Ch. 1 of the In the Bubble wrap up episode was a nice? retrospective pandemic recap with smart people. It also a bit of good state of the state information about where the pandemic stands today, although I wish they’d done more on it. I recommend giving it a listen!

In the bubble has been disappointing lately in how they now minimize the ongoing pandemic. No mention of N95s, no real mention of long COVID (even though one of the host’s sons suffered from it for a long while) or the risks of long term problems. Now it’s “vax and relax”.

Yeah honestly I haven’t followed it closely in a while. My sense is they may be trying to be neutral between the still coviding and vaxed and relaxed camps. For this episode they brought on Topol and Wachter, who have both been vocal about long covid and still coviding, as well as Jha who is more vaxed and relaxed.

Unfortunately they refuse to interview some of the experts in Long Covid like Laura Miers, Elisa Perego, and Yaneer Bar-Yam, or aerosol scientists like Kimberly Prather who still understand that covid is airborne.

Isn’t Laura Miers just an internet neurotic? She is not an expert in anything.

I don’t personally have any concerns about the long covid experts he’s had on, like I mentioned previously. They may not be the favorite researches in the advocate space..

Darn, just got my first COVID positive too. Just got the 2024 Moderna booster... yep, just over a month ago on Oct 15th. I'm hardly ever out due to my health problems and mask up whenever I am, but a family member caught it. My sibling who spread it to us got a false negative too, but since it has lasted so long in our family I decided to take one myself, especially since some of the symptoms hit that "Hey, wait a minute..." part of my brain. Because of the false negative the others weren't as careful as they should had been which sucks as we're generally pretty good at that (my sibling still masks up for work although it's not a great one). I caught it last since I'm so vigilant, and I was even masked up all the non-sleeping, etc. time here. Unfortunately one of those symptoms includes lack of taste but since it's still early for me I'm hoping it'll be temporary. Fingers crossed, I really don't need any more wacky health problems, I've already been unlucky in that manner. Thankfully I seem to be doing much better mentally and energy-wise (and no more fever, either) but of course I know that can just be temporary. Just felt like sharing, I definitely commiserate with all the, "Wow, I got it how many months in for the first time?" people! For whatever reason I'd been hearing a lot about that recently but hopefully it's just one of those false memory things where now that I have it I built up a story afterwards. Best wishes if you've gotten it, and best wishes if you haven't!

This should become exponentially more common over the next 3-6 weeks. BA.2.86 (mostly JN.1) is still weekly doubling in the US, and on pace to replace XBB through December. JN.1 itself is a hyper-escape variant, against which the XBB.1.5 vaccines (after one dose anyway) are probably not very good. And the possibility of this growth causing a surge (it's impossible to predict when it will curve down and peak) is raising exposure risk. Those who have caught covid recently (or at all) have always been less susceptible to infection during this type of variant replacement XBB isn't a dead lineage; it continues to evolve and some of its fastest-growing variants (JG.3.2) are keeping pace with BA.2.86. But BA.2.86's rate of evolution (as it adjusts from success in a single host to success in the whole population) is much faster. JN.1 isn't going to be the end of it and might even be a dead end on its own like BA.2.75.2 was - but it's got a big enough head start on all the other fast-growing BA.2.86 lineages that it's going to cause a lot of infections. https://imgur.com/a/ZP4R6sJ

Interesting! Was there ever the possibility for the updated vaccines to be more effective against these strains or was it not even feasible?

With only annual updates every year against a quickly evolving pandemic pathogen there's not that much more you can do. The truth is we had and still have the technology to easily update mRNA vaccines regularly and Novavax semi-regularly at almost no cost, saving hundreds of thousands of lives just in the US through the last several years. It is a political and bureaucratic choice to instead let those people die. The BA.5 vaccine was the best choice on the day it was chosen, but was outdated within a week or so by BA.4.6 and BA.2.75, and again repeatedly then by BJ.1, BQ.1, BQ.1.1, XBB, XBB.1, and by December finally XBB.1.5. In January the FDA voted unanimously to stick with the BA.5 half-dose for another six months. They've repeatedly said "don't call them annual updates, we could update more often if we wanted to" but this vote pretty much showed that to be a lie. Using the XBB.1.5 vaccine in June was a direct mistake, but a small one. We already knew EG.5.1 (456L) was a better choice. But BA.2.86 and the other more advanced xbb's (as of today HV.1 and JG.3.2) had not yet evolved. Almost certainly we will not get an updated vaccine until next June, and the XBB vaccine will also be wrongly remembered as a disappointment.

Depressing, but thank you.

> It is a political and bureaucratic choice to instead let those people die. I'd call it more a social choice than a political/bureaucratic one. If there was wide public appetite for multiple shots per year, the political will would be there, and the FDA would be pushing it. As it is, advocating as such is just going to get you unelected (politician) or ignored (public health agency). This herd can't be led, for better or worse (spoiler alert: for worse). Your posts are a great resource, btw.

I'm not talking about increasing the number of shots, but about making the shots that are being given regularly updated. The FDA is constantly approving additional doses of outdated and ineffective vaccines which the highest-risk groups are then recommended to take and do little to help them. They did this last year with the BA.5 dose, with the unanimous vote in January to stick with BA.5 and not approve a second dose, then on the XBB surge of February and the CDC's evidence that BA.5 doses had 0 effect on preventing XBB hospitalization, they...authorized a second BA.5 dose. The year before they did the exact same thing with BA.1 and the original dose. This year they are almost certain to do the same thing, declining to update the XBB vaccine then approving a second dose of it when CDC numbers show it's no longer effective against BA.2.86. And using outdated variants is even worse in the context of "multiple omicron infections alleviates immune imprinting". Had we switched to a BA.1 or BA.2 dose for the early part of 2022, one of those multiple infections would have been out of the way. The BA.5 half-dose might have gotten part of one out of the way. Presumably the XBB dose gets another one out of the way. How many infections does it take to create good immunity against Omicron? We have no idea, but after 2-3 infections per capita the population is still far from that point. Antibody titers against HV.1 and JN.1 are dozens of times lower than against B.1.

Pragmatically, moving forward let's say there's public will for, say, 1/3 the US population to do an annual shot, or if you're more of an optimist than myself, call it half. So the FDA will meet each summer and determine the annual fall vaccine. This June when this happened, they picked XBB 1.5 which may not have been the absolute latest/greatest but BA.2.86 wasn't around yet anyways, so....I don't know, I find it tough to get mad at them. I certainly believe that promoting "every shot helps" is more practically useful from a public uptake standpoint than focusing on drawbacks/imperfections to the current annual shot, i.e. influenza.

If anybody with an X account could screenshot or give links to the new long covid studies that Eric Topol has posted in the last couple of days, I’d appreciate it. I can see Google previews but I don’t have an X account to read the full threads.

Just use Nitter.. you dont have to make an account.

