I like this. We are back to suffering an epidemic of “presenteeism” as people go to work and children to school with “just a cold.”
The worst I’ve seen recently was a family of 5 who got floridly ill at Disney, decided not to test because they had to make the plane, wore no masks despite febrile illnesses, and only tested for Covid when they got home.
They were all positive, and we can assume the ripple effects extend well beyond the passengers on the plane, 95% of whom did not mask, or found respirators too burdensome.
Except that non high risk individuals are also susceptible to long covid and could therefore benefit from taking Paxlovid, which would mean testing. Also, for those of us who are truly high risk, Covid is more than just another upper respiratory infection. A test confirming Covid therefore would at least alert those infected to take even further precautions for the benefit of those who are at higher risk. Too early to treat Covid like just another respiratory infection.
The pandemic may be politically 'post' however SARS-COV-2 continues to evolve and infect. Without testing and tracking, we are flying blind into the unknown with suboptimal vaccines and treatment.
My main concern is this: Right now, we're in a test-to-treat phase, and Paxlovid does an effective job of knocking back the virus (although I've wondered if we should be running 5-, 7- or 10-day courses of the drug combo). Until Paxlovid, or a replacement becomes available OTC, simply assuming you've got COVID and staying home is likely to have significant public health effects. I'll argue that the changes in testing and reporting, along with the politicization of this virus and the pandemic, have done damage to Public Health's ability to track the disease already. Similarly, the transition to home testing without some form of even crowd-sourced reporting means we no longer have any clue of the cases present.
On the other hand, a strong recommendation to "stay home if you're sick", enforced by employers' and schools' policies that would normalize this behavior and reward it, will go a long way toward decreasing spread.
Common sense would dictate that, if you have symptoms of any viral illness, you should stay home with your germs if at all possible. Yet I've seen the vast majority of my friends and coworkers show up to work with symptoms, with the lame excuse that they either tested negative for Covid, or that they were vaccinated for it -- even after it was well-established that the vaccine did not prevent transmission.
Perhaps, instead of forcing unvaccinated-but-healthy individuals to stay home unpaid or even lose their jobs so that vaccinated-but-immunocompromised people could go out, it would have been better to fund federally-guaranteed medical leave so that immunocompromised could stay home, and also so that vaccinated and unvaccinated alike could use sick leave if they have symptoms. And why is there no discussion of immunity following infection, which seems to be significantly longer-lasting than vaccine-induced immunity?
Also, if viral infection is a public health issue, why are self-serve buffets still allowed? And why don't public toilets have lids to limit "toilet flume," long known as a significant enabler of viral spread?
Perhaps 'sub optimal' was a poor choice of words for what I meant - which is that a vaccine which does not stop transmission, provides a 43% less likely chance of death or severe disease for a person in my age group, and does not extend protection for a long period of time is a disappointment. No matter how excellent it is out of the needle, if it is not working by the time another booster becomes available, I don't consider it 'optimal.'
I appreciate the advice for people who are in non-high-risk groups. However, that doesn’t consider transmission to people who are in high-risk groups that they may come in contact with. We are still putting Iris groups at risk.
I like this. We are back to suffering an epidemic of “presenteeism” as people go to work and children to school with “just a cold.”
The worst I’ve seen recently was a family of 5 who got floridly ill at Disney, decided not to test because they had to make the plane, wore no masks despite febrile illnesses, and only tested for Covid when they got home.
They were all positive, and we can assume the ripple effects extend well beyond the passengers on the plane, 95% of whom did not mask, or found respirators too burdensome.
Except that non high risk individuals are also susceptible to long covid and could therefore benefit from taking Paxlovid, which would mean testing. Also, for those of us who are truly high risk, Covid is more than just another upper respiratory infection. A test confirming Covid therefore would at least alert those infected to take even further precautions for the benefit of those who are at higher risk. Too early to treat Covid like just another respiratory infection.
Spot on advice, “...assume you have COVID...” and act accordingly. Great approach.
The pandemic may be politically 'post' however SARS-COV-2 continues to evolve and infect. Without testing and tracking, we are flying blind into the unknown with suboptimal vaccines and treatment.
My main concern is this: Right now, we're in a test-to-treat phase, and Paxlovid does an effective job of knocking back the virus (although I've wondered if we should be running 5-, 7- or 10-day courses of the drug combo). Until Paxlovid, or a replacement becomes available OTC, simply assuming you've got COVID and staying home is likely to have significant public health effects. I'll argue that the changes in testing and reporting, along with the politicization of this virus and the pandemic, have done damage to Public Health's ability to track the disease already. Similarly, the transition to home testing without some form of even crowd-sourced reporting means we no longer have any clue of the cases present.
On the other hand, a strong recommendation to "stay home if you're sick", enforced by employers' and schools' policies that would normalize this behavior and reward it, will go a long way toward decreasing spread.
Finally, a voice of reason! Thank you ,Dr. Offit!
Common sense would dictate that, if you have symptoms of any viral illness, you should stay home with your germs if at all possible. Yet I've seen the vast majority of my friends and coworkers show up to work with symptoms, with the lame excuse that they either tested negative for Covid, or that they were vaccinated for it -- even after it was well-established that the vaccine did not prevent transmission.
Perhaps, instead of forcing unvaccinated-but-healthy individuals to stay home unpaid or even lose their jobs so that vaccinated-but-immunocompromised people could go out, it would have been better to fund federally-guaranteed medical leave so that immunocompromised could stay home, and also so that vaccinated and unvaccinated alike could use sick leave if they have symptoms. And why is there no discussion of immunity following infection, which seems to be significantly longer-lasting than vaccine-induced immunity?
Also, if viral infection is a public health issue, why are self-serve buffets still allowed? And why don't public toilets have lids to limit "toilet flume," long known as a significant enabler of viral spread?
Sane advice in an insane world.
Perhaps 'sub optimal' was a poor choice of words for what I meant - which is that a vaccine which does not stop transmission, provides a 43% less likely chance of death or severe disease for a person in my age group, and does not extend protection for a long period of time is a disappointment. No matter how excellent it is out of the needle, if it is not working by the time another booster becomes available, I don't consider it 'optimal.'
What about those that are interacting with high risk individuals? Shouldn’t they test when symptomatic?
I appreciate the advice for people who are in non-high-risk groups. However, that doesn’t consider transmission to people who are in high-risk groups that they may come in contact with. We are still putting Iris groups at risk.