safe safe

[pikuvifo 1]

We've been swinging for a long time and this past year has been tough. We have tried to figure out how to see other couples while staying "safe". What do you think about clubs and hotels open for business as usual? Seem like super spreader events, no?

 

[Billygoat 443]

Yes.....most certainly.   There are many who get together regularly in a tight circle of family and friends in day to day life.  Trust and care is taken to insure they do not place any in dangerous situations by stepping outside their circle.

 

the same also happens with many in the lifestyle.  Tight closed circle of intimate friends still getting together socially and intimately.  Not stepping out of their circle limiting potential contamination.  We are part of that as are many others.  But clubbing, open parties new meets are all tragically dangerous behavior.

 

A few area groups, parties have tried to start back up....only to close due to no or very limited attendance......a result of the times.....and common sense.

[njbm 2,868]

We play games on Zoom with 5-7 lifestyle couples that we know. Only one couple has played with anyone else during the pandemic. They were sheepish to admit it and they admitted it was reckless. The rest are waiting for vaccines. 
 

The problem is asymptomatic spread. You have no idea what’s coming. And then if you contract an asymptomatic case and go to a supermarket, you can transmit it to an elderly or immunocompromised person for whom it is serious. Masks are not 100%. So even if you are asymptomatic, it can be fatal for your contacts.  
 

We want to live to play another day. And the same for others. 

[NWAtlSwing 522]

His parents had a closed circle of friends and still got it. It happens. (not swingers)

 

There is no way to be 100%. Everyone has to make the choices they are going to make based on what they feel safe with.

 

Both of us are going to work every day, 5 days a week. Our kids are in school, live and face to face. We just don't see the risks of a meet and greet as that much worse, or even playing with people who are just not showing any signs.

[GoldCoCouple 4,065]

Trying to stay out of this debate, but the bigger question should be: Is Covid the death sentence that it all too often is portrayed to be? Can it be deadly: Absolutely. In most cases is it deadly...

[couplers 4,614]

22 minutes ago, GoldCoCouple said:

Can it be deadly: Absolutely.

Even if you're willing to take your chances with the percentage risk of death, I would be scared of being one of the long-term sufferers who are debilitated for months, perhaps life.

[bbarnsworth 2,637]

Our metric has been whether we need to do something. Before covid, we did many things we are not doing now. We don't go to church, we don't sit down in a restaurant, and we don't hang out with friends. There will be time for those things after this pandemic is over. If we don't treat the pandemic seriously, there won't be time for those things. We too, like couplers, are concerned not just about dying but about potential long term effects from the virus.

 

There's a ray of hope that's been happening over the last three weeks. On January 11 we were averaging 249,000 cases per day (averaged over the prior 7 days). A bit over three weeks later, that figure is now down to 137,000. That's an astonishing drop, and cause for hope. We still have a long way to go though.

[EastInWest 1,524]

On 2/1/2021 at 1:01 PM, couplers said:

Even if you're willing to take your chances with the percentage risk of death, I would be scared of being one of the long-term sufferers who are debilitated for months, perhaps life.

This is the thing. Maybe people in my circle just had bad luck, but several colleagues in their 30s and 40s have ended up hospitalized. Not intubated, but still. One lost two elderly family members from spread within their family. Everyone has to measure their own risk, but sometimes it just doesn't add up.

 

On the upside, we haven't played with our local partner since the end of summer, when our local outbreak took off. She works in a relatively high-risk field and it was one thing when she was being regularly tested and very careful at work, and local cases were almost non-existent, but another when it was everywhere and our neighborhood was the epicenter. It's still not good, our numbers in our city are still 20x what they were during the summer, but half what they were at the peak and steadily declining. Now she's gotten the first shot of the vaccine, and we decided to set up a date if the local case count kept declining every day for a week.

 

We're on day six and hoping nothing spoils our first Saturday night socializing of the winter. Things are slowly getting back to semi-normal, and will hopefully improve drastically this summer.