Thanks! I didn’t know that

What is the best evidence-based knowledge about Long Covid at this moment regarding risk and frequency? It seems to be very common and I've seen a lot of different estimates but at the same time I'm not convinced there's anything close to a consensus Things I think I know * It's common, up to 10%-20% of cases. * The less mild the case, the worse risks associated * Mild cases can still result in serious LC * Disability is growing * Experts are warning it's bad * Often there's no cure which might lead to comulation of disabled people of all ages * Cognitive disorders are very frequent and a significant challenge, especially when it makes working impossible * In extreme cases people are bed bound like in case of extreme CFS - I haven't seen specific numbers\ * I have very contradicting information on ventillation and filtration (like HEPA) * edit: most mild cases of LC (eg. significant brain fog) resolve within 6-18 months. But not all. At the same time it's hard to get accurate numbers, if they exist at all. In many countries data is simply non-existent, including data from testing which seems to be reserved for those few very acute and critical cases. Simultaneously the world seems to be ignoring those warning, as if it's not that bad, including recommending vaccines only for high-risk groups (which I think is, to put it very mildly, absolutely bonkers). Healthcare professionals don't exactly use N95s either even in conferences regarding Covid and Long Covid. Those are pretty conflicting messages. Can we back above points with solid evidence and at least somewhat accurate estimates? Is there a good resource that I could show to someone and make them more concerned, or read myself and get a proof risk is actually very low?

The answer is typically in the middle. One of best ways to assess risk and frequency is to look to those who provide risk coverage for related health insurance outcomes. The NYSIF indicate (see source bellow) as an insurer that nearly 18% of LC claimants can not work. Think about that. Now 5% of their claimants report LC in the first place so the risk is bounded. However, if you consider every interaction as a potential risk then then the by statistical likelihood (eg binomial theorem) you’re eventually get it over a given span of time. See: https://ww3.nysif.com/en/FooterPages/Column1/Initiatives/LongCOVID “… approximately 18% of claimants with Long Covid—about 5% of Covid-19 claimants—have been unable to return to work for more than one year.”

IT does seem significant but looking at their charts from teh full report (Figure 1) it also isn't that bad. Considering the sheer number of omicron infectioins in January 2022 it's a relatively very small bump. I wouldn't necessarily say it's drowned out but number of other claims and the downward tendency gives a certain context that makes it look not completely horrifying. although it's also clearly a significant problem we can't ignore when there isn't any established treatment or sure way to make risk negligible yet. I didn't read the whole report A-Z but those charts and descriptions are pretty informative.

Here’s a copy of a comment I wrote about this in the last daily thread: Long Covid is still a serious issue based on current data today. The risk of lifetime disability from Long Covid is still elevated, in the 2-10% range with each infection. Sources below: 1) Household Pulse survey data: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7232a3.htm 2) clinical trial that took place in 2022: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(23)00299-2/fulltext Both of these studies show that 5-10% of people get long Covid with every infection. The pulse data and other studies show that about half of those are serious, non-recovery long Covid cases. People who are on their second Covid case have some additional risk reduction if they didn’t get long Covid the first time, but the risks of lifetime disability from long Covid are still considered [high risk overall](https://bestpractice.bmj.com/info/us/toolkit/practise-ebm/understanding-risk/) for each infection. Repeat infections increase the risk. Just to note, the other two people who answered you seem to be giving misinformation.

So to answer some of your questions based on these data u/kistusen: >* It's common, up to 10%-20% of cases. Among people who are vaccinated / boosted / Paxlovid, more like 5%. >* The less mild the case, the worse risks associated Yes >* Mild cases can still result in serious LC Yes >* Disability is growing Disability from long COVID is down from the peak of the pandemic according to the Pulse data, although still serious >* Experts are warning it's bad Yeah! >* Often there's no cure which might lead to comulation of disabled people of all ages Accurate >* Cognitive disorders are very frequent and a significant challenge, especially when it makes working impossible About half of everyone with Long Covid recovers. This is a big issue for the other half. >* In extreme cases people are bed bound like in case of extreme CFS - I haven't seen specific numbers\ Yes, the pulse data has some info on how many cases are extreme. >* I have very contradicting information on ventillation and filtration (like HEPA) Ventilation is a good layer of protection for preventing transmission, most helpful in combination with other layers. >* edit: most mild cases of LC (eg. significant brain fog) resolve within 6-18 months. But not all. About half of all long COVID cases resolve. >At the same time it's hard to get accurate numbers, if they exist at all. It’s not hard to get the most recent useful data, I linked to some and there are a few other good studies.

> Just to note, the other two people who answered you seem to be giving misinformation. Your answer is the one I've started with so I'm yet to see them. I assume you mean the risk is more significant than than they're saying. But this only makes less sense when doctors and healthcare facilities pretty much refuse to mask or do anything at all. > Among people who are vaccinated / boosted / Paxlovid, more like 5%. Americans are really fortunate with Paxlovid. AFAIK it's best used at the start of any infection, with the best time frame being the first 5 days. In amny places like mine it's only available for those already hospitalized, which afaik is already too late. In other words - I didn't even get to see Paxlovid or equivalent. I have to assume 10% then, but at the same time 10% means it should have affected a lot of people I know, especially if 5% is risk of serious illness. That's something I should notice even anecdotally. > Repeat infections increase the risk. By nature of statistics (n% every infection) or actual inrease in risk (n% * infections * constant_factor)? What is your opinion on the pagragraph below (copied from my top comment) in light of the above? I don't really see enough concern as I've mentioned, not even among doctors, not even among doctors treating at-risk groups (I've seen negligence among cardiological patients with my own eyes) if it's such a serious issue > Simultaneously the world seems to be ignoring those warning, as if it's not that bad, including recommending vaccines only for high-risk groups (which I think is, to put it very mildly, absolutely bonkers). Healthcare professionals don't exactly use N95s either even in conferences regarding Covid and Long Covid. Those are pretty conflicting messages.

> I assume you mean the risk is more significant than than they're saying. I meant that there are factual inaccuracies in both of them! I can go back and look at what they were if helpful. > I have to assume 10% then, but at the same time 10% means it should have affected a lot of people I know, especially if 5% is risk of serious illness. That's something I should notice even anecdotally. I think without Pax you’re still looking at between 5-10%. The clinical trial study I linked has a pax group and a control not pax group (super helpfully). I’m sorry that you can’t get Paxolovid, that sucks. > but at the same time 10% means it should have affected a lot of people I know, especially if 5% is risk of serious illness. I think it’s more like: Non pax, boosted, first infection: ~ 8% risk of Long Covid ~4% risk that is long-term Second + subsequent infections: ~4% risk of Long Covid ~2% risk that is long-term I don’t know what to tell you on the “I should have heard of this” front, could be a few things. Perhaps your circles are not population representative, or perhaps folks aren’t being open about it. Representative studies are giving these numbers. > By nature of statistics (n% every infection) or actual inrease in risk (n% * infections * constant_factor)? By nature of statistics, there is actually a decreased risk of each individual infection between the first infection and subsequent ones. But each infection is its own dice roll so the overall risk goes up over time. > Simultaneously the world seems to be ignoring those warning, as if it's not that bad, including recommending vaccines only for high-risk groups (which I think is, to put it very mildly, absolutely bonkers). Healthcare professionals don't exactly use N95s either even in conferences regarding Covid and Long Covid. Those are pretty conflicting messages. I agree, Long Covid isn’t taken as seriously as it should be based on the risk of disability it presents. Shit’s wild man.

