Last night she was coughing in a manner my asleep brain read as "gross", so unconsciously noped the fuck out of there and slept on the sofa. I can't believe my non-awake brain got it.

She tested positive a few hours ago, so now I just have 7 days to worry. I probably have it, I feel a bit off already.

I know that it's more than most people, but she was wearing low quality masks, going to a non-safe dentist at peak times, and avoiding the booster. I've been nicely pushing her for years, and she brings this shit home. She's also sorry, and I say it's fine because I want her to feel better and recover, but secretly I'm fucking raging.

Sorry to rant. Better on Hexbear than out loud.

  • a_blanqui_slate [none/use name, any]
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    there's an acceptable level of precaution

    Yeah, which is always defined in a post-hoc manner in the negative, because eventually almost everyone is going to catch this thing, regardless of their precautions.

    I caught it when one of the KN95's I was wearing turned out to be a counterfeit. If someone came at me for not checking serial numbers and stitching like it's some sort of Beanie Baby, I'd write them off. Was my level of precaution "acceptable"? I don't know, that doesn't mean anything. Was it effective? No.

    • Kuori [she/her]
      ·
      11 months ago

      I caught it when one of the KN95's I was wearing turned out to be a counterfeit.

      i'm sorry that happened to you. you're talking about a totally different situation than OP is though.

      wearing low quality masks, going to a non-safe dentist at peak times, and avoiding the booster

      is a series of intentional choices. you were the victim of an outside actor. the result is ultimately the same but OP's partner could change their behavior and lower the risk for both of them. you could not have reasonably done much of anything in your situation.

      • a_blanqui_slate [none/use name, any]
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        is a series of intentional choices. you were the victim of an outside actor

        I was the victim of my own lack of due diligence. The CDC had information on their website about checking for counterfeits and I didn't pay it sufficient mind until it was time to pay the piper.

        Was it reasonable for me to have to do that? I don't know, 'reasonable' is defined socially, and at the moment, the vast majority of the population considers mask wearing unreasonable, so I don't know what good 'reasonable' is supposed to do us here.

        Everyone can always do more, but the reality of the situation is largely out of our hands, anyone still going out is only going to be able to shift the probabilities in their favor, but not control the outcomes, so anytime a breakthrough infection occurs despite n precautions, I don't find much value in anger at the fact that n+1 precautions weren't taken.

        I'd understand the OP's anger more if there were some sort of betrayal, where she promised him to take more precautions and then reneged on them, but in reality, she took the precautions she was comfortable with, and despite wishing she'd take more, he took the precautions he was comfortable with, which involved close contact with someone taking fewer precautions. The law of large numbers did the rest.

        • dat_math [they/them]
          ·
          11 months ago

          the vast majority of the population considers mask wearing unreasonable

          Since when did we distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable by what the majority of liberals in the west think?

          I don't find much value in anger at the fact that n+1 precautions weren't taken.

          You don't see value in reducing viral load and thereby reducing the expected severity of the infection, even in a post-hoc sense where you're already infected?

          there were some sort of betrayal, where she promised him to take more precautions and then reneged on them, but in reality, she took the precautions she was comfortable with, and despite wishing she'd take more, he took the precautions he was comfortable with, which involved close contact with someone taking fewer precautions

          people in relationships are atomic and it's never acceptable to be upset with one's partner for prioritizing fleeting sensory pleasure over the health of everybody in the relationship

          • a_blanqui_slate [none/use name, any]
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Since when did we distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable by what the majority of liberals in the west think?

            That's part of my point. Reasonable is not defined in any meaningful, universalizable sense here. The subjectivity of what is reasonable in this case is part of the problem. Who gets to decide what definition of reasonable everyone has to use is? She did what she thought was reasonable and so did he. Now they're both infected. Doesn't seem like 'reasonable' is worth discussing (cue Anton Chirguh)

            You don't see value in reducing viral load and thereby reducing the expected severity of the infection, even in a post-hoc sense where you're already infected?

            Of course I do, that's why I'm spraying ridiculous chemicals in my nostril daily and teaching in an kn95 and bought a $250 air purifier for my office. But I don't see the value in beating myself (or anyone else up) if (and when) those measures prove insufficient. There's always one more step I could take.

            one's partner for prioritizing fleeting sensory pleasure

            You and I must have very different dentists.

