COVID-19 - READ THE RULES BEFORE REPLYING

[MadAnt250]

22 hours ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

Higher ups are trying to get anyone who doesn't come into work in trouble and possibly fire myself and others.

The bosses should help the employees feel safe after something like this. This is either greed or desperation, you should contact the business owner and calmly express your concern. If the owner is jerk and is unreasonable about the situation, then report them. 

2 hours ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

trying to find another job but covid is making that close to impossible. 

 It is kinda of a crappy situation, If you can, work anywhere not in NYC would may be easier, maybe Bergen county, NJ or Westchester, NY... if possible.

 

[YellowJersey]

From what little American law I know, employees in the states have pretty much zero protections. # notlegaladvice

[Andreas Lilja]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/30/world/americas/canada-coronavirus-rapid-test.html?fbclid=IwAR3PVk1CelQs0l-Zinjii4R4qj7SKouzrdYUk8BrjwfNII8MMVi5cJRhUbk

 

Always takes the private sector.

[Andreas Lilja]

https://www.kivitv.com/news/national/coronavirus/cdc-data-majority-of-employees-at-skilled-nursing-facilities-not-receiving-covid-19-vaccine

 

"The Indiana study, conducted by public health officials in addition to researchers from Indiana University, found that 45% of nursing home workers in the state would accept the vaccine when its first offered. Of those who said they wouldn’t accept the vaccine at first, 70% cited side effects as the primary reason for their declination."

 

Should be mandatory...

[Delicieuxz]

UK medical journal The Lancet has published interim peer-reviewed phase-3 trial data on the efficacy of Russia's Sputnik V Covid-19 vaccine, and given a glowing commentary of the result. Sputnik V is reportedly one of only three vaccines so far to achieve 90%+ efficacy. Its efficacy is 91.6% after 21 days, and in the 60+ age-group is reported to be 91.8%.

 

An advantage of Sputnik V is that it can be stored at 2 - 8 degrees Celsius, like the AstraZenica vaccine (which has lower efficacy), but while having an efficacy comparable to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines (which require much more stringent storage temperatures of -70 and -20 Celsius, respectively).

 

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00234-8/fulltext

Quote

A heterologous recombinant adenovirus (rAd)-based vaccine, Gam-COVID-Vac (Sputnik V), showed a good safety profile and induced strong humoral and cellular immune responses in participants in phase 1/2 clinical trials. Here, we report preliminary results on the efficacy and safety of Gam-COVID-Vac from the interim analysis of this phase 3 trial.

 

...

 

Denis Logunov and colleagues1 report their interim results from a phase 3 trial of the Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine in The Lancet. The trial results show a consistent strong protective effect across all participant age groups. Also known as Gam-COVID-Vac, the vaccine uses a heterologous recombinant adenovirus approach using adenovirus 26 (Ad26) and adenovirus 5 (Ad5) as vectors for the expression of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein. The use of two varying serotypes, which are given 21 days apart, is intended to overcome any pre-existing adenovirus immunity in the population.2 Among the major COVID vaccines in development to date, only Gam-COVID-Vac uses this approach; others, such as the Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine, use the same material for both doses. The earlier vaccine for Ebola virus disease, also developed at Gamaleya National Research Centre for Epidemiology and Microbiology (Moscow, Russia), was similar, with Ad5 and vesicular stomatitis virus as the carrier viruses,3 and the general principle of prime boost with two different vectors has been widely used experimentally.4

 

 

Lancet commentary: Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine candidate appears safe and effective

Quote

The development of the Sputnik V vaccine has been criticised for unseemly haste, corner cutting, and an absence of transparency.11 But the outcome reported here is clear and the scientific principle of vaccination is demonstrated, which means another vaccine can now join the fight to reduce the incidence of COVID-19.

 

...

 

Vaccine efficacy, based on the numbers of confirmed COVID-19 cases from 21 days after the first dose of vaccine, is reported as 91·6% (95% CI 85·6–95·2), and the suggested lessening of disease severity after one dose is particularly encouraging for current dose-sparing strategies.

 

 

A more casual overview of the published results is here:

Quote

Data from 19,866 volunteers – 4,902 of whom were in the placebo group – showed that Sputnik V had an overall efficacy of 91.6 percent, rising to 91.8 percent among the group of 2,144 volunteers over the age of 60, according to the interim results of the Phase III clinical trial published in the Lancet on Tuesday.

At the end of the study, there were 62 confirmed Covid-19 cases in the placebo group and only 16 in the vaccine group. Sputnik V proved to be 100 percent effective in preventing the development of severe cases.

...