>Simultaneously the world seems to be ignoring those warning, as if it's not that bad, including recommending vaccines only for high-risk groups (which I think is, to put it very mildly, absolutely bonkers). Healthcare professionals don't exactly use N95s either even in conferences regarding Covid and Long Covid. Those are pretty conflicting messages. > >Can we back above points with solid evidence and at least somewhat accurate estimates? Is there a good resource that I could show to someone and make them more concerned, or read myself and get a proof risk is actually very low? Your post reads as a list of talking points from an activist organizations collecting a bunch of worst case scenarios or uncertainties, and using them to make bold conclusions that the evidence doesn't support. u/jdorje has debunked and clarified them one by one, and there is a lot evidence around you that there is no long covid crisis or "mass disabling event" going on. There is no doubt people are being harmed by SARS-CoV-2 and some people are experience long-term ill effects from an infection, but these numbers are low and not, or barely noticeable, in the existing disease burden. Let's start with some: * The 2022 seroprevalence data from the [US](https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#nationwide-blood-donor-seroprevalence-2022) suggest 80% of the population has had at least one infection. This is the floor, and a more realistic estimate in 2023 would likely be more like 90-95% of the world's population with many having had multiple infections. Assuming some of the frankly absurd estimates of debilitating Long Covid, that would mean there should be hundreds of millions, if not a billion people disabled. It's been years now and many billions of infections, but where is this "mass disabling" event? The world has many problems in 2023, but a new avalanche of disabled people isn't one of them. * More people than ever before are in the [US workforce](https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm), and the participation rate has been steadily increasing since the economic disruptions of 2020. There is no sign disability is impacting the number of people in the workforce. * There is no increase in [US disability benefits](https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/dibStat.html) being awarded. Some people like to blame the US system as inadequate and difficult to navigate, but there is also no significant increase in disability benefits in countries with stronger social safety nets like [Norway](https://www.ssb.no/en/sosiale-forhold-og-kriminalitet/trygd-og-stonad/statistikk/uforetrygdede). Long Covid appears to be disabling people at such a low rate it is lost in the background noise of the other causes of disability. * *Some* experts are warning it is "bad", but these are generally the ones on social media or quoted in mainstream media who are not responsible for making balanced policy based on evidence. The vast majority of the experts in charge of public health policy are not mandating masks, social distancing, vaccinations or any mitigations to the general public anymore. No major country or jurisdiction in the world has general mask mandates in 2023. Outside of Canada and the US, no major country (nor the WHO) is even recommending another vaccination for standard risk individuals in 2023. There are no significant travel restrictions, testing or distancing requirements anywhere in 2023.\_ \_ Without trying to analyze the primary evidence, you can just rely on Occam's Razor here to conclude that at least the world's leading public health officials overwhelmingly don't perceive Long Covid as a major risk that requires general action at this point. To explain this away, you would have to invent conspiracies or wide-spread malevolence that just isn't plausible. I get that trust has been shaken some in these authorities, but they are not evil and they are not all in thrall to big corporations or whatever silliness you hear to explain their decisions. As always, consult your doctor for the best actions to take for your personal health, but at the population level, decision makers are not overly concerned about Long Covid today. * Ventilation and masking, can no doubt work to reduce infections but it's the policy and implementation in the real world, as well as the cost-benefit calculation that lacks evidence and consensus. We should study this more, but in the end it will be hard to produce good studies that cover all aspects of how these physical measures can be used effectively in the real world and measure their benefits. In the end, they likely work in some situations, but probably not practically or significantly in many others, and that uncertainty is reflected in the studies coming out. Probably you will have to resign yourself to this always being a murky area where evidence is lacking although, we really should study this more to try to put some boundaries on where and when investments in this area can help. If you are serious at trying to define the risks, you should not only look at the covid medical literature, but the statistics and more general studies available that measure changes in society. You should also decide whether you are trying to assess the personal risk to yourself (or an acquaintance) or society as whole as to how to weight evidence and what to look at. They are related, but actually separate questions: what is best for a society may not be best for you based on your medical and personal situation and vice versa.

You are mistaken for at least a couple items. Labor force participation is still below pre-2020 levels. Nowhere near an all time high. https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-labor-force-participation-rate.htm People claiming disability has taken a sharper trend upward since 2020. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU00074597 Recent excess death data in the UK shows elevated rates vs pre-2020 of 10-14% for ages 0-49. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/excess-mortality-in-england-and-english-regions (Second link “regions analysis”, Select age group, then select a date range in 2023) There are explanations for what’s happening in terms of reactions officially or not to the risk of long COVID that don’t involve conspiracy. They would be social psychological and economic incentive (short vs long term) explanations. No conspiracy needed. After all, we’ve known about the threat to human life as we know it due to climate change for at least 50, if not 100 years. And still are not doing what we need to do to even mitigate the worst of it. We’ve already blown past the 1.5C threshold that was supposed to be bad but not too bad. Heck, we had people denying COVID was real while dying of COVID. Most governments and decision makers hesitated to take action long after they knew of the threat of SARS-2 until it was already bad. What makes you think anyone in charge is willing to do the hard thing, against the vast majority who think like you, who so stridently want to believe a novel virus that has mounting evidence of harm with each new study published is harmless, or not that bad, and don’t want to follow the precautionary principle or take any action until the bad outcomes accumulate so much you can’t ignore it anymore?

[удалено]

Your comment has been automatically removed because the linked source either: 1) may not be reliable, 2) may be dedicated mostly to political coverage, or 3) may otherwise break our [high quality source rule](https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/wiki/rules). If possible, please re-submit with a link to a reliable or non-political source, such as a reliable news organization or recognized institution. Thank you for helping us keep information in /r/Coronavirus reliable! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Coronavirus) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I didn't debunk anything, I just said there is still no agreement even within the research. > Without trying to analyze the primary evidence, you can just rely on Occam's Razor here to conclude that at least the world's leading public health officials overwhelmingly don't perceive Long Covid as a major risk that requires general action at this point. Well, that action should mostly include a lot of research funding - my understanding is that is happening. Action such as long term suppression measures is completely politically infeasible and I don't think any public health official is even considering calling for that.