[lcmim 1,081]

From what I have been reading I think some are misconstruing what the vaccine actually does.

 What I am seeing is that is gives protection to the recipient from getting seriously ill from being infected, NOT from getting infected and passing it on.

Refer to the difference between  "effective" and "sterilizing" immunities.

 

 In terms of getting back in the game it is important that we are inoculated to protect us from getting really sick. It likely does nothing for those we play with. It also does nothing to protect loved ones who may catch something that we pick up, even if we catch it from a vaccinated partner.

 

The main benefit in being inoculated is that Covid 19 is being reduced from a life threatening illness to a bad cold for those who receive the vaccine.

 

Would one of our medical people step up and say whether my understanding is correct?

I hope that I am very incorrect, but I do not think that I am. 

 

[EastInWest 1,524]

That's our understanding, as well, but it's also a decision we made after discussing a couple weeks ago based on multiple factors. Essentially, in our community, new cases are almost back down to summer levels, so the total cases are dropping fast as earlier patients get cleared out of the count. In addition, our neighborhood is no longer the hotspot in our region and hasn't been for a while now. The vaccine is just a positive footnote.

 

We're going to be just as careful as we were all year, but are comfortable that the situation that caused us to stop is over for now. This is different for every community, but the point was that things are moving forward. We expect Mrs. E will be in the next group to be eligible for vaccination for professional reasons, as well, although it may be a while for me.

Edited February 5, 2021 by EastInWest

[njbm 2,868]

We are ultra cautious, because there are no do overs. Also, we are over 60. We play Zoom games on Saturday nights with 5-7 other lifestyle couples. The consensus is that if we have a vaccine and the other couple or couples we are going to play with are vaccinated, we will probably play. The only proviso is if the current vaccine protects against new variants from South Africa, UK or Brazil. We’ll see how things are going. 

[J&Wu 408]

On 2/5/2021 at 12:26 PM, lcmim said:

From what I have been reading I think some are misconstruing what the vaccine actually does.

 What I am seeing is that is gives protection to the recipient from getting seriously ill from being infected, NOT from getting infected and passing it on.

Refer to the difference between  "effective" and "sterilizing" immunities.

 

 In terms of getting back in the game it is important that we are inoculated to protect us from getting really sick. It likely does nothing for those we play with. It also does nothing to protect loved ones who may catch something that we pick up, even if we catch it from a vaccinated partner.

 

The main benefit in being inoculated is that Covid 19 is being reduced from a life threatening illness to a bad cold for those who receive the vaccine.

 

Would one of our medical people step up and say whether my understanding is correct?

I hope that I am very incorrect, but I do not think that I am. 

 

If you are vaccinated with both doses of either Pfizer's or Moderna's vaccines on schedule and it's been 2 weeks since the second you are pretty safe from the original variant of COVID-19. However there is no certainty about the mutations that are appearing nor whether you can pick up and pass live virus to others even though you are immune. And how long will your immunity last? At least 3 months, actually probably longer, hopefully much longer but not yet documented.

[bbarnsworth 2,637]

There is a great deal that we do not know about this virus. There's reason to believe antibody resistance fades after a few months, but that t-cell resistance remains, possibly for years. There's speculation that you will need to get booster vaccinations periodically.

 

With reference to swinging; at least here in the U.S. we're supposed to have enough vaccinations that anyone who wants to be vaccinated will be vaccinated by June. We've all (well, most of us) have been waiting for almost a year now without having sex with anyone other than our spouses. Surely we can wait four more months.

[lcmim 1,081]

My question remains. Safe from getting sick which is "effective immunity" or safe from being infected, "sterilizing immunity", as far as the original strain is concerned.

 

This is not a distinction without a difference.

News articles seem to gloss this over.

The first only protects the vaccinated and really does not lead to herd immunity.

The second protects everyone by building herd immunity.

