Reply to Why aren’t schools with high COVID rates masking?

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Why aren’t schools with high COVID rates masking? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Because most people have already had it. [/quote]

Hmmm … citation for this?[/quote]

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7117e3.htm
“As of February 2022, approximately 75% of children and adolescents had serologic evidence of previous infection with SARS-CoV-2, with approximately one third becoming newly seropositive since December 2021."[/quote]

And now they're all getting the new strain. Immunity doesn't last. [b]Vaccines don't seem to a great job in preventing longterm effects. [/b]Most sane people would therefore conclude that not getting a highly contagious virus that can have long-term effects is worth wearing a mask to do. [/quote]

Meh.  Just keep getting more shots.  Two wasn’t good enough.  Three didn’t cut it.  Maybe four will do the trick?  [/quote]

You keep getting them.  Hard no for us. Two and done. [/quote]

I love this arbitrary position. Why, exactly? Do you refuse to get a flu shot every year because you got it once? This is just so arbitrary. [/quote]

DP. The Covid vaccine schedule is what is arbitrary so far.  They’re making up the schedule as they go along, when immunity from the last shot starts to wane.    I hope we can get to the point where it’s an annual vaccine like for the flu.  I’m not super comfortable just getting a vax every few months until they figure it out.[/quote]

DP. While I can somewhat understand this point of view (mostly because of how sick the vaccines make me), I think it's strange to draw the line at 2 shots. I recognize the public messaging was probably misleading, but in practical terms there was never an expectation that 2 shots spaced 2-3 weeks apart would be enough. Even if two shots could have been enough, spacing them so closely together was expected to decrease the efficacy and durability. But it was a good tradeoff at the beginning, because it meant they could complete the trials faster.

Adding a third shot about 6 months later brings the vaccine schedule closer to what you’d typically expect. And given there’s pretty good data on the benefits of a third shot, I don’t know why anyone would pass it up.

Now, 4th shots are a different story. I'd be looking for better data than simply higher antibody levels, or a couple months of better immunity against infection.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics