Booster and office access has been such a ringing dissonance for me.
For boosters, I'm "too healthy" and do not qualify under even the most generous reading of the CDC guidance.
On office access, my office is still not open while the rest of my family has gone back to work/school. My spouse is higher risk and my kids only got their first shots last week.
So why the fuck am I, "the low risk one", stuck at home alone all day? Who the fuck am I protecting? What is the point anymore?
Like most situations (at least in CA) involving the pandemic, doing it a wrong way is easier than doing it the right way. All the people I know who got their boosters simply lied and said they were eligible. Nobody checks. Just like back when the vaccines first emerged: The easiest way to get one early was to just lie. Nobody checked back then, either. Ironically, also the easiest way to comply with any vaccine mandate, so far, has been to just lie and say you are vaccinated and/or present a fake card. You can basically do anything, with a white piece of cardboard that says "Mickey Mouse" on it. Nobody verifies anything. It's all incompetence and blind trust from officials, top to bottom, which incentivizes taking the easier, dishonest path.
It's like getting pulled over and being able to say "trust me officer, I've got a license" and they believe you. Honesty and waiting your turn buys you nothing. Total incompetence.
> So why the fuck am I, "the low risk one", stuck at home alone all day? Who the fuck am I protecting?
It's not about you.
I'm not convinced that boosters should be required, in order to go back to work. But, really, to answer your question: It's not about you. It's about the people you're around. At work.
Just like everything else with COVID -- the reality is that we have to account for the affect on everyone, and not just ourselves. Individually, we have extremely low odds of suffering the worst from COVID. Collectively, hospitals have overflowed, 700,000+ people in the States have died, and many are suffering long-term health consequences.
It's not about you. It's about everyone.
That being said: I'm in Canada, where boosters are still uncommon. I've never heard of any booster requirements, just to go into the office.
You can qualify a lot of F’d up policy just by saying “it’s not about you, it’s about everyone!”
When we were dealing with a completely and utterly unknown virus for which we had no information, no effective responses, no useful therapies or treatments, no real understanding of how it spread, no vaccines, and not even a clear idea of where community spread already happened, taking some extreme measures in response to a pandemic made sense.
We now have much better information than we had plus vaccines faster than we ever had vaccines in response to a new pandemic before plus the resilience of the COVID survivors, both known survivors and unknown survivors, and useful therapies and treatments.
The risk calculus has changed and so must the response shift from the public to the private: from government to individual.
This bears repeating every time this gets mentioned:
In the US, even before the pandemic, it was "standard" for ICUs at most level 1 trauma centers and tertiary care facilities to operate at 80-90% capacity[1] and for ERs to be overwhelmed by patients in bad flu years[2].
SARS-CoV-2 is basically already an endemic virus, just like influenza, and in the near-term it is absolutely unrealistic to expect that somehow miraculously unlike influenza, it won't have a material impact on hospital utilization rates.
You're missing the dissonance part: all the people around me, who are high risk, are at work or school. I am classed as low risk (= no booster) yet I'm perma-WFH. If it's not about me, what is it about?
Also to clarify, I'm very much NOT arguing for forcing people to return to work or an in-person model of work. In fact, I quite like the "remote style" of work and would continue it even while in person. I just miss my commute and the scene.
That's the only thing I can work out - they are worried about one person getting sick and dying on campus from a back to work mandate - then what happens?
This is complete nonsense and only benefits the pockets of lawyers, pharma companies, and the media.
If this reasoning was logically sound then the same should apply for all of the existing fatal diseases listed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics. Let's also not forget seasonal flu.
Lots of people are justifying this as if it's logical, but ultimately rules like this are the result of bureaucracy.
Most likely your office is still WFH because nobody cares. Maybe nobody else wants to go back, maybe the company saves money, maybe someone high-up is still nervous about covid, probably a combination of those three.
It's similar to how at most places there are signs everywhere saying "please remain 6 feet apart", "due to covid ..." and people don't even follow these rules. Nobody bothered to take the signs down.
Ultimately if you're vaccinated, there's not really a point to masking or social distancing. The exception is masking in public areas like supermarkets and doctors' offices where sick people have to go and it's not a big deal. Or in areas where there is hospitals are overflowing and there are too many unvaccinated, like earlier in the year.
Probably has more to do with how office is calculating their collective risks in business-as-usual on site than with your specific risk.
And beyond that, limits on individual activity have as much to do with collective regional transmission rate as they do with individual risk (though CA numbers look pretty decent recently).