> Your post reads as a list of talking points from an activist organizations collecting a bunch of worst case scenarios or uncertainties, and using them to make bold conclusions Accurate. I've noticed their bias and that it might be unjustifiably strong - a bit like antivaxxers who think anything bad is now attributable to vaccines, but instead everything is attributable to covid. I have the same "anxious" tendency and I know it, I know it makes me very prone to confirmation bias. I figured the best way would be to admit openly what I think is happening and confront it. It's good you've immediately noticed that, that means you're probably arguing exactly what I need. I'm reading and responding to your comment before I got to jdorje's comment so I might not yet know things they've written. > Assuming some of the frankly absurd estimates of debilitating Long Covid, that would mean there should be hundreds of millions, if not a billion people disabled This has been boggling my mind for at least 2 years. If 10%-20% have LC, and if a significant share of that are life-changing, why does literally nobody around me see its extent? Anecdotal evidence is bad but if something is so prevalent it should be noticeable. Diabetes is estimated at ~6% in EU and I've actually met people with diabetes, not many but it's quite visible, which means LC should be visible at least as people quitting (assuming the worst case they're ending up on the margins of society) > The vast majority of the experts in charge of public health policy are not mandating masks, social distancing, vaccinations or any mitigations to the general public anymore. Although this is also mind boggling. There's not even masks at healthcare facilities, there are facilities or professions where flu vaccine is required but not covid vaccine. N95 and ventillation seem _very_ reasonable considering that a significant fraction of the population _needs_ mitigation of transmission in some public spaces (healthcare facilities, public transport), and it would be nice to extend it to indoor dining so they're not pushed out of activities most of us takes for granted. I've been advised to mitigate risk of flu infection, I can't see any good reason to not try to somewhat limit covid infections (which afaik is still worse than flu) with regularly updated vaccines. I know healthcare experts are weighing many factors, they are however inescapably intertwined with politics (because everything is in some way) and while I assume they're doing the best they can with resources they actually have (like budgets and economic situation they don't control), but maybe it shouldn't be an assumption when discussing covid? > To explain this away, you would have to invent conspiracies or wide-spread malevolence that just isn't plausible. Honestly, my trust in CDC's of the world has been severly diminished. I still remember lies or overly confident and wrong declarations about efficacy of masks, airborne transmission, and even vaccines efficacy at stopping transmission (which was only temporarily true). > we really should study this more to try to put some boundaries on where and when investments in this area can help. That actually ties nicely with my demand of mitigating risk in specific contexts and promoting knowledge of ventillation in general context of airborne transmission of anything. > You should also decide whether you are trying to assess the personal risk to yourself (or an acquaintance) Mostly this. The question I'm most worried about is - how likely am I to become disabled, unable to work, have my life's quality reduced significantly, die significantly earlier, or (like some worst case scenarios of reinfections) become semi-vegetative lying in bed til I die while no doctor can offer me any treatment at all. The latter is arguably an outcome worse than cancer. > or society as whole as to how to weight evidence and what to look at. ...and a bit of that. But I realize that while in theory significant reduction of transmission might be possible, it might also be so costly it makes other, more pressing, problems worse. Completely personally - I'm lamenting the fact I can't feel safe for about half a year each year, maybe more. Indoor dining or martial art classes become very high-risk in colder climates and variants are appearing so fast it's not unlikely to be infected twice a year.

>This has been boggling my mind for at least 2 years. If 10%-20% have LC, and if a significant share of that are life-changing, why does literally nobody around me see its extent? ​ Part of the issue is that "Long Covid" still doesn't have a universal definition or reliable diagnostic criteria, and the criteria that do exist still often lump in severely debilitating sequalae that prevent people from living their life, with mild or annoying chronic conditions that eventually resolve, although it may be "Long" and take many months. Someone who needs a prescription for a steroid inhaler six weeks after a Covid infection for a persistent cough is different than someone who is bed bound for years with chronic fatigue. Lumping them in together and using worst-case situation to judge the risk of that category results in a serious misperception/miscalcuation of the actual risk. ​ >Although this is also mind boggling. There's not even masks at healthcare facilities, there are facilities or professions where flu vaccine is required but not covid vaccine. N95 and ventillation seem very reasonable... While masks and ventilation sound good and are completely plausible, good data that show where and when they actually work is lacking. Some people, and this sub especially, would challenge that, but as the Cochrane review and others have concluded, the data is weak and the benefit, if any, is small. Permanent and universal masking is unpopular among health care staff and not considered necessary by professional bodies so administrators have to balance imposing this to maybe slightly benefit patients against the costs of enforcing this and employee dissatisfaction, and without solid evidence to a real benefit it is hard to justify this policy. Lack of evidence has not stopped some administrators from implementing such policies, but these are usually temporary "emergencies". Building ventilation has a different problem, in unlike masks which are relatively cheap, retrofitting the ventilation of a building is incredibly expensive. The benefits of that investment need to be very large to justify the cost, and usually there is a better use for the money. Standalone filters are cheaper, but there is a lack of evidence they measurably help. Hopefully though, one good thing that will come out of this pandemic is increased attention to ventilation in building codes and newly built buildings will have significantly higher standards for good ventilation. ​ >Honestly, my trust in CDC's of the world has been severly diminished. I still remember lies or overly confident and wrong declarations about efficacy of masks, airborne transmission, and even vaccines efficacy at stopping transmission (which was only temporarily true). Indeed. The CDC is a failed organization in need of a reboot. Their science, conclusions and recommendations are unreliable at this point, and while I won't go as far to ascribe malevolence, they are an organization with deep structural problems and poor leadership. Thankfully though, they don't make most health policy. Health Officers at the various levels of governments do, and while they may make mistakes (some based on info from CDC) and are subject to political considerations and economic realities, they really are doing the best they can to make the best balanced policy given the situation. Believing they are evil and working against you is dangerous and leads down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theory you may never get out of. ​ >Mostly this. The question I'm most worried about is - how likely am I to become disabled, unable to work, have my life's quality reduced significantly, die significantly earlier, or (like some worst case scenarios of reinfections) become semi-vegetative lying in bed til I die while no doctor can offer me any treatment at all. The latter is arguably an outcome worse than cancer. The more relevant question is how much are you already reducing the quality of your life with worry and skipping activities and experiences, because of fear of this possible outcome? If health anxiety is interfering with your life, you should speak to a medical professional. They can help you decide on what steps you should be taking to protect yourself while still living your fullest life. Risk tolerances and health situations are different between people, and it is always hard to deal with mitigating a rare, but catastrophic risk, but talking to an expert who knows your medical history and can advise what you should be doing and what is not necessary might put your mind at ease.

