Getting mine weds, in TMC

Thanks Austinag. Any idea why only 975 doses for Brazos Co? Some less populated countries are shown to receive many more.

What percentage of ya'lls units would you say are opting-in to receive the vaccine? I would say our ED is about 60/40 (60% opting out). Seems to be a heated topic of debate here.

I don't have a definitive answer for you. But, we treat people with antibiotics when they get strep infections in order to prevent a significant antibody response, because the antibodies cross react with the heart valve and can cause rheumatic heart disease.

So, while antibiotics shorten the duration of illness and the antibody response in strep, I would imagine that if convalescent plasma also shortens the illness then it would also decrease the antibody response in COVID. It may also decrease the number of available antigens for the body to detect and present to immune cells to stimulate antibodies and memory. But, it would also depend a lot on when the plasma was given.

wsteed311 said:

---

What percentage of ya'lls units would you say are opting-in to receive the vaccine? I would say our ED is about 60/40 (60% opting out). Seems to be a heated topic of debate here.

---

Really? Where are you located? The only reason I'd opt out is to give the more vulnerable elderly, those with comorbidities, or the health care workers that are more front line than me a chance to get it. But once the powers at be assign me a vial, I'm taking it.

Interesting note at our hospital. They are staggering administration since there is some overlap between side effects and covid symptoms- fever, fatigue, ache, etc. which may require days off and complicate staffing.

Marcus Aurelius said:

---

I've been randomly polling pts - I'd say 60% taking it. Won't get us to herd immunity. Requires 70%.

---

So I'm not a herd immunity crusader (in fact we can see the damage being done by out of control infection every day), but with 16.5 million people testing positive, probably 20% of the population has been infected. Since it doesn't seem to be slowing, by spring vaccinations + infected people might get us to a level that really slows spread.

Duncan Idaho said:

---

The only way we get to 70%+ is if a certain famous person that recovered takes it on national TV and says he was proud and excited to do it.

---

That person would be labeled selfish for taking a vaccine while others need it and he already has immunity.

True, but since he's already had it I would hope that he (and any other famous people who did) wouldn't be first in line.

How slow would transmission be at 60 percent vaccinated?

I'd assume a whole lot more manageable.

Marcus Aurelius said:

---

I've been randomly polling pts - I'd say 60% taking it. Won't get us to herd immunity. Requires 70%.

---

With the millions that have already had covid. That should be plenty by far.

Are people getting flagged on EMRs that they've been vaccinated? Any kind of proof you can ask for to help with employment, travel, school?

Have heard zilch about vaccination plans this week. They told us last week they would have doses available, but so far nothing in terms of the rollout plan has been sent out.

Marcus Aurelius said:

---

I've been randomly polling pts - I'd say 60% taking it. Won't get us to herd immunity. Requires 70%.

---

What about the 5% that've had it and the ~15% that are too young to be likely viable vectors? Sounds like 80% to me.

With current measures in place (distancing and masks) the R score seems to fluctuate between .7 and 1.3, so heard immunity threshold is really quite low. Even 40% would effectively drop the R score to less than 1, making the disease contract.

I think the R score without ANY measures in place will be 3.0 or less, so we need 65% prevalence to achieve herd immunity.


Of course, the undefined element here is timeline. If we could achieve 80% immunization/ prevalence and keep the anti-spread measures in place for even a couple of months we could put this sucker to bed foe good.

A question for the doctors.

Why will I need to wear a mask two weeks after my second shot?

Because you can still come in contact with the virus and spread it to someone that isn't vaccinated.

We don't know if you have sterilizing immunity or just a reduction in symptoms.

Duncan Idaho said:

---

We don't know if you have sterilizing immunity or just a reduction in symptoms.

---

So there's no finish line to this? It will spread forever, just with manageable symptoms?

no. just talked to family in the vaccine research industry...

It makes sense...you can still come in contact with the virus and while the vaccine is "doing its thing" and protecting you from illness or serious infection, it could still spread to someone else. Now, is it less likely? Who knows.

I agree, that's why I think you would need to wait for two weeks after your second shot.

I meant after that.

Once you've given your body ample time to respond to the vaccine I don't get why wearing a mask after makes any sense.

During the process yes, so between 1st shot and 2 weeks after your second dose.

KlinkerAg11 said:

---

A question for the doctors.

Why will I need to wear a mask two weeks after my second shot?

---

The vaccine is 95% effective as far as we know. So 1 in 20 people will not be immune and can get sick and spread the disease. You might be the 1 in 20.

Well *****

I'm just going to build a bar in my garage.

I was looking forward to having fun again in public.

I get it, and I'll get the shot regardless but I do worry this will discourage people from getting it.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

KlinkerAg11 said:

---

A question for the doctors.

Why will I need to wear a mask two weeks after my second shot?

---

The vaccine is 95% effective as far as we know. So 1 in 20 people will not be immune and can get sick and spread the disease. You might be the 1 in 20.

---

From what I understand, this isn't true. The trial data has proven that the vaccine can prevent you from getting ill from the virus. It is much harder to prove that people who are vaccinated are not able to transmit the virus as asymptomatic carriers. As I post in the tweet above, it does seem that there is some hopeful science on it, but that's why some health officials will say you still need to wear a mask.

My thought is you and all your vaccinated buddies can head to the bar of your choice with zero mask or restriction. The problem is the anti-vax or those yet to be vaccinated in the bar but THEY are willingly taking the risk so a mask shouldn't be needed.

I think that's a fair way to look at it.

I agree that the issue will more be on those who don't take it rather than those who do take it.

Once the systemic risk associated with unmitigated spread of the virus is gone, you won't have to wear masks. Until that point, even if you take a vaccine you should wear a mask because it's not really possible to hold everybody accountable on mask usage until then. People you interact with don't actually know whether you have a vaccine or not.
Just better to be respectful for a little bit longer. Furthermore, we are optimistic, but not 100% sure, that it'll be impossible to be a vector of transmission after vaccination. So until the burden on the healthcare system subsides, you should probably mask up. Reallistically, we may reach a point of not needing masks in the spring some time, but a critical mass of people being vaccinated is required first.