While the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines require very low temperatures – between -70C and -20C – Sputnik V can be stored at 2-8 degrees Celsius without spoiling.

 

 

Here's a list of statements from medical experts around the world regarding the published results. Some excerpts:

David Livermore, Professor of Medical Microbiology at the University of East Anglia, UK

Quote

Presently the world needs all the good vaccines that it can get against COVID-19. And these are impressive results: Sputnik V is the first adenovirus vector vaccine to achieve the 90% efficacy seen with the two mRNA vaccines.

 

Hildegund C.J. Ertl, M.D., Professor, Vaccine & Immunotherapy Center, The Wistar Institute, USA

Quote

The vaccine is 100% effective in preventing serious disease or death, which in the end is the most crucial parameter; we can all deal with the sniffles as long as we stay out of the hospital or the graveyard. Even after a single dose of this prime-boost regimen protection against disease was at 87.6%. Sputnik V is thus more effective than the AstraZeneca or Johnson & Johnson. Sputnik V, which, unlike the equally efficacious RNA vaccines of Pfizer and Moderna, can be stored in the fridge, will be of tremendous value to combat the global COVID-19 pandemic.

 

Len Seymour, Professor of Gene Therapies in the Department of Oncology at the University of Oxford, UK

Quote

Sputnik V is one of the three vaccines in the world with efficacy of over 90%. Furthermore, Sputnik V stands out among these vaccines thanks to a number of key advantages:
- Based on a platform of human adenoviral vectors proven to be safe over decades of use.
- Easy distribution worldwide: storage temperature of between two and eight degrees Celsius.
- One of the most affordable vaccines in the world with a price of less than $10 per shot.

 

[Spotty]

1 hour ago, Delicieuxz said:

UK medical journal The Lancet has published interim peer-reviewed phase-3 trial data on the efficacy of Russia's Sputnik V Covid-19 vaccine, and given a glowing commentary of the result. Sputnik V is reportedly one of only three vaccines so far to achieve 90%+ efficacy. Its efficacy is 91.6% after 21 days, and in the 60+ age-group is reported to be 91.8%.

 

An advantage of Sputnik V is that it can be stored at 2 - 8 degrees Celsius, like the AstraZenica vaccine (which has lower efficacy), but while having an efficacy comparable to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines (which require much more stringent storage temperatures of -70 and -20 Celsius, respectively).

That's good.

 

What's also good is that we're actually fortunate to be in a position where we have multiple effective vaccines available. It is good that all our eggs aren't in the one basket. We could have very easily been in a position where the Pfizer (for example) vaccine was the only one available proven effective and the entire worldwide supply was in the hands of one company/one vaccine. For the foreseeable future though what vaccine you get access to will simply come down to what your country can secure supplies of.

[dalekphalm]

2 hours ago, Spotty said:

That's good.

 

What's also good is that we're actually fortunate to be in a position where we have multiple effective vaccines available. It is good that all our eggs aren't in the one basket. We could have very easily been in a position where the Pfizer (for example) vaccine was the only one available proven effective and the entire worldwide supply was in the hands of one company/one vaccine. For the foreseeable future though what vaccine you get access to will simply come down to what your country can secure supplies of.

Indeed. I don't remember if I read this here or on a news article, but a Doctor was talking about given a choice between getting one of the vaccines right now, today, that was a little less effective (say 75%), or waiting one week to get one of the 95%+ vaccines.

 

He said, do not wait. Get whichever one you can get, right away (assuming the vaccine has been approved for safety, but let's assume we're only dealing with approved peer reviewed vaccines).

 

His argument at that point was that The efficacy number specifically refers to preventing infection of the disease, but all of the approved vaccines, including the ones with lower efficacy numbers, appear to prevent death and ICU patients, etc.

 

So even if you do get infected after getting the vaccine, you'll have an extremely mild version of it, and you won't die.

 

At this point in the pandemic, we care more about halting the death and slowing new ICU patients, etc, more than we care about getting the absolute most effective vaccine. They're all good. Some are great instead of good.

 

Personally I likely won't get one until late summer or later, given I'm in my 30's and have no underlying health conditions to speak of (Had childhood Asthma, which could potentially increase my risks, but never had an issue past middle school).

 

My fiancee is First Nations, so she might be able to get a vaccine sooner - in the spring most likely, as the FN community is among the higher priorities.

[captain_to_fire]

5 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

UK medical journal The Lancet has published interim peer-reviewed phase-3 trial data on the efficacy of Russia's Sputnik V Covid-19 vaccine, and given a glowing commentary of the result. Sputnik V is reportedly one of only three vaccines so far to achieve 90%+ efficacy. Its efficacy is 91.6% after 21 days, and in the 60+ age-group is reported to be 91.8%.

