Presumably that was their justification. As you suspect, your daughter most likely got the virus from one of the newly-vaccinated attendees seated nearby. If the NFL is determined to go down the path of allowing people into games after getting a first shot right before entering a stadium, a better approach might be to also require those people to wear a mask while inside.
As you said, we’ll see. It seems they really bent the vaccination requirement rules pretty far, though.
She said they did. People getting the shots there were given a wristband to ID them, but nobody appeared to be enforcing their required mask wearing.
It’s interesting that you mention the wristbands because in a first draft, I mentioned that as a possible step along with the mask requirement, then removed it from my post.
I think it would be very hard to monitor and enforce mask-wearing in a stadium crowded with people, especially given the type of seating. Were there no people at all wearing them that day?
It’s fortunate, at least, that your daughter was fully vaccinated and got only a mild case.
At least in California, I don’t it would be hard, just expensive to hire a bunch of security guards to 86 people.
Yes, so that’s why it would be hard. They’re not likely going to spring for the cost of an army of security guards checking for hard-to see wristbands.
Better, I think, to simply deny entry in the first place to people who are not fully vaccinated + 14.
Everybody should be wearing masks.
Oh, the [Your City Here] Raiders moved again. Las Vegas is pretty different from Alameda County.
Well, we’ll just have to disagree about that. I think it should be that everybody in a stadium event should be fully vaccinated; masks an optional additional personal protection. That would encourage some of the vaccine-“hesitant” who are sports-lovers to finally get vaccinated.
LOL. Yeah.
There WERE people wearing masks, but not the wrist-banded couple behind them. The stadium was full, and they have really good season seats, so I’m guessing they chose not to move.
Answer as reported by CNN earlier today (bolding theirs):
CDC will not change definition of “fully vaccinated” now in light of third dose recommendation
From CNN’s Virginia Langmaid
Current recommendations for Covid-19 booster vaccines do not change the definition of who is fully vaccinated, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said Friday.
“We are not changing the definition right now of fully vaccinated. I think we need to have more experience with our third shot and have more people eligible and recommended to receive it before we change that definition,” Walensky said at a White House Covid-19 Response Team briefing.
.
The CDC currently defines fully vaccinated as being 14 days past a second dose of an mRNA Covid-19 vaccine – Pfizer’s or Moderna’s -– or 14 days past one dose of Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine.
And here’s the answer to the second question, as reported today in the San Diego Union-Tribune in an article by Allyson Chiu (who writes for the Washington Post):
Can you get a covid booster and a flu shot at the same time?
Yes. The CDC has given the go-ahead to receive a dose of the coronavirus vaccine and other vaccines at the same time — a change from a previous recommendation to wait a minimum of 14 days between the different vaccinations.
“Now that we have so much experience with these COVID-19 vaccines, which we didn’t have when they were first introduced, we are quite comfortable saying it’s fine to give them with other vaccines,” Moore said.
It’s not clear to me how the CDC is estimating prevention of hospitalization. Per slide #10 of the PowerPoint deck linked to by the NYT story, they were studying people who were hospitalized, not the larger population of people who were fully vaccinated. Why is the 86% to 73% for Pfizer vs. 91% to 86% for Moderna shown on slide #17 not due to more people getting Pfizer than Modena, as per slide #13?
For people 65 and older, the effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in preventing hospitalization dropped from 86 percent in the first five months to 73 percent in the next three, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported on Wednesday.
First, as you noted, there were more people vaccinated with Pfizer (in NY State) than with Moderna (slide 13), presumably in part at least, to the earlier approval of Pfizer for emergency use.
The data on slide 17 show that the two vaccines are still equally effective against hospitalization within a few percentage points (error bars not shown) for people under age 65. It’s only above age 65 that the spread between the two is bigger.
Your assessment of the disparity in the number of people vaccinated with each brand of mRNA may be correct. I think there are additional factors to consider.
Once again, there is the issue of what exactly constitutes a “case” and what exactly comprises the cohort of those tested. Case numbers are fuzzy numbers.
In terms of hospitalizations, however, the numbers are “hard”. But the criteria for going to the hospital in the first place are not. Different doctors in different regions may order a patient to go to the hospital sooner based on differing criteria in terms of their degree of illness and their age. Some physicians may send patients to the hospital earlier than others would, in other words, “out of an abundance of caution”.
So if more 65+ people were in general being sent to the hospital with less severe symptoms than those in the younger infected population, and more people 65+ had the Pfizer vaccine (and especially those 75+ who were among the first to be vaccinated probably got Pfizer), that would explain the difference.
Yes, that was exactly my point. How are they extrapolating from the study of hospitalized to the general population? Or did they simply forget to?
It’s reminiscent of the recent headlines about unvaccinated people being 11 times more likely to be hospitalized or die. Except in that case I could figure out from the CDC’s report that the correct number was 50.
Obviously it’s all about probability but many companies disagree at this point (but continuously monitor the situation) with his comment “ Yes, breakthroughs do happen. But symptomatic breakthroughs should not be a major problem…” There are not a huge number of symptomatic breakthroughs but they are happening and companies don’t want to take any unnecessary risk (and masking is absolutely not big ask for anybody) - and so many are back to mask mandates (and even more WFH)
From WP 28 Sept article:
Big picture: We’re misunderstanding population risk by relying on faulty metrics of community spread, and then compounding the mistake by using those metrics as the basis for requiring masks indoors when everyone is fully vaccinated. The message we’re sending is that the vaccines don’t work. That’s a dangerous message when the main goal should be to persuade people to get the shots.
Recently there has been an increasing amount of discussion about when the transition from dealing with covid as an epidemic to co-existing with it as an ongoing endemic presence will take place in the US (e.g., Fauci, Gupta). Other endemic diseases which for over many generations we’ve not taken any unusual protective steps (but definitely the usual ones) include the common cold and (dare I say it) the flu. At the point of that transition, which may be sooner rather than later, there should be no need for any unusual constraints on social behavior, including masks. These recent discussions are interesting, and both Dr. Fauci and Dr. Gupta agree. (Yes, I know that Dr. Gupta is a neurosurgeon, but he’s been closely following all of the information on the progress of the pandemic and presents his interpretations in a clear, balanced, and understandable way that the general public can understand.)
“Sooner rather than later” seems like wishful thinking when hospitalizations and deaths are increasing in so many places.
They’re talking hypothetically (and hopefully) about spring of next year. Here’s a short video in which both of them express essentially the same view: