8 ms·

I feel like I'm pointing out the obvious, but another, extremely effect and quick "treatment" is vaccination. And it works great without the constant need for

I feel like I'm pointing out the obvious, but another, extremely effect and quick "treatment" is vaccination. And it works great without the constant need for testing. I have to imagine that anyone willing to undergo treatment at the very start of getting covid, would have also been willing to be vaccinated. The vaccine-hesitant aren't going to go for treatment until the outlook is dire. Additionally, in my experience, physicians aren't terribly concerned about infections in vaccinated individuals. When I was last tested, the physician essentially just assured me that vaccinations have been shown to drastically reduce the likelihood of complications, and not to really worry about it. Granted, I could have had a less rigorous physician, or it could that I'm totally healthy.

LurkingPenguin 5y ago
> I feel like I'm pointing out the obvious, but another, extremely effect and quick "treatment" is vaccination. Does every discussion of about post-exposure prophylaxis have to have comments about vaccination? > And it works great without the constant need for testing. A primary reason for testing has been to help stop the spread of the virus (test positive = isolate), not necessarily to let people with mild symptoms or no symptoms know that they're infected. Vaccinated individuals can still spread the virus and some people are at higher risk even when vaccinated, so testing is still of value. > I have to imagine that anyone willing to undergo treatment at the very start of getting covid, would have also been willing to be vaccinated. That's quite an assumption. Without passing judgment about his decision not to get vaccinated and to throw the kitchen sink at COVID once he was infected, Joe Rogan is an example of a person who is willing to treat an infection but not get vaccinated. I doubt he's the only one. > Additionally, in my experience, physicians aren't terribly concerned about infections in vaccinated individuals. Vaccination certainly reduces the incidence of hospitalization and death, and the data to date suggests that vaccinated individuals are less likely to develop "long COVID" symptoms. But there's still a lot we don't know. Research indicates that individuals with breakthrough infections can have viral loads that are as high as unvaccinated individuals, and some percentage report courses of illness that are virtually identical to a typical course of illness in unvaccinated individuals (respiratory symptoms, extreme fatigue, etc.) so I think it's premature to make too many assumptions. Especially since in immunologically naive people, some with "mild" or even largely asymptomatic infections also report lasting issues too.
- space_fountain 5y ago
  Edit: My understanding of the science here was at least slightly wrong. Please see the reply from LurkingPenguin and eventually my reply to them I think results like vaccinated individuals “can” have viral loads as high as unvaccinated individuals are next to useless. I need to know how likely I am to have high viral loads and my understanding of the science there is that vaccines still do a decent job of lowering the odds. I know you aren’t really arguing against vaccination here, but it seems like it needed to be said and I think the “vaccinated individuals can have high viral loads” line is particularly bad
  - LurkingPenguin 5y ago
    > I think the “vaccinated individuals can have high viral loads” line is particularly bad https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264262v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264262v... https://www.ucdavis.edu/health/covid-19/news/viral-loads-similar-between-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-people https://www.ucdavis.edu/health/covid-19/news/viral-loads-sim... How is a statement about what some researchers are finding "particularly bad"? If vaccinated individuals routinely have viral loads as high as those seen in unvaccinated individuals, it warrants more research into how the virus affects their bodies and what, if any, risks they might face both short term and long term. According to one study[1], vaccination reduces the risk of long COVID by 49%. Given that some studies have found the incidence of long COVID is in the double digit percentages[2], exploring this issue is not purely academic. It is pertinent to the hundreds of millions of vaccinated individuals who are still at risk of infection, even if their risk of hospitalization and death has been significantly reduced. Science works when we ask and investigate important questions. It doesn't work when we ignore these questions because we're afraid of the optics and how they might be misconstrued by some people. In fact, when it comes to COVID generally, it seems evident to me that shying away from difficult questions has had the opposite of the intended effect. It has probably caused more people to adopt anti-science views and reject beneficial measures like vaccination. [1] https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-09-02/risk-of-long-covid-falls-by-half-in-breakthrough-cases https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-09-02/... [2] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/more-than-one-third-of-covid-19-patients-may-experience-long-covid-symptoms https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/more-than-one-thir...
UncleOxidant 5y ago
> The vaccine-hesitant aren't going to go for treatment until the outlook is dire. Many of them seem quite willing to get ivermectin (whether it works or not is another issue). This is a tribal thing: one tribe has determined that the vaccine isn't something their tribe gets, but many of them seem willing to try other treatments that are acceptable to the tribe. (and yes, that's not rational, but humans are often irrational)
- Symmetry 5y ago
  It's too bad we couldn't arrange it so that one vaccine could be the "Trump vaccine" that Republicans could get and another could be the "Fauci vaccine" for Democrats. Then people could express their political affiliations in their medical choices but still get vaccinated. There were a lot of Democratic politicians talking about not trusting rushed vaccines a year ago and if that could have focused on specific vaccines and kept going maybe we'd be in a better place today with regards to vaccinations.
  - sterlind 5y ago
    My partner is ex-Christian Scientist (a faith-healing cult that doesn't believe in disease or medicine.) Zir whole family finally relented and got vaccinated, but they all got J+J. I don't know why that vaccine in particular (maybe because it's single-shot, so they only have to deal with hypocrisy once?) but that vaccine is popular with that cohort.
    - __blockcipher__ 5y ago
      Just out of curiosity- they used to be a christian scientist and now they’re not and go by xe/zir style pronouns? That’s quite a journey if so. As for J&J, yes it’s generally the fact that it’s one and done so it feels less risky to people that didn’t want to get vaccinated. Then there’s the whole mRNA thing as well.
      - InitialLastName 5y ago
subsubzero 5y ago
I agree, but vaccines in this case have their definite drawbacks as seen in vaccine-heavy Israel in that their effectiveness wears off after a few months. I have personally heard of a number of pretty bad breakthrough cases where a person has had a fever for almost a month, another was extremely sick and there are still people who are afraid of covid for this very reason(and they are vaccinated). Having an effective anti-viral solution will bring down the fear about these scenarios and get people back to work and bring normalcy to society again.
- bluGill 5y ago
  Lets be careful there. While vaccines do wear off, they are not wearing off nearly as fast as most people using that line are saying. Also, Isreal is no longer vaccine heavy. They were an early leader, but many other countries exceed their vaccine rates these days.
TurkishPoptart 5y ago
Not anymore. Because it turns out mRNA vaccination efficacy drops off after 6-9 months, which is why they're rolling out booster shots in my country. I fear that soon "fully vaccinated" will mean one has had a series of 4 shots by that point. (And if you don't like that, we're taking away your job).
- tragictrash 5y ago
  Well if you can't be trusted to not infect the people around you, yeah get the hell out. Its literally the only pragmatic way to deal with it.
  - TurkishPoptart 5y ago
    Bad faith argument here. The current vaccines are not like the MMR vaccine, for example. Vaccinated people can still contract and spread coronaviruses. So, a vaccine subscription where everyone needs shots every 6-12 months is not the _only_ pragmatic way to deal with it; it's just the option that's being shoved down all Americans' throats right now, ostensibly for the benefit of major pharma companies and other more nefarious reasons. SARS-CoV-2 is clearly not a death sentence, because more than 99% survive if they contract it. And there is a factor of natural immunity, which the US government is oddly trying to smokescreen/astroturf into "get vaccinated anyway". I am not "anti-vaccination". I had my shots. I am simply against government coercion to push not the best, but the most profitable solutions.
    - rsfern 5y ago
      > push not the best, but the most profitable solutions Don’t you think that cocktails of novel antiviral drugs are a higher profit margin solution then the vaccines that are already available? A remdesivir course costs almost two orders of magnitude more than an mRNA vaccine (in the US). Can’t really imagine these novel antiviral drugs will be much more affordable. To be clear, I do think both are important tools that we should use. Is there some other pragmatic solution you have in mind?
    - tragictrash 5y ago

