The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
I work for a small company (currently 25 employees) and was hired after the COVID crisis. As soon as I could, I worked in the office, mostly bare (1 tech, 4 receptionists, another programmer hired the same day as I was and myself) and as safe as home. My fellow programmer caught COVID and was out for more than a month, but my wife works in a nursing home and my risk is roughly equal.
Beginning Monday, the new norm will become half the employees return to work Monday/Wednesday with the other half working Tuesday/Thursday. The office is packed with air purifiers, the front door is guarded by 2 infrared thermometers and masks are required if you leave your desk. Hand sanitizer bottles and soft wipes festoon every counter and the office now has a scheduled "deep clean" on a regular basis.
If you show high on an entry thermometer (100° F), an alarm goes off and you are required to immediately leave, return home, log in as sick and get tested. Failure to comply can result in immediate termination. Acrylic dividers separate people and a special key has been supplied for keying in entry codes, opening doors, etc. The shifts alternating days are in every other cube. All in all, every known precaution other than anti-covid architecture has been taken.
I'm being told I should get a flu shot. There is no "shot" for the virus. Do you think the virus will step aside while I go out and get my flu shot? I don't think so either; so I continue with the PPE, etc. .... sooooo, why the flu shot?
(Like taking an Aspirin when you're bleeding which is even worse than it sounds).
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
It's a precaution, is all.
Yes, the Covid protection should mean that flu doesn't get a hold this year - but we've all seen how well they are working in England, France, ...
And the last thing health services need is a Covid outbreak alongside the usual pressures the flu puts on them over winter!
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
I've never gotten a flu shot. I may have had the flu a few years ago - not quite sure. My immune systems pretty serious. With COVID, that's not necessarily a good thing.
I've the same question - and in my case, due to a medication I take, I can not take "live vaccine" of any kind (or shouldn't). The flu shot's a 50/50 thing - that's the target as it's of necessity done by guess-work at what will be going around. The record's been pretty poor these last few years. The recommendation is that the flu shot will protect you and thus you'll not be confused between COVID and the flu. Statistically, not so much.
I'd definitely take the COVID vaccine . . . after it's been used a while on the general population. No different than I do with new versions of software and operating systems. Awaiting that first service pack. Fortunately, at least in my perception, the drug manufacturers are doing their due diligence and not trying to meet any political deadline. I hate putting this near-soapbox remark, but saying it would be ready just before the election, whether true or not, was one of the stupidest remarks that could possibly have been made - destroying trust, and rightly so.
Per the flu shot? I'm leaning towards it this time - but also because I'm getting up in years. Not yet decided.
Most PPE (masks) won't help much against the flu since it's mode of entry is via mucus membranes (eyes, nose, etc.) via surface-to-hand-to-face. Gloves would work - but only if you take them on and off, constantly, or can control yourself totally whilst out in the world. Having someone sneeze in your face won't do you any good, either.
There are some distinctions that needs to be made here.
When Balboos mentions:
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote:
Most PPE (masks) won't help much against the flu since it's mode of entry is via mucus membranes
I'm assuming PPE means "Personal protective equipment" which I also assume doesn't mean a piece of cloth or a surgical mask, but rather an N95 or better.
Also, they need to be worn properly, not with your nose sticking out above the mask as I can see way too often.
An N95 would help, if you can stand wearing it for a prolonged time. Also assuming you're wearing it properly without leakages.
A surgical mask, or a multi layer piece of cloth mask doesn't protect the bearer, but rather the people around the bearer.
A neck gaiter basically doesn't help at all.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Never stop dreaming - Freddie Kruger
Thank you. I believe the actual figure is 70.6 for case patients; the 74.2 number is for the control group (symptomatic patients who tested negative). Whatever though, 70.6 is a big number, and 3.6% difference doesn't fill me with confidence!
Also of interest to me:
- 40.9% of case patients had visited a restaurant, where they would have to remove their mask (compared to 27.7% of the control group).
- 50.8% of case patients had a family member with known Covid-19
There's no way of knowing one way or another from the data, but is it possible that half the people caught Covid-19 in their own home (where they wouldn't wear a mask) and most of the rest caught it in a restaurant or bar, where they have to take their mask off to eat/drink?
Also of note:
- The mask-wearing figures are based on self-report, which is often unreliable (people forget things and sometimes fib).
- A single study doesn't constitute proof in itself, of course. I'd like to see a systematic review or meta analysis, and I'd like to see studies with larger sample sizes.
- I'm a professional software developers and this is not software development, so I don't have the background to interpret the results properly.
Having said all that, it is interesting data, thank you.
Who knows. Maybe they are a complete waste of time. Maybe things would be even worse without them.
This seems to be becoming a minority view these days, but I'm just going to trust the expert advice. It may turn out to be wrong/ politically motivated or whatever, but it doesn't seem too much of a sacrifice to me.
It's not all bad. The other day I had a big spot on my chin, and the mask covered it up nicely.
It's not that the mask protects the wearer so much as that it protects everybody else. ( From those that don't know that they are carrying.) So wear the damned thing to protect your Grandma ( or, in my case, grandniece... )
Well a look around the web and (1) many sites cite your statement so it is true - and also the contact, as well.
Various comments went from ignoring the contact method (which even recently was touted as important on media) through 'some thing it may be spread as an aerosol' as an alternative to the contact methods and finally some ignore the contact methods altogether.
Well - by even simple logic, a moist sneeze would spread the flu. Just breath in through your nose, and of course, settling on your eyes. In that way I absolutely stand corrected.
What bothers me about the whole thing is that there's far too much "flexibility" in reporting.
Eg: some months ago it was noted that persons with blood type A are more likely to get a severe case of COVID - and then that sort of disappeared. Last night, however, the report noted that those with blood type O are less likely to have a severe reaction and that (in the US) type A is the second most prevalent blood type. As seen in the US, government controlled organizations run by appointees can modify reality to suit the need of those who appointed them, so
common sense puts your post as valid but the recent state of affairs and variations in the attribution lead me to think that it's being changed. Hopefully, math, chemistry, and physics will not fall pray to this feeling that appeasement is a valid data point in a study.
I don't see how it can have anything to do with Covid, whether or not someone has an immune reaction to someone elses red bloodcells.
There must be a thousands of other immune reactions that has more impact than that.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Never stop dreaming - Freddie Kruger
And it's blood group immune response that, hypothetically, is going after the CORONA virus - like the "anti-A" but the study that talked about "A" being more susceptible didn't have enough B or AB in the cohort to make any claims. It would be an interesting adjunct.
As for whether plague is a virus or bacterium is beside the point: apparently they can determine the descendence.
Nature's full of overlaps: most insects that specialize do so because they've adapted to natural plant toxins and other insects haven't. They eat what the can - not because they prefer it but because it's what they can eat. Why do I say this. Because quite accidentally, these 'toxins' are also what give herbs, spices, vegetables, etc. their flavors. Yes- it's a bit of a peripheral topic but the point is that natural selection sometimes has side effects. Mammals may (or may not) be attracted to smells and tastes of evolved insect repellents and toxins.
Or better, cowpox gave immunity to smallpox for milk maids who caught it, and in fact helped Jenner launch the concept of vaccination.