 

 

 

Edited February 11, 2021 by lcmim

[lcmim 1,081]

 Originally we were told that even after vaccination that we should quarantine if exposed to Covid.Now the CDC says that exposure after vaccination does not require quarantine. Does that mean that one cannot get infected or does it mean that if you are infected that you will not shed spreadable virus??

[MrMrsswinger 202]

7 minutes ago, lcmim said:

 Originally we were told that even after vaccination that we should quarantine if exposed to Covid.Now the CDC says that exposure after vaccination does not require quarantine. Does that mean that one cannot get infected or does it mean that if you are infected that you will not shed spreadable virus??

 

What it actually means is that the CDC doesn't know anything. Just like the mask mandate. We were told masks were to protect others. Then it was masks protect you but not others. Then they protected both. I read an article today stating that TWO masks is better. TWO! The gator actually caused the virus spread to be worse. Then the gator worked like masks. Then the gator was better than masks.

 

No one knows anything. 

[lovefest04 698]

Gator?

 

Edited February 11, 2021 by lovefest04
Added response

[lovefest04 698]

6 hours ago, bbarnsworth said:

We've all (well, most of us) have been waiting for almost a year now without having sex with anyone other than our spouses. Surely we can wait four more months.

That's not something you read in the local press. ?      I love this site and the people on it.  To infidelity and beyond!

[PSULioness 839]

2 hours ago, MrMrsswinger said:

 

What it actually means is that the CDC doesn't know anything. Just like the mask mandate. We were told masks were to protect others. Then it was masks protect you but not others. Then they protected both. I read an article today stating that TWO masks is better. TWO! The gator actually caused the virus spread to be worse. Then the gator worked like masks. Then the gator was better than masks.

 

No one knows anything. 

The CDC knows more than the people on here. Science evolves and is not static unlike the minds of some people. Better medications, my mom said it was only penicillin when she was young, then antibiotics and even antibiotics change. Polio vaccine, first Salk then Sabin. This virus keeps changing and science has only a very brief history to work with. 

You want to play scientist, go ahead, I’ll listen to the best minds our country has even if their direction changes. 

[GoldCoCouple 4,065]

I'm just so glad that having everyone wear masks stopped the covid virus in its tracks last year. It has almost been a year since we started wearing them...

 

The masks are only to stop people WHO HAVE THE VIRUS from spreading it to others by coughing and distributing water droplets. They do not filter the virus out of the air you breathe, no matter how many you may wear. That's science and science doesn't care what you may believe.

[lcmim 1,081]

I thoroughly agree about listening to the CDC et al to get good information.

Pooling our ignorance here and elsewhere is counterproductive.

I also know that the science on this is evolving.

 

It would help though,  on the simple things like masks and just how the vaccines are effective if when these experts spoke they would speak in conditional terms and not try and sound like it is something they are sure of.

 

There is a world of difference between "You can still get infected and be a spreader even after being vaccinated so quarantine if you are exposed." and" We really do not know for certain if the vaccine will keep you from being infected so , for now , you should err on the side of caution and quarantine if you are exposed."

That way they do not sound like someone you , perhaps, should not trust.

 

Now, Fauci does try to speak om cautionary terms. Unless there are quotation marks around what the media reports from him, I generally assume that they are going for sensation.

 

We all want to do the correct thing on this. None of us wants to get sick or infect someone else. Truly transparent statements from the scientists, even a "We are not sure." would help.

Conflicting opposed statements of "fact" days apart and often from the same source do not. 

[adamgunn 1,460]

14 hours ago, lcmim said:

Now, Fauci does try to speak om cautionary terms. Unless there are quotation marks around what the media reports from him, I generally assume that they are going for sensation.

Superb point!

 

"And I don't believe what I read in the papers, they're just out to capture my dime" - - Paul Simon

[Fundamental Law 2,885]

Greetings. We write to offer a bit of perspective. The disclaimer is that our crystal ball is no clearer than anyone else's. 

