tests ran were pretty thorough, inclusive, and beyond what most clinics would typically do on initial visit. Most would start basic, and end up with pulmonology/cardiology referrals.

---

The armada wasn't happy with the results or the quality of the study? Without seeing it, that does seem like it has room to meet the recipe for "no statistically-significant" results as a feature of study design, depending on unstated details. Not to imply intent in that direction, but there are a lot of ways for that to happen. (Obligatory: inability to detect a significant difference is almost never useful evidence of no difference.)

I believe the armada, such as David Putrino, Director of Rehabilitation Innovation for the Mount Sinai, is that there are other infection-associated chronic illnesses, such as Lyme’s Disease, that also cannot be diagnosed with the standard non-specialized testing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jono

The armada wasn't happy with the results or the quality of the study? Without seeing it, that does seem like it has room to meet the recipe for "no statistically-significant" results as a feature of study design, depending on unstated details. Not to imply intent in that direction, but there are a lot of ways for that to happen. (Obligatory: inability to detect a significant difference is almost never useful evidence of no difference.)

---

I’m not into debating statistics, so who knows why people were offended. Results mirrored clinical picture I see with the handful of long covid complaints. Some have pulmonary fibrosis (few), majority have negative work up. Nuanced discussion beyond scope of this forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bodywhomper

I believe the armada, such as David Putrino, Director of Rehabilitation Innovation for the Mount Sinai, is that there are other infection-associated chronic illnesses, such as Lyme’s Disease, that also cannot be diagnosed with the standard non-specialized testing.

---

I believe there is nuanced pathology in long covid, but point of study was routine tests (and some not so routine) offer little regarding elucidating pathology in ambulatory setting. You won’t get esoteric testing done outside of a research study. There simply is no definitive guideline to direct a long covid work up in ambulatory setting (yet).