 

An advantage of Sputnik V is that it can be stored at 2 - 8 degrees Celsius, like the AstraZenica vaccine (which has lower efficacy), but while having an efficacy comparable to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines (which require much more stringent storage temperatures of -70 and -20 Celsius, respectively).

 

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00234-8/fulltext

 

 

Lancet commentary: Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine candidate appears safe and effective

 

 

A more casual overview of the published results is here:

 

 

Here's a list of statements from medical experts around the world regarding the published results. Some excerpts:

David Livermore, Professor of Medical Microbiology at the University of East Anglia, UK

 

Hildegund C.J. Ertl, M.D., Professor, Vaccine & Immunotherapy Center, The Wistar Institute, USA

 

Len Seymour, Professor of Gene Therapies in the Department of Oncology at the University of Oxford, UK

 

Between this and China's Sinovac with 50% efficacy, I might consider the former if the Moderna and Pfizer vaccine ran out of stock, or if our leaders decided to fuck up negotiations thanks to bureaucracy

[sub68]

just gonna drop this

thanks xkcd

[MadyTehWolfie]

Update, all our shop does is change oil but somehow they got labeled as essential so as per cdc essential workers don’t need to quarantine so legally can’t do anything about them firing us for not coming back till everyone is tested and confirmed negative. How the hell was a quick lube place considered essential?

[TempestCatto]

28 minutes ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

Update, all our shop does is change oil but somehow they got labeled as essential so as per cdc essential workers don’t need to quarantine so legally can’t do anything about them firing us for not coming back till everyone is tested and confirmed negative. How the hell was a quick lube place considered essential?

That's pretty shitty. But a quick lube would be essential for the other essential employees (like healthcare) for maintaining their cars so they can still get to work and help those that are sick (I know, it's just an oil change and hit the grease points) but I think that's the "justification" there.

[dalekphalm]

24 minutes ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

Update, all our shop does is change oil but somehow they got labeled as essential

That part actually makes sense. People need to drive cars to do their essential jobs. Cars require maintenance. Oil changes are the primary and most frequent kind of maintenance.

 

If I needed an oil change right now and couldn't get one, I would risk destroying my car if I needed to keep using it.

24 minutes ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

so as per cdc essential workers don’t need to quarantine so legally can’t do anything about them firing us for not coming back till everyone is tested and confirmed negative. How the hell was a quick lube place considered essential?

Can you link to the CDC saying essential workers that have been directly exposed to a COVID positive person don't need to quarantine?

 

This is what I found by searching:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/critical-infrastructure-sectors.html#:~:text=Current CDC guidance recommends that,Guidance for Community-Related Exposure.

Quote

Critical Infrastructure Workers Exposed to Individuals with COVID-19
Current CDC guidance recommends that, with possible exception noted below, individuals (including critical infrastructure workers) exposed to a person with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 should be quarantined for 14 days, consistent with Public Health Guidance for Community-Related Exposure.

 

And this:

Quote

Critical infrastructure workers who are not symptomatic

Employers may consider allowing exposed and asymptomatic critical infrastructure workers to continue to work in select instances when it is necessary to preserve the function of critical infrastructure workplaces. This option should be used as a last resort and only in limited circumstances, such as when cessation of operation of a facility may cause serious harm or danger to public health or safety. 

Their bold, not mine.

[LogicalDrm]

49 minutes ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

Update, all our shop does is change oil but somehow they got labeled as essential so as per cdc essential workers don’t need to quarantine so legally can’t do anything about them firing us for not coming back till everyone is tested and confirmed negative. How the hell was a quick lube place considered essential?

Merged. We have one covid thread for a reason.

[MadyTehWolfie]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

That part actually makes sense. People need to drive cars to do their essential jobs. Cars require maintenance. Oil changes are the primary and most frequent kind of maintenance.

 

If I needed an oil change right now and couldn't get one, I would risk destroying my car if I needed to keep using it.

Can you link to the CDC saying essential workers that have been directly exposed to a COVID positive person don't need to quarantine?

 

This is what I found by searching:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/critical-infrastructure-sectors.html#:~:text=Current CDC guidance recommends that,Guidance for Community-Related Exposure.

 

And this:

Their bold, not mine.

Same thing I saw online. Guess my job is just doing some illegal stuff then. District manager just said we have layers we are allowed to do this we have a lot of lawyers we are doing what the guidelines say to do.

[Andreas Lilja]

Restaurants are going to be full.