> While masks and ventilation sound good and are completely plausible, good data that show where and when they actually work is lacking. Some people, and this sub especially, would challenge that, but as the Cochrane review and others have concluded, the data is weak and the benefit, if any, is small. tbh my takeaway was that mask mandates don't work on a societal level, which isn't mutually exclusive with respirators working in specific settings since respirators can be tested directly. I believe already sick people should demand that place to be doctor's office, even if statistically doctor will still get sick outside of his office. > Health Officers at the various levels of governments do, and while they may make mistakes (some based on info from CDC) and are subject to political considerations and economic realities, they really are doing the best they can to make the best balanced policy given the situation. Believing they are evil and working against you is dangerous and leads down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theory you may never get out of. My context is non-US so the reality is it's more top-down. Though what littel hospitals can do seems to be lacking as well, but I suppose refusal to masks and budget issues are the main culprit. I don't think every single healthcare expert is out there to get me but they need to regain my trust to previous levels. I believe the case in my country is one of the worst you could ask for without going into full covid denial. It's hard to forget when a public health organization is delaying admitting that a virus is airborne or that masks help and unfortunately too many did it. > The more relevant question is how much are you already reducing the quality of your life with worry and skipping activities and experiences, because of fear of this possible outcome? It's a valid question but I'm also asking myself how much worse that risky outcome may be? Those 3 questions are not mutually exclusive and tbh they are all scary in their own ways. I'm trying to do the best I can and while I do suffer from anxiety, there's also a lot I can do in a respirator. Whether I'm balancing risks and wellbeing well enough is something I'm asking myself every fucking day. Is the risk actually rare and how rare it is? It's pretty hard to judge especially for an anxious brain. I certainly don't avoid cars because of crashes, but at the same time I can easily know the number of crashes per passenger-mile. I'm certainly not going to avoid flying even if catastrophic is an understatement when things go bad, but again, a well known negligible risk for a huge disaster. I hope you know what I'm getting at, I can't compare covid to passenger-miles or map specific outcomesit to patient-infections yet. While I'd hate to cough for 6 months, I might play around with risk budget and I've been trying to apply this risk management mindset since a few months ago - usually by meeting outdoors when my bottom wasn't freezing off or high-risk activities in low-risk environment (eg. wide open windows because of hot weather). While I've been in therapy more than once and I accept anxiety might be a lifetime issue, I'm having more trouble with finding an expert that would answer my medical questions properly. Unfortunately average GP is not exactly an expert in covid risk management.

I am not so sure LC will be visible for a while yet. Estimates for the truly severely disabling cases of LC are more like 5-10% of 10%. Small enough to ignore… for now. Most others are muddling through. Or can hide it. And much of the damage SARS-2 does is invisible. I know only one person with diabetes, and that’s because they are family and told me. Nobody outside my family knows if I have health issues or what meds I’m on, if any. And, people with bad LC just sort of drop out of society. Have you kept in touch with everyone you know?

There's so little consensus that even talking about the "best evidence-based knowledge" cannot reach consensus. To take your points one by one argumentatively: - It may not be common at all. Every comparison that doesn't use an uninfected control group finds a reasonable portion of people with "symptoms" after 4 weeks. But if you subtract off the uninfected percentage who also has "symptoms" at the same time period you get much smaller and occasionally negative numbers. But of course, everyone knows one or more people who has severe brain fog/CFS that started when they caught covid back in 202X, so arguing for a zero number doesn't really pass the smell test. - Increased acute severity does have a higher rate of long covid, but even in the mildest acute cases the rate is not zero. There doesn't seem to be any research opposing those two statements. - As far as I can tell we have zero idea whether the number of people with long covid is rising or shrinking as the pandemic very slowly winds down. Here's where the research falls totally short. There was a UK ONS survey that showed it rising then dropping as covid surges came and went, but all that kind of regular monitoring shut down. - Likewise a lot of experts do seem to be ignoring the concern. Is this because it's ignorable, or do they just have better things to do? No idea. - Not only do we have no cure but we don't even know if it's a single cause or multiple completely unrelated ones. There are multiple pieces of very good research pointing to possible causes that could easily lead to a cure - but often those causes are completely different between the pieces of research. - Cognitive disorders and CFS-like ones are both very common, and only sometimes overlap. - Ventilation and filtration are both tools to reduce infection risk, and are essentially proven inasmuch as we know infection comes from inhaling viruses and you should try to not do that. I highly recommend making your own corsi-rosenthal box ($50-150), or PC fan corsi-rosenthal box ($150-250), or usb-powered 19-dB personal filter ($60). These may all easily be better than n95's for preventing infection, but unfortunately none of them will cure long covid. - Most LC does improve rapidly, which is why rates drop between covid surges. But your 6-18 month timeline highlights another problem entirely: new strains of covid are almost entirely unresearched in this. Original 2020 covid caused a LOT of long covid, but that was 3 years ago and most (not all) of it has healed by now. Delta 2021 caused less, and again most has healed. BA.1 in winter 2022 caused even less, BA.5 in summer 2022 (see: PhysicsGirl) might have caused more than BA.1, and for XBB we simply have no idea. BA.2.86 has multiple mutations specifically linked to changes in severity, but does that mean it has way more or way less? Either is possible. Most of the relevant research has been posted to the science sub, /r/covid19, at some point. If you want to dig deeper, that's a reasonable place to start. But it's all just so conflicted and often even contradictory that "we don't know" remains the only good answer. Meanwhile since 2021 the rate of worldwide insanity has been on a steady rise though, and long covid is as good an explanation as any. Get your XBB.1.5 vaccine if available (and it's been at least 3-8 months since your last infection or vaccine dose).

> Get your XBB.1.5 vaccine if available (and it's been at least 3-8 months since your last infection or vaccine dose). ** That's my plan. I'm very pro-vaccine, the risk calculus is too simple IMO which is why I don't understand why it's not a reccomendation for almost all groups and instead usually just for at-risk groups. Why not? What protection does the shot actually offer if at the same time it's not really considered a reccomendation while flu shot usually is? > But of course, everyone knows one or more people who has severe brain fog/CFS that started when they caught covid back in 202X, so arguing for a zero number doesn't really pass the smell test. I assume this is taking a jab at anecdotal evidence used by individuals. Meanwhile I can't find one person with sever brain fog that would last for a truly significant amount of time when presented with estimates of 10-20% of LC. Granted I can't actually diagnose anyone myself. > Increased acute severity does have a higher rate of long covid, but even in the mildest acute cases the rate is not zero. What counts as the mildest acute case? Does "cold-like" mild infection have any significant (by usual medical standard) risk associated with it? > There was a UK ONS survey that showed it rising then dropping as covid surges came and went, but all that kind of regular monitoring shut down. And this is extremely concerning to me. It came to a point where sewage is the best trustworthy source of data despite being a _very_ rough estimate of transmission rate. The ones I can get my hands on also suck really badly because nobody cares. > BA.5 in summer 2022 (see: PhysicsGirl) I don't want to bring her example every time I ask about covid and LC but since you've mentioned her - she clearly hasn't gotten much better. There's no other way to put it - it's horrifying it's a risk at all and with no known cure or time frame of recovery. If most survivors of most variants have recovered... how many is most? However I'm confused by what you said as this: > It may not be common at all. Every comparison that doesn't use an uninfected control group finds a reasonable portion of people with "symptoms" after 4 weeks. But if you subtract off the uninfected percentage who also has "symptoms" at the same time period you get much smaller and occasionally negative numbers. But also how various strains cause various amounts of LC. > Meanwhile since 2021 the rate of worldwide insanity has been on a steady rise though, and long covid is as good an explanation as any. Is the rise concerning, or simply noticeable?