- The risk that you would spread COVID to other people if you caught COVID
- How productive you can be at home compared to your office/school
Your overall health only impacts the first one which is why you haven't been eligible for a booster. You still have just as much risk of spreading COVID as anyone else so unless you would be much more efficient at the office/school, it still makes sense to stay home.
For example, I would bet you would agree that your kids are getting more out of going to school rather than doing it remotely so that third variable shifts the overall equation to favor them returning to in person schooling.
Not sure how old kids are or if you really have a choice at this stage, but it does seem Germany, France, Scandanavia, Taiwan have halted at least Moderna for the youth and now even Pfizer (Taiwan).
Saying because people in my family didn't know about this, and would have wanted this relatively new information to help make a decision.
Yeah, actually. I biked to work. It was great exercise, physically and mentally. The change of scenery was a good shift and being downtown with lots of coworkers and people was invigorating. Biking was also pretty core to my identity. Not in a "spandex/lycra" way (don't own any) but it's probably one of the first things people would start with when describing me. Now that's all gone cuz I've got no where to go.
A debate wouldn't be productive but let's just say a cafe or park is not a long term solution.
I'm surprised that booster shots had eligibility requirements to begin with, it didn't seem like there was a boatload of general interest in getting one.
For people outside of Cali, the requirements are pretty broad and the forms themselves state that no one will ask which of the requirements apply to you. One entire class of requirements is for working in "high-risk" settings. The medical risks requirements list is a mile long, and includes a BMI of >25 kg/m^2, which includes upwards of 75% of Americans.
Now is prime time to be giving out boosters. With the holidays coming up, waning immunity from people who got their vaccines early, and another wave on the horizon, it makes complete sense to let as many people get boosters now, that way, they have maximum defence coming into the holidays.
https://www.unicef.org/supply/covid-19-vaccine-market-dashbo... says that 20.9 billion doses have been secured, or about 2.6 doses for every person on earth. Now, distribution is undoubtedly still a problem in some regions of the world, but it does look like there are plenty of doses available. At this stage, I don't think taking an extra dose equates to someone else not getting one.
My understanding is that if there are doses available in your location, they will probably not be relocated to another location, and will likely just sit there until they're used or go bad. So as long as there's an excess of supply where you are, there's no harm to anyone else to make use of them, because the chances of them going to another country where people need their initial doses is pretty slim to none.
(Of course if everyone takes this advice to the point where there stops being enough supply in your area, then that will probably trigger larger orders for doses, which maybe could impact other places that need them more.)
Anyone age-appropriate in the US who wants a booster can get one. I'm not sure I technically qualify--I didn't when I got one--but pharmacies etc. won't, and almost certainly can't, make decisions about whether you get one or not.
You can get a booster shot pretty much anywhere in the US by self-declaring you're in a high risk category. Since that includes being overweight, a lot of people can get their boosters in full good conscience. Walgreens is one place where there's almost no wait.
I see nothing wrong with this, now that the vaccines appear to be in plentiful supply. If you think you need the extra protection, why not?
It would have been different back in the early days, when there wasn't enough to go around. Then it made sense to restrict vaccines to the most vulnerable (elderly, people in poor health, people who are exposed a lot in the course of their employment...)
My understanding is that Booster shots are extremely effective at further preventing the spread of Covid. Indeed, the first result I get when searching "covid booster effectiveness" says that booster shots reduce infections by a factor of 11:
If someone can't get a first or second dose, it's because their government is fucked up in some way, not because there is a shortage of the raw vaccines.
I have an appointment for getting my booster shot next month. Won't hurt me and might save me from hospitalization or worse. I know several people that have had Covid at this point. Several of those had a rough time. A few of them were vaccinated and mostly had minor symptoms (comparatively) but still not nice.
For me the reasoning is very simple: I want to maximize my chances if I get infected and minimize my chances for actually getting infected. Vaccines do that. And I definitely want to minimize the risk of me spreading this to somebody else that might actually die. For example, I know of one case of a person that got infected and then visited his parents. They died; he lives apparently. COVID sucks.
Those still arguing that it's all a big com-plot by Bill Gates or whatever, stop being selfish needle shy dicks, and get vaccinated already. Lets face it, men are pathetic weasels when it comes to needles and that's all there's to this. Been there done that. Get over it. People are dying. Don't be part of the problem and stop rationalizing the fact that you are scared of a tiny little needle.
This messaging is horrifically bad. No one in the CA government is directly saying everyone should get the booster it seems like.
"Allow patients to self-determine their risk of exposure" -> ??? I'm not a doctor, why are you making me do that?