 

https://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/public-security-minister-trusts-quebecers-to-avoid-travel-to-the-regions

[dalekphalm]

7 hours ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

Same thing I saw online. Guess my job is just doing some illegal stuff then. District manager just said we have layers we are allowed to do this we have a lot of lawyers we are doing what the guidelines say to do.

I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, but they may well be acting illegally.

 

I would first reach out to your state regulators:

https://www.ny.gov/content/report-suspected-workplace-violations

 

And here:

https://labor.ny.gov/workerprotection/laborstandards/coronavirus-complaints.shtm

 

You should be able to get ahold of someone who can advise you as to whether or not your employer is allowed to force you to keep working despite the close contact with a covid positive person.

 

If they indicate that what your employer is doing is illegal, you can find out your available actions from them. If your employer is allowed to continue, you'll need to decide whether the risk of infection is large enough compared to the risk of job loss.

[captain_to_fire]

I don’t know what to say other than they cannot claim it has the same filtration rate as a N95 respirator unless the exhaust valve has a filtration mechanism to trap exhaled droplets.

I thought the design was going after the winter soldier look to look cool but it’s transparent, it might as well be a tacky nose and mouth helmet.

[Blade of Grass]

Oh yeah, if anyone was interested in how that Danish mask study came to a conclusion that masks don’t work, and why the study is mostly 🗑:

 

https://fooledbyrandomnessdotcom.wordpress.com/2020/11/25/hypothesis-testing-in-the-presence-of-false-positives-the-flaws-in-the-danish-mask-study/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, Blade of Grass said:

Oh yeah, if anyone was interested in how that Danish mask study came to a conclusion that masks don’t work, and why the study is mostly 🗑:

 

https://fooledbyrandomnessdotcom.wordpress.com/2020/11/25/hypothesis-testing-in-the-presence-of-false-positives-the-flaws-in-the-danish-mask-study/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

In other words, they mathed wrong.

[Andreas Lilja]

Bad news. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/02/07/world/covid-19-coronavirus?auth=login-google&campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20210207&instance_id=0&nl=breaking-news&ref=headline&regi_id=140834901&segment_id=51190&user_id=b6ec2e4bf907a2b5d9bb6bddc187f6da

[Sarra]

Well, I got my second vaccine shot today.

 

Tomorrow, I'm expecting to feel like crap.

 

Then Saturday, I don't have to do ANYTHING for several days, so I can recover. No work, and I'm not leaving the state yet.

[dalekphalm]

3 hours ago, Sarra said:

Well, I got my second vaccine shot today.

Nice!

3 hours ago, Sarra said:

Tomorrow, I'm expecting to feel like crap.

How was your reaction to the first dose? Depending on which vaccine you got, the 2nd dose is either identical, or half the size.

3 hours ago, Sarra said:

Then Saturday, I don't have to do ANYTHING for several days, so I can recover. No work, and I'm not leaving the state yet.

I haven't been able to find a lot of data on how long each vaccine takes to kick in, aside from an article from a couple of months ago that indicated that the Pfizer vaccine started to kick in as soon as 10 days after the first dose - though full protection will likely take a week or two after the second.

[Sarra]

4 hours ago, Benji said:

You better get rid off this self-fulfilling prophecy mindset.

But it is probably for the better to give yourself more time to "recover" (should anything actually happen) before going back to wor.

I am basing this off what I was told when I got the shot.

 

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

How was your reaction to the first dose? Depending on which vaccine you got, the 2nd dose is either identical, or half the size.

I felt kinda iffy the day I got it, then I felt pretty achey and meh the next few days. I got the Pfizer vaccines.

[piratemonkey]

^some vaccine stuff

I haven't seen anything about taking two different vaccines. Is there any information on it yet? Only reason why I'm wondering is that the single shot Johnson & Johnson could be used for quick protection (it's not as effective), with the Moderna or Pfizer for the long term

[dalekphalm]

54 minutes ago, piratemonkey said:

^some vaccine stuff

I haven't seen anything about taking two different vaccines. Is there any information on it yet? Only reason why I'm wondering is that the single shot Johnson & Johnson could be used for quick protection (it's not as effective), with the Moderna or Pfizer for the long term

Personally I would advise against mixing the vaccines, if only for supply reasons. If you're taking one vaccine now with the intention of taking another one later, you're depriving someone else of one of those vaccines.

 

Frankly all of the US/Canada approved vaccines are very effective - and all of them provide near perfect protection against death/ICU, ventilation, and severe illness.

 

So even if you do get sick, it'll be like a common cold instead of possibly near death/death.