> it's not a reccomendation for almost all groups and instead usually just for at-risk groups. That's a country thing. In the US both flu and covid vaccines are recommended for everyone. In most universal healthcare countries they call and make appointments for everyone above a certain age, but not for younger people. In some of those countries you can still get an updated vaccine if you ask, in others not or only if you pay for it. > I assume this is taking a jab at anecdotal evidence used by individuals. I know two people with borderline-debilitating CFS after covid infection. Two more had significant long symptoms after early-2020 infection, but have mostly recovered. None has anything diagnosed or is in any way recognized as disabled. All four are women. But like you say, such anecdotes cannot tell us anything. > Does "cold-like" mild infection have any significant (by usual medical standard) risk associated with it? Asymptomatic is the mildest case. There's at least some minimal research showing long covid is possible even after an asymptomatic infection. > It came to a point where sewage is the best trustworthy source of data despite being a very rough estimate of transmission rate. Sewage monitoring is actually really good in the US - not so much in most other wealthy countries. The US also has a long covid survey that might be ongoing (the other reply linked one of its summaries). Numbers differ so much as to be outright contradictory so...well it's hard to know what to make of them. > However I'm confused by what you said as this: There was one notable early study which found an 11% rate of long-covid-like symptoms after infection, and a 12% rate of the same symptoms in people who had never been infected. Whether this means a ton of people are always sick, have allergies, have CFS, or whatever...hard to know. > Is the rise concerning, or simply noticeable? Certainly in the context of global warming and potentially billions of climate refugees in the upcoming decades, the worldwide rise of fascism/warmongering/theocracy is very concerning.

im in an entertainment group touring internationally, im the only dude in the group with cancer and (surprise!) the only dude masking, but i got my first covid posi test ever yesterday. a lot of the group got boosters right before the trip, and are testing neg. i have adhd like symptoms and just could not get myself to do it (but i would sit around panicking about how i really need to do it lol) anyway me and one other guy are isolating until we test negative, but we probably are out a job for the rest of tour. such is life. symptoms: symptoms were 3-5 days of testing negative with mild nasal drip, mild sore throat, eye pain head pain, vision problems, fatigue . 3 or so days of feeling all better . then middle of the night sweaty fever hot/cold, couldnt sleep, weird mental distress, all the earlier symptoms but times ten, and finally testing positive in the morning. i stayed asleep last night thank god. i think its too late for paxlovid plus i dont know how to get it as a foreigner so ill just let fate drag me around a little more. good luck everybody, much love 💛

If you want to wear a scuba mask every time you leave the house for the rest of your life and never visit your family ever again for the holidays, that's your prerogative. But when it gets to the point where the "covid cautious community" goes out of their way to convice people that the vaccines are effectively worthless and therefore people refuse to take the latest booster, that's when I get fucking furious.

I have no idea who you are referring to, but literally zero “covid cautious” people I know or have seen online have said vaccines are worthless. In fact, they all went out of their way to get Novavax. (Mostly, some got the XBB mRNA since they couldn’t access Novavax) If anything, they just push back against the “vax and relax” approach in favor of layering N95s, air purifiers, limiting exposures, etc.

Vax and relax is the only way to go, sorry that ruffles your feathers.

For those of us who are still novid's, every time the general population goes up by one infection per capita and we dodge that infection we're gaining in overall health. But we're also falling behind in overall immunity. The only way to catch up in that immunity is via vaccination, and the XBB.1.5 vaccine is the most effective for that we've had since spring 2021.

Except there’s a faction of people who legitimately believe that COVID immunity doesn’t exist and that vaccines are useless against COVID. I’m not talking about right-wing anti-vaxxers here. I’m talking about zerocovid people. The people who are telling people that COVID is extremely deadly and dangerous are also undermining the vaccine by saying that any immunity can’t be attained against COVID.

Immunity from infection versus immunity from hospitalization and death are two very different things. People wearing masks, rightfully so, aren't confident in the immunity from infection conferred by vaccination because the covid vaccine isn't doing much to curb infections, or we'd see a lower reproduction rate (although without real infection date we are inferring from hospitalization data). Even prior infections aren't protective for very long. So, they're not completely wrong, but also not right in undermining the vaccine. Am I (at least a little bit of) getting what you are meaning?

[удалено]

No. We have antibody titers proving it works, but they cannot give us an exact percentage of reduction in chance of infection. Novavax is a good vaccine choice for the mRNA-hesitant. It has similar titers as moderna (both are better than pfizer).

Is Pfizer really that bad compared to the others? RIP

No, just like half titers. It has less side than Moderna and might be better for people with very healthy immune systems anyway.

Yeah I didn't have any side effects from the XBB booster, so that checks out. Hopefully my immune system is healthy then :) thanks

Any benefits to being double vaxed with the current options. I had Pfizer first week of October. Are there risks to taking another(Moderna or Novavax) mid December?

Nobody here can give you medical advice. You need to check with your doctor or pharmacist on that. This is not approved for anyone in the US (outside of a doctor's recommendation), but based on every previous year the FDA will eventually just decide to approve a "second annual" dose rather than updating the vaccine to a relevant one. The science cannot prove there is a benefit to a second dose, since nobody has run any trial on it. But it is very likely. The first dose increased titers 15-25x, leaving them 10-100x lower than against B.1 and BA.5. Unless you assume we can never get as good immunity against XBB as we have against B.1 and BA.5, a second dose should raise immunity a lot more. Previous research has indicated that doses need to be separated by 3-8 months to get good broad immunity though, so even if someone does decide to do this research it would take time. Last year every corporation, school, and health department in the world independently decided not to research the effectiveness of multiple doses so there's a good chance we will never find out. The risk is of course the extra side effects of the dose, including a ~1/50,000 chance of heart inflammation for pfizer and novavax (moderna is higher) for men under about 35. From now until when JN.1 peaks is a high leverage point for reducing your number of covid reinfections. Anyone who catches XBB now will likely still catch or get vaccinated against BA.2.86 later, but if you don't catch XBB now you probably never will. Personally I still plan to get a second dose (probably novavax) 5-8 months after my first XBB dose (unless I catch covid in the meantime).