 

When this topic comes up in our vanilla lives--it does frequently--we divide our response into three buckets: what is known, what is thought, and what is hoped. 

 

What is known

 

Viruses constantly try to jump from one species to another. The pandemic is the result of a very rare successful jump from a bat to a human. Successful jumps are very rare, but when they are successful, and if the infected person comes into contact with another susceptible person, outbreaks begin. If the early outbreak is not contained, a pandemic occurs. Pandemics are fairly frequent and they have begun all over the world. (Last decade's swine flu began in the USA.) 

 

Frequently outbreaks are contained because the virus kills too quickly. This has been the case with two other coronavirus outbreaks in recent memory, SARS at the beginning of the century, and MERS about 10 years ago. Those viruses cause sudden and severe symptoms, and provided that the infected can be quarantined as soon as symptoms appear or exposures are known, those outbreaks are readily stopped with a few hundred deaths. 

 

On the other side of the problem is seasonal influenza. Symptoms appear somewhat late in infection and the death rate is comparatively much lower, so that while flu has been common during the winter respiratory season, with bad years here and there, it typically does NOT require hospitalization and typically does not leave those infected with long term health problems. 

 

The current virus, SARS-CoV-2, has been successful because it occupies a "sweet spot" between transmissibility, the appearance of symptoms, and mortality. It is highly transmissible, symptoms take around a week to appear (and the virus is transmissible for several days before symptoms appear), and has a case fatality rate about ten times higher than bad influenza. 

 

There are three additional facts that matter here. 

 

1. Humans have never before successfully developed a vaccine against coronaviruses. Part of that relates to the immunology of coronaviruses. Different from the immunology related to measles or mumps, the immune response to coronaviruses fades quickly. There are several coronaviruses that are responsible for about 40% of what we think of as "the common cold", and we can "catch" the same virus every few years. They are mostly childhood nuisances. As such there has never been an economic incentive to try and make a vaccine. 

 

2. All viruses, and especially all RNA viruses (coronaviruses are RNA viruses) undergo mutations at a fairly rapid rate: their replication is intentionally sloppy. This is precisely what Darwin called "random mutation". The genetic code undergoes frequent misprints. There is a recent case report of a patient with a defective immune system who had 145 days of more or less continuous infection  (not recurrence, continuing infection) before death. His viruses were sampled and sequenced regularly and literally dozens and dozens of mutations were detected. None of them became dominant in the patient, but....

 

3. ...all mutants have a different fitness level. Some are more transmissible, some have a longer period in which to spread before symptoms appear, some reproduce (replicate) more efficiently in the host human. They will undergo the other half of Darwin's insight, namely "natural selection".  This is what is being seeing worldwide right now. The mutations have occurred, and more "fit" variants are spreading through the human population. This should surprise no one--influenza does this every year, which is why new "shots" are needed every year--scientists try to forecast which species are becoming more fit, prepare vaccines against those emerging strains, and that is why you go for the annual flu jab. 

 

One more thing. If infected, it's now clear that there is small but meaningful risk of long-term organ damage and disability. No one knows how long, but "surviving the acute infection" is not the same as "clean bill of health". 

 

What is thought

 

Combatting the virus depends on reducing the so-called R value below 1. If an infected human transmits the virus, on average, to less than one other infected human (that is, if ten infected humans only transmit to 8 more, R=8/10=0.8) then the outbreak/pandemic ends.  The idea is to supplement the physical barriers to transmission--travel restrictions, distancing, mask wearing, hand hygeine etc--with raising the level of population immunity with vaccines. 

 

There is evidence that masking is effective, and early evidence that double masking may be more effective--a cloth mask over a tight fitting paper mask or respirator. All of the calculations about controlling the virus have to figure in the degree to which physical transmission is reduced by such measures. Masks likely protect the wearer and also those around the wearer provided the wearing is well fit. Masks are known to protect wearers from tuberculosis for example (yes, it's a much larger particle, but the problem with masks is not the filtration as much as it is the fit). Masks certainly reduce droplet transmission. No mask ever works if improperly worn. 