LurkingPenguin 5y ago

> I feel like I'm pointing out the obvious, but another, extremely effect and quick "treatment" is vaccination. Does every discussion of about post-exposure prophylaxis have to have comments about vaccination? > And it works great without the constant need for testing. A primary reason for testing has been to help stop the spread of the virus (test positive = isolate), not necessarily to let people with mild symptoms or no symptoms know that they're infected. Vaccinated individuals can still spread the virus and some people are at higher risk even when vaccinated, so testing is still of value. > I have to imagine that anyone willing to undergo treatment at the very start of getting covid, would have also been willing to be vaccinated. That's quite an assumption. Without passing judgment about his decision not to get vaccinated and to throw the kitchen sink at COVID once he was infected, Joe Rogan is an example of a person who is willing to treat an infection but not get vaccinated. I doubt he's the only one. > Additionally, in my experience, physicians aren't terribly concerned about infections in vaccinated individuals. Vaccination certainly reduces the incidence of hospitalization and death, and the data to date suggests that vaccinated individuals are less likely to develop "long COVID" symptoms. But there's still a lot we don't know. Research indicates that individuals with breakthrough infections can have viral loads that are as high as unvaccinated individuals, and some percentage report courses of illness that are virtually identical to a typical course of illness in unvaccinated individuals (respiratory symptoms, extreme fatigue, etc.) so I think it's premature to make too many assumptions. Especially since in immunologically naive people, some with "mild" or even largely asymptomatic infections also report lasting issues too.