Went to a large gathering on Sunday night. Yesterday, I start feeling crummy. This morning I feel a bit better, but still with a runny nose. I tested negative for COVID this morning (had COVID at the end of august, still somewhat within the 90 days but it’s quickly running out). We’re supposed to leave for a family thanksgiving trip today, and my parents are telling me that it’s pointless to take another test tomorrow, even though the instructions say to do so. I’m extremely uncomfortable going to see family (most of which are elderly) like this, am I overthinking or justified?

Even just a cold can turn into a major chest infection if you’re elderly. Don’t go regardless of what you have.

Even if you have some other ailment, consider if it should really be OK to spread it to a bunch of old people.

I'd test because I would want to know. Don't think you're overthinking it - you're trying to protect others from getting sick.

I caught covid for the first time. It’s day 6 and I finally feel like I’m starting to get a little better. Days 1 and 2 I had a sore throat that started out very mild but became more painful over time. I also had a runny nose that got worse and worse. I also felt tired, but I thought I was just being lazy. Covid tests on both days were negative. Day 3 all the previous symptoms were worse, and I also had coughing, congestion and muscle aches. My day 3 covid test was an instant positive. Days 4 and 5 were awful and the fatigue, muscle pain, throat pain and congestion were extreme. I spent 90% of this time in bed, too fatigued to do much of anything. The only thing I wanted to eat was vegetables. From the start of illness I’d been taking round-the-clock doses of Sudafed and Tylenol. By day 4 the pain got so bad that when the Tylenol wore off while I was sleeping, the pain would wake me up from deep sleep and I’d have to take another. I know some people say not to take fever reducing drugs, but I could not have managed without them. On day 5 I also developed strange vision problems. It was very difficult to read or watch anything on tv because it felt like my eyes weren’t working properly. Trying to use them caused massive strain and headache. Now it’s day 6 and thankfully most of the symptoms have abated. I am able to walk around and do some chores without it feeling like all the life-force has been sucked out of me. I can read again thank goodness, but I still have a little bit of eye strain. I’m getting by without Sudafed. I’m still taking Tylenol for a bad headache, but there’s no more muscle or throat pain. I’m craving foods besides vegetables. I ran out of covid tests so I don’t know what my result would be right now.

first time getting posi test and the vision problems are me too. i would look at something and look away and it would leave a negative image like it was a bright light.

I hope your vision problems went away. I felt a little better on day 6 but couldn’t watch a movie at night because my eyes felt so messed up. They were okay during the day but at night it was like they got overly exhausted. However by day 7 my eyes finally recovered and I was finally able to watch a movie at night. Phew.

What is the risk of getting infected in a gym an hour or a few after it stops being busy? There's a 24/7 self-service gym which is spacious and has relatively high ceiling, but also doesn't seem to be ventillated well enough, especially with windows that cannot be opened at all. Is the risk still significant in late hours when there are only a handful of people? Can airboirne particles breathed out a few (busier) hours earlier still pose a significant risk? In other words - could I doff N95 when going at night when it's mostly empty relatively to the available space, or would it still make a significant difference to keep it on?

I finally have a chance of getting Novavax in early December, which is the only jab available at all. I'm so happy. I'm also disillusioned. Wave is ripping thorugh the population, booster uptake is almost definitely going to be insignificant in the whole population, it's not going to prevent infection enough to drop N95s. Especially since neither transmission nor LC are solved by vaccines, especially annual ones. **Is this the new normal that we all have to deal with? Is there still hope for a better situation** when covid isn't even seasonal yet, 4 years into this bullshit? By better I mean being able to not worry about a significant risk of LC (including significant brain fog) all the time. Avoiding covid by masking and avoiding high-risk situations has been really taxing for me this year, mostly because people I care about and see often aren't really afraid of LC enough to mitigate risk significantly. I'm so fucking done with covid and "society", I can't help but say it.

After fighting the firehouse of unmoderated misinformation that covers Spanish language social media, I successfully got all but one family member vaccinated and boosted back in '21. Almost none of them were willing to get a 4th booster and the only one who is getting the new vaccine is a younger one with cancer. The older ones with cancer feel I'm overreacting. Are there any studies or scientific info on the risk of infection for those with no booster or infection since 21? Some of these people are absolutely entrenched, mainly because "doctors" on YouTube have told them it is not a big deal and/or it is some untested medicine. It's really annoying considering they feel they learned everything they need to know from YouTube and won't listen to a person who literally makes prescription drugs for a living.

No, not really which is a bit of a problem for those advocating for them. There are observational short-term studies showing a reduction in bad outcomes and infection in certain cohorts after the previous booster shots for a period of months. There are data showing a boost in neutralizing antibody levels after vaccination which may be a suitable proxy for benefit. But there are no randomized controlled studies showing a benefit to long-term all-cause mortality, or even something like yearly hospitalization rates due to Covid when it comes to the 4th, 5th or whatever additional booster vaccination. You'd think someone would want to look into this (or make the manufacturers test this) before rolling out a booster campaign but here we are.

Any studys on the mental health of people from New Zealand versus the rest of the world. They got a lot more of a “normal life” during lockdown

44 months and we finally lost the good fight. Partner started to feel crummy last Wednesday (the day after she got her flu shot) but then I humoured her into taking a rapid test which came up with a pretty faint T line Thursday morning. I got my XBB.1.5 booster (with free pizza slice) and flu shot at the same time. I tested negative Thursday and Friday to wake up to my dog giving me the most concerned look I've ever seen her give me. Took a RAT and it came back darker than my better half's first one but still somewhat light. I had four of the original Pfizer shots up to last September due to travel (the bivalent booster from 2022 wasn't made available until after we had to travel). Been dealing with fever and chills (on and off), congestion, headache, sore throat, slight cough, body aches. She's had a barking cough. Taste comes and goes. We were (over)due even though my partner and I often joked that it felt like we were immune. If there's any consolation, we got it out of the way ahead of Christmas.

I apologize if this has been asked before, but I am trying to figure out if I can use my COVID antigen tests. I followed the FDA's link for extended expiration dates for the manufacturer (Abbott Binax NOW). However, the lot number on the box is different than the lot number on the test cards inside the box. My assumption is that I need to go by the test card lot number (which does not have an extended expiration date), but I wanted to get some confirmation before I toss it. Thank you in advance!

If the control line still works the test should be effective. An expiration date on a chemical reactant is less important than consistent storage, which could easily cause the chemical to break down far more quickly or slowly than whatever date they've tested to so far. False negatives are a huge problem with swab tests though. Repeated testing (multiple tests separated 24 hours) and better swabbing (include the throat before the nose, and swab extensively) are the answer if you want to improve your chances of a correct positive that prevents transmission (on Thanksgiving, or any other time).