 

There is evidence that the mRNA vaccines are ~95% effective in the population that was willing to participate in the clinical trials. That is *not* the same as the general population, because different types of people volunteer for clinical trials. All that is *known* is that the relative risk o getting covid when the *trial participants* were sent back into the general population was that their attack rate was about 5% of those who received the placebo. They were still advised to wear masks, practice social distancing and so on. Of note, they were *not* told it was okay to go to bars and throw away their masks. This is important because while the vaccine may have prevented clinical illness, we have *no idea* whether it prevents transmission as a result of asymptomatic infection. Just because you do not have symptoms (clinical illness) does not mean that cannot transmit the virus. Indeed, most infections are indeed asymptomatic. Unfortunately, there is such a large infected population that there is a large population of sick people, including those on life support. 

 

Masks indeed protect you and also those around you, Physical distancing protects you and those around you. We *think* vaccines protect you (from clinical illness)--but that depends on the extent to which you match those who were willing to volunteer for trials. We *think* vaccines protect others, because we *think* you are less likely to have a transmissible asymptomatic infection. 

 

We *think* that the different vaccines will work reasonably well--you are hearing of other vaccines producing 75-90% reductions in attack rates. Not perfect, but much better than flu, where we are lucky to see 50%. 

 

The problem arises:  the vaccines were made to combat the original strain of the virus, and not the emerging mutants. There is evidence that the vaccines remain partially effective against the emerging mutant strains, but most studies so far say that the vaccines are not as effective against the mutant strains as against the parent strain. 

 

What is hoped

 

The hope is that widespread vaccination --along with continued physical measures to prevent transmission--will be sufficient to reduce R below 1 for all strains. The benefit of vaccination is to reduce the spread in the population. If it happens to prevent an individual from getting sick, wonderful. If it happens to prevent an individual from dying, even better. But the idea behind vaccination is really to protect the health of a population by making it difficult and eventually impossible for viruses to spread to more than an average of one person per infected person. Kids seem to do better with the virus, and the hope is to keep the reservoir of infected persons generally kids, most---but not all!!!--experience the infection as a bad cold. 

 

No one we know of believes that the virus will disappear from the face of the earth. That's not how the process works. Even with massive global vaccination, this type of respiratory virus fades into the background (becomes endemic) and does not disappear. 

 

What this might mean for you

 

Small groups of people with immunity--natural or from immunization--are going to become relatively safer to interact with. Large groups, not so much owing to the natural ineffectiveness of the vaccines. Get enough people with no immunity to unmask and be in close quarters, and there *will* be an outbreak if just one person is infected. Laws of large numbers and so on. 

 

There is an obvious and palpable tension between trying to stay safe and connecting with other human beings. There are no guarantees at this point. Official advice from the CDC etc is going to more reliable than "research on the internet" where all voices can appear equal and invite choosing something that reinforces what you want to believe. 

 

 

Edited February 12, 2021 by Fundamental Law

[Fundamental Law 2,885]

PS. We listen to Dr. Fauci.

 

Under the prior administration, he was not allowed to tell what he knew or thought. He is now free to do so. He is a very smart and very honest man. He embraces the idea that science is self-correcting as new findings and data emerge. Whether you like him or believe him is less important than how you weigh his insights. He has been right far more often than he has been wrong about the pandemic. 

 

No one can be told what to believe. That said, we think Dr. Fauci's insights are especially important. 

Edited February 12, 2021 by Fundamental Law

[bbarnsworth 2,637]

3 hours ago, adamgunn said:

 

"And I don't believe what I read in the papers, they're just out to capture my dime" - - Paul Simon

 

"If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed." - Mark Twain

[lcmim 1,081]

Thank you!

Ever consider a job writing releases for the experts?

[njbm 2,868]

Thank you, FL, for such a clear and informative post (s)!