"If you think you will benefit from getting a booster shot, I encourage you to go out and get it" -> ??? Everyone would technically benefit, why are you not just saying everyone?
In another article: "Ghaly said that guidance is in line with the federal government’s eligibility rules for booster shots" -> ??? It's not! "Wanting a booster" is not one of the eligibility criteria.
I'm going to get the booster soon, even though I don't qualify under CDC guidelines, to be clear. But only because CA is giving me the wink-wink, nudge-nudge that I can just ignore the guidelines and go get one. No one will ask questions.
Its not just California that is making it easy to qualify. I know many people get doses from CVS because they don't ask any questions about eligibility. My sister and her family all got booster doses because even boosters were approved.
> People in California who are 18 and older are eligible for a COVID booster shot as long as at least six months have passed their second dose of the two-shot Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or two months must have passed since their Johnson & Johnson shot.
What's the protocol for six months having passed but also tested positive for COVID? Like, this guidance here is pretty clear, but it doesn't seem to be enough to judge personal risk tolerance.
I don't think I'm getting a booster. I could be swayed one way or the other depending on new information that comes out. I already had Moderna at the start of the year which has the higher load among the vaccines and I'm not really at risk. I'd be interested to know the risk of myocarditis from a booster versus being exposed to the real virus once fully vaccinated.
Children can't get boosters, what are you talking about? Paul Offit does not think anyone under 30 should. I suppose they could if they have a hardly functioning immune system, but a third dose might not work either.
Readit News
For boosters, I'm "too healthy" and do not qualify under even the most generous reading of the CDC guidance.
On office access, my office is still not open while the rest of my family has gone back to work/school. My spouse is higher risk and my kids only got their first shots last week.
So why the fuck am I, "the low risk one", stuck at home alone all day? Who the fuck am I protecting? What is the point anymore?
It's like getting pulled over and being able to say "trust me officer, I've got a license" and they believe you. Honesty and waiting your turn buys you nothing. Total incompetence.
It's not about you.
I'm not convinced that boosters should be required, in order to go back to work. But, really, to answer your question: It's not about you. It's about the people you're around. At work.
Just like everything else with COVID -- the reality is that we have to account for the affect on everyone, and not just ourselves. Individually, we have extremely low odds of suffering the worst from COVID. Collectively, hospitals have overflowed, 700,000+ people in the States have died, and many are suffering long-term health consequences.
It's not about you. It's about everyone.
That being said: I'm in Canada, where boosters are still uncommon. I've never heard of any booster requirements, just to go into the office.
When we were dealing with a completely and utterly unknown virus for which we had no information, no effective responses, no useful therapies or treatments, no real understanding of how it spread, no vaccines, and not even a clear idea of where community spread already happened, taking some extreme measures in response to a pandemic made sense.
We now have much better information than we had plus vaccines faster than we ever had vaccines in response to a new pandemic before plus the resilience of the COVID survivors, both known survivors and unknown survivors, and useful therapies and treatments.
The risk calculus has changed and so must the response shift from the public to the private: from government to individual.
This bears repeating every time this gets mentioned:
In the US, even before the pandemic, it was "standard" for ICUs at most level 1 trauma centers and tertiary care facilities to operate at 80-90% capacity[1] and for ERs to be overwhelmed by patients in bad flu years[2].
SARS-CoV-2 is basically already an endemic virus, just like influenza, and in the near-term it is absolutely unrealistic to expect that somehow miraculously unlike influenza, it won't have a material impact on hospital utilization rates.
[1] https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/patient-flow/2-healthc...
[2] https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patie...
Also to clarify, I'm very much NOT arguing for forcing people to return to work or an in-person model of work. In fact, I quite like the "remote style" of work and would continue it even while in person. I just miss my commute and the scene.
That's the only thing I can work out - they are worried about one person getting sick and dying on campus from a back to work mandate - then what happens?
If this reasoning was logically sound then the same should apply for all of the existing fatal diseases listed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics. Let's also not forget seasonal flu.
Most likely your office is still WFH because nobody cares. Maybe nobody else wants to go back, maybe the company saves money, maybe someone high-up is still nervous about covid, probably a combination of those three.
It's similar to how at most places there are signs everywhere saying "please remain 6 feet apart", "due to covid ..." and people don't even follow these rules. Nobody bothered to take the signs down.
Ultimately if you're vaccinated, there's not really a point to masking or social distancing. The exception is masking in public areas like supermarkets and doctors' offices where sick people have to go and it's not a big deal. Or in areas where there is hospitals are overflowing and there are too many unvaccinated, like earlier in the year.