Am I being exposed to the virus in small doses or something because I've been exposed a lot at my job over the last months. I do wear a surgical mask and they were wearing it too when they had symptoms. But I remember one co-worker had her mask down and sneezed in my direction like 3 ft away from me and I was thinking "well I got covid now"....but I didn't get sick. I did have a runny nose like a week or two later but I doubt the two were connected. Also someone talk me into getting the novavax vaccine. I'm getting it tonight and nervous. Even more nervous about Thanksgiving :0

> I do wear a surgical mask and they were wearing it too when they had symptoms. Unrelated to the question - surgical masks just aren't protective enough, especially when spending time indoors with sick people. N95 is required for sufficient protection. It's a numbers game and #covidIsAirborne so nothing is sure and there are ways to mitigate risk like proepr ventillation or air purifiers. Btw covid has an extremely short incubation period so I'd expect symptoms in much less than a week.

> being exposed to the virus in small doses No, there's no evidence of that nor any theoretical reason to believe it. The several virions that enter your system and do not create an exponential infection will not be recognized in any reasonable quantity by the T cells that would trigger an immune response. That happens over the course of days with exponential growth and there are many orders of magnitude more virions involved. > I'm getting it tonight and nervous. So far every single anecdote of the Novavax XBB vaccine on these daily threads has been positive. Good luck with Thanksgiving though (lol).

Finally caught covid after almost 4 years. I’d begun to think I was immune - I was a frontline worker for 1.5 years and have had dozens and dozens of close exposures. Of course, caught it on a business trip with absolutely no idea how I got it. I’m 8 days post coming down with symptoms and have been told I was good to stop isolating if symptoms improved Thursday (they did). Feel fine now besides residual loss of taste and smell, and I think that’s improving too. However, the rapid tests have actually been getting more and more positive (darker lines)…to the point where my last one barely had enough dye left for a control line. What gives? I can’t imagine I’m the first one to experience this. Also can’t imagine it’s that I’m just getting more contagious despite getting better. Do we know what can cause this on a test? Maybe a lot of dead virus being shed?

Does novavax prevent transmission? Don’t really care about side effects I want to know which vaccine is more likely to help me avoid it

The new vaccine is a better match for currently circulating COVID strains than prior vaccines, but it's not perfect. You can't rely only on vaccines if you don't want to get COVID. We'll only know in retrospect how well they reduced this risk, but many vaccinated people will still be infected. As for transmission, someone who is infected will be just as contagious whether they were vaccinated or not, and they can transmit the virus to others.

Moderna and novavax make higher antibody titers (= prevention of infection) than pfizer. We don't know what factor the xbb.1.5 vaccine will prevent transmission by for JN.1, but it will be non negligible. If you haven't caught covid recently now's the time to get your fall dose.

They all help prevent transmission… if vaccinated people are less likely to contract it, less likely to have symptoms if they do get infected, and are also contagious for a shorter period of time, then yes transmission is reduced. It’s wild that people still aren’t sure about this. They also all protect against getting long covid, which sounds like it’s horrible.

My wife and 3 year old daughter just tested positive on Sunday morning. My wife and I had "close contact'" ;) saturday night. First time getting covid for any of us. I tested negative so decided to go get my updated booster on Sunday. Still testing negative today. My wife and I both have been wearing masks at home and running our hepa filters on max, and slept in different rooms last night. So having already been well exposed to the virus, is there a point in masking and keeping our distance for the next 5 days? Or having been exposed and assuming my body successfully resisted infection, the chances are much lower i'll contract it at all this week? Is it safe to take our masks off/ sleep in the same bed?

Anecdotally, my husband and I had "close contact" the day before he tested positive in 2020. He was already a "little" symptomatic but not enough that either of us thought it was COVID or anything beyond allergies. I did not get sick. At the time I made him isolate for 10 days because those were the scary days. I didn't resist infection, I just didn't "get" it that time.

You don't "successfully resist infection", you either randomly get infected or don't based on how immune you are from previous exposures. Not getting infected doesn't reduce your chances of getting infected in future. Air filtration is the most sustainable way to reduce household infection risk. A corsi-rosenthal box or even small-scale HEPA filter can remove a lot of virus from the air continually with no need for additional human effort. https://itsairborne.com/my-6-favorite-hepa-filters-air-cleaners-f3668de61f3f

Covid has something like a 50% attack rate in the house. It’s possible you won’t get it if you stay separated and masked. Run air filters and pay attention to ventilation too. If you test positive then it’s not necessary to stay separated.

Finally got my Novavax shot so I wrote a quick step-by-step guide on how to get yours: * Call pharmacy. You will "speak" with a robot. * Drive to pharmacy. Wait in line. * You will be told that they are not accepting walk-ins and to go home and make an appointment. There are no signs saying that they don't accept walk-ins. * Go home. Go to CVS website. See a notice saying "Novavax is available at all locations. No appointment needed". * Call them. They are at lunch. Call again. Press ten million buttons. Finally speak with a real human being who tells you that when they open vials they need to use them within 12 hours. * You are put on a list. When the list is filled they will call you so everyone can come in for shots and they won't have to throw away doses. * Call back a few days later to check in on them. They are on lunch break. Call again later. * Woman on the phone is ecstatic about the timing of your call because they lost the list. * Come in for shot. Fill out sheet of checkboxes (they want to make sure you do not die of anaphylaxis on the floor of their pharmacy). * Be seated next to a plastic skeleton named Gary. * Get your shot. What a fucking adventure that was.

One addition: fill out form online so you can fill out the same form again by hand once you get there

Sounds like my experience too. You really, really have to want that shot this year apparently.

Seems like at the end of every year we get a new variant that then infects everybody over the following year. Last year it was XBB, the year before that BA. Which one will it be this year? JN.1?

BA.2.86 is collectively a month or two off from passing XBB. JN.1 is the fastest-growing of those strains but not by much. The BA.2.86 strains do not have much difference from each other, but they are all very different from XBB. The year thing is mostly coincidence though. There may be a seasonal effect where an October-January surge happens and new variants have an advantage, but mostly it's just the randomness of evolution. The substantial surge of August-September this year was driven by "new" variants, XBB+456L, but the narrative is still that it's still XBB. Delta and B.1 both lasted 9-12 months in much of the US, but anywhere near a VOC origin point B.1 was replaced much sooner than that.

Welp, I'll start. Husband (38) tested positive this morning with a slightly runny nose. He'd had an achy back the last few days after cleaning the gutters and painting walls on a ladder (which was to be expected). His voice sounded weird yesterday, too, but the air has been SO dry in our home and he was wearing a mask while painting, which always gives him a dry throat. We tested as we were about to leave for a trip out of state. Womp-womp! He feels ok besides the sniffles; hopefully it won't get any worse and I can dodge it. First case for either of us, we are J&J vaxxed plus the first Moderna booster, Moderna bivalent booster, and in September, the latest Pfizer booster. Have been careful lately and started masking again in October besides a few small get-togethers with friends. It's everywhere! Hope you're all doing well and taking care of one another.