space_fountain 5y ago
Edit: My understanding of the science here was at least slightly wrong. Please see the reply from LurkingPenguin and eventually my reply to them I think results like vaccinated individuals “can” have viral loads as high as unvaccinated individuals are next to useless. I need to know how likely I am to have high viral loads and my understanding of the science there is that vaccines still do a decent job of lowering the odds. I know you aren’t really arguing against vaccination here, but it seems like it needed to be said and I think the “vaccinated individuals can have high viral loads” line is particularly bad
- LurkingPenguin 5y ago
  > I think the “vaccinated individuals can have high viral loads” line is particularly bad https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264262v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264262v... https://www.ucdavis.edu/health/covid-19/news/viral-loads-similar-between-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-people https://www.ucdavis.edu/health/covid-19/news/viral-loads-sim... How is a statement about what some researchers are finding "particularly bad"? If vaccinated individuals routinely have viral loads as high as those seen in unvaccinated individuals, it warrants more research into how the virus affects their bodies and what, if any, risks they might face both short term and long term. According to one study[1], vaccination reduces the risk of long COVID by 49%. Given that some studies have found the incidence of long COVID is in the double digit percentages[2], exploring this issue is not purely academic. It is pertinent to the hundreds of millions of vaccinated individuals who are still at risk of infection, even if their risk of hospitalization and death has been significantly reduced. Science works when we ask and investigate important questions. It doesn't work when we ignore these questions because we're afraid of the optics and how they might be misconstrued by some people. In fact, when it comes to COVID generally, it seems evident to me that shying away from difficult questions has had the opposite of the intended effect. It has probably caused more people to adopt anti-science views and reject beneficial measures like vaccination. [1] https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-09-02/risk-of-long-covid-falls-by-half-in-breakthrough-cases https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-09-02/... [2] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/more-than-one-third-of-covid-19-patients-may-experience-long-covid-symptoms https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/more-than-one-thir...

UncleOxidant 5y ago

> The vaccine-hesitant aren't going to go for treatment until the outlook is dire. Many of them seem quite willing to get ivermectin (whether it works or not is another issue). This is a tribal thing: one tribe has determined that the vaccine isn't something their tribe gets, but many of them seem willing to try other treatments that are acceptable to the tribe. (and yes, that's not rational, but humans are often irrational)

Symmetry 5y ago
It's too bad we couldn't arrange it so that one vaccine could be the "Trump vaccine" that Republicans could get and another could be the "Fauci vaccine" for Democrats. Then people could express their political affiliations in their medical choices but still get vaccinated. There were a lot of Democratic politicians talking about not trusting rushed vaccines a year ago and if that could have focused on specific vaccines and kept going maybe we'd be in a better place today with regards to vaccinations.
- sterlind 5y ago
  My partner is ex-Christian Scientist (a faith-healing cult that doesn't believe in disease or medicine.) Zir whole family finally relented and got vaccinated, but they all got J+J. I don't know why that vaccine in particular (maybe because it's single-shot, so they only have to deal with hypocrisy once?) but that vaccine is popular with that cohort.
  - __blockcipher__ 5y ago
    Just out of curiosity- they used to be a christian scientist and now they’re not and go by xe/zir style pronouns? That’s quite a journey if so. As for J&J, yes it’s generally the fact that it’s one and done so it feels less risky to people that didn’t want to get vaccinated. Then there’s the whole mRNA thing as well.
    - InitialLastName 5y ago

subsubzero 5y ago

I agree, but vaccines in this case have their definite drawbacks as seen in vaccine-heavy Israel in that their effectiveness wears off after a few months. I have personally heard of a number of pretty bad breakthrough cases where a person has had a fever for almost a month, another was extremely sick and there are still people who are afraid of covid for this very reason(and they are vaccinated). Having an effective anti-viral solution will bring down the fear about these scenarios and get people back to work and bring normalcy to society again.

bluGill 5y ago
Lets be careful there. While vaccines do wear off, they are not wearing off nearly as fast as most people using that line are saying. Also, Isreal is no longer vaccine heavy. They were an early leader, but many other countries exceed their vaccine rates these days.

TurkishPoptart 5y ago

Not anymore. Because it turns out mRNA vaccination efficacy drops off after 6-9 months, which is why they're rolling out booster shots in my country. I fear that soon "fully vaccinated" will mean one has had a series of 4 shots by that point. (And if you don't like that, we're taking away your job).

tragictrash 5y ago
Well if you can't be trusted to not infect the people around you, yeah get the hell out. Its literally the only pragmatic way to deal with it.
- TurkishPoptart 5y ago
  Bad faith argument here. The current vaccines are not like the MMR vaccine, for example. Vaccinated people can still contract and spread coronaviruses. So, a vaccine subscription where everyone needs shots every 6-12 months is not the _only_ pragmatic way to deal with it; it's just the option that's being shoved down all Americans' throats right now, ostensibly for the benefit of major pharma companies and other more nefarious reasons. SARS-CoV-2 is clearly not a death sentence, because more than 99% survive if they contract it. And there is a factor of natural immunity, which the US government is oddly trying to smokescreen/astroturf into "get vaccinated anyway". I am not "anti-vaccination". I had my shots. I am simply against government coercion to push not the best, but the most profitable solutions.
  - rsfern 5y ago
    > push not the best, but the most profitable solutions Don’t you think that cocktails of novel antiviral drugs are a higher profit margin solution then the vaccines that are already available? A remdesivir course costs almost two orders of magnitude more than an mRNA vaccine (in the US). Can’t really imagine these novel antiviral drugs will be much more affordable. To be clear, I do think both are important tools that we should use. Is there some other pragmatic solution you have in mind?
  - tragictrash 5y ago