And beyond that, limits on individual activity have as much to do with collective regional transmission rate as they do with individual risk (though CA numbers look pretty decent recently).
- Your personal risk if you caught COVID
- The risk that you would spread COVID to other people if you caught COVID
- How productive you can be at home compared to your office/school
Your overall health only impacts the first one which is why you haven't been eligible for a booster. You still have just as much risk of spreading COVID as anyone else so unless you would be much more efficient at the office/school, it still makes sense to stay home.
For example, I would bet you would agree that your kids are getting more out of going to school rather than doing it remotely so that third variable shifts the overall equation to favor them returning to in person schooling.
Saying because people in my family didn't know about this, and would have wanted this relatively new information to help make a decision.
Given a choice, she'd rather be the one that's home all day but that's sadly not to be.
Maybe it would help to work from a cafe, or even outside on a picnic table. You can tether to your phone.
Of all the things I miss from pre-pandemic life, commuting in to the office is NOT one of them.
A debate wouldn't be productive but let's just say a cafe or park is not a long term solution.
I'm not looking for everyday, but one day a week would be nice to have more interactive discussions about the work that week etc.
Dead Comment
For people outside of Cali, the requirements are pretty broad and the forms themselves state that no one will ask which of the requirements apply to you. One entire class of requirements is for working in "high-risk" settings. The medical risks requirements list is a mile long, and includes a BMI of >25 kg/m^2, which includes upwards of 75% of Americans.
Now is prime time to be giving out boosters. With the holidays coming up, waning immunity from people who got their vaccines early, and another wave on the horizon, it makes complete sense to let as many people get boosters now, that way, they have maximum defence coming into the holidays.
Some do, especially under the BMI cutoff, but how are they supposed to know that? They're otherwise healthy.
I don't qualify, but CA is giving me the wink-wink, nudge-nudge that I can just ignore the guidelines and go get one. No one will ask questions.
The messaging is incredibly bad and inconsistent.
(Of course if everyone takes this advice to the point where there stops being enough supply in your area, then that will probably trigger larger orders for doses, which maybe could impact other places that need them more.)
Dead Comment
It would have been different back in the early days, when there wasn't enough to go around. Then it made sense to restrict vaccines to the most vulnerable (elderly, people in poor health, people who are exposed a lot in the course of their employment...)
My understanding is that Booster shots are extremely effective at further preventing the spread of Covid. Indeed, the first result I get when searching "covid booster effectiveness" says that booster shots reduce infections by a factor of 11:
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/09/studies-...
And if you don't get infected, you can't spread it. So there should be a big public health benefit to giving boosters to as many people as possible.
Am I misunderstanding something, or was the reasoning behind the recommendation stupid?
If there's plenty to go around, why not let people decide that for themselves?
Edit:
https://www.unicef.org/supply/covid-19-vaccine-market-dashbo...
20.9 billion doses have been secured.
If someone can't get a first or second dose, it's because their government is fucked up in some way, not because there is a shortage of the raw vaccines.
For me the reasoning is very simple: I want to maximize my chances if I get infected and minimize my chances for actually getting infected. Vaccines do that. And I definitely want to minimize the risk of me spreading this to somebody else that might actually die. For example, I know of one case of a person that got infected and then visited his parents. They died; he lives apparently. COVID sucks.
Those still arguing that it's all a big com-plot by Bill Gates or whatever, stop being selfish needle shy dicks, and get vaccinated already. Lets face it, men are pathetic weasels when it comes to needles and that's all there's to this. Been there done that. Get over it. People are dying. Don't be part of the problem and stop rationalizing the fact that you are scared of a tiny little needle.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Allow patients to self-determine their risk of exposure" -> ??? I'm not a doctor, why are you making me do that?
"If you think you will benefit from getting a booster shot, I encourage you to go out and get it" -> ??? Everyone would technically benefit, why are you not just saying everyone?
In another article: "Ghaly said that guidance is in line with the federal government’s eligibility rules for booster shots" -> ??? It's not! "Wanting a booster" is not one of the eligibility criteria.
I'm going to get the booster soon, even though I don't qualify under CDC guidelines, to be clear. But only because CA is giving me the wink-wink, nudge-nudge that I can just ignore the guidelines and go get one. No one will ask questions.
What's the protocol for six months having passed but also tested positive for COVID? Like, this guidance here is pretty clear, but it doesn't seem to be enough to judge personal risk tolerance.
Dead Comment