            • dat_math [they/them]
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              But I don't see the value in beating myself (or anyone else up) if (and when) those measures prove insufficient

              Nobody's beating anybody up because those particular measures proved inefficient. People are rightfully dumping on someone who did not bother to take the extremely minor precautions that would have better protected their partner, despite their partner's protests

              one's partner for prioritizing fleeting sensory pleasure

              How else do you describe insistence on wearing a cloth mask over an n-95 or the insistence on not updating their vaccine? Why could a non-emergency dental appointment not wait 3 months until the next expected covid lull?

                • dat_math [they/them]
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I'm sorry that you've experienced such debilitating outcomes . Everything about this is an astounding injustice that should have been avoided years upstream of your experience.

                  That said, I think you should keep two things in mind. The main result of the paper you linked is that POTS, myocarditis, and the other outcomes studied do occur in people vaccinated at a greater frequency than before those people were vaccinated, but that these rates are still significantly lower than the frequency of occurrence of the same outcomes post sars-cov-2 infection, relative to before sars-cov-2 infection. Specifically, from the summaries of the briefing by the editors and the original Authors' corrections made to the original work,

                  "In the SARS-CoV-2 population, for most conditions studied, post-infection rates were higher than post-vaccination rates (Fig. 1b). For POTS-related diagnoses, the post-infection rate was higher after exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infection (4.86%) than after exposure to vaccination (0.91%) in the analyzed populations. Although any comparison of post-exposure rates should be interpreted cautiously, given the baseline differences in POTS incidence in the two mutually exclusive populations, these results indicate that POTS might be occurring at a higher-than-expected frequency following COVID-19 vaccination, although at an overall rate lower than the frequency of POTS occurring following SARS-CoV-2 infection."

                  This means that unless a subject is able to remain safely isolated from contact such that their actual risk of infection is 0 (and let's be honest, this is not what OP's SO was doing, nor is it practical for the vast majority of people), their risk of developing POTS and myocarditis is lowered by vaccination.

                  Now, returning to the original article, "Apparent risks of postural...", I don't see the numbers you're claiming regarding prevalence. Even if I look for those values in the odds ratios (or the not-so-mathematically-legal comparisons of crude odds ratios across two mutually exclusive populations with no adjustment for confounders, which the authors admit is precluded by their methodology), I see completely different numbers. Did you mean to cite a different work or is my reading comprehension that fucked?

                  Finally, admitting that we can't know your true sars-cov-2 infection history, unless you have negative PCR results the day of and in the days following your September 2023 booster, is it not possible you had an actual covid infection?

                  Regardless, I hope you're able to recover your cardiovascular function and I hope you stay safe out there.

                  • a_blanqui_slate [none/use name, any]
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    11 months ago

                    mind. The main result of the paper you linked is that POTS, myocarditis, and the other outcomes studied do occur in people vaccinated at a greater frequency than before those people were vaccinated, but that these rates are still significantly lower than the frequency of occurrence of the same outcomes post sars-cov-2 infection, relative to before sars-cov-2 infection. Specifically, from the summaries of the briefing by the editors and the original Authors' corrections made to the original work,

                    Myocarditis and dysautomia are actually significantly higher post-vaccine that post-infection, as shown in figure 1. You are right about POTS though.

                    This means that unless a subject is able to remain safely isolated from contact such that their actual risk of infection is 0 (and let's be honest, this is not what OP's SO was doing, nor is it practical for the vast majority of people), their risk of developing POTS and myocarditis is lowered by vaccination.

                    I take your point, but the risk calculus can come out in favor of not vaccinating for any number of small, but non-zero probabilities of catching covid. How meaningfully one can estimate their probability of catching covid is an open question, but you don't need to have a 0% chance in order to make not vaccinating better.

                    , I see completely different numbers. Did you mean to cite a different work or is my reading comprehension that fucked?

                    I'm talking about relative incidences vs odds or odds ratios comparing vaccine and infection groups. Those numbers are what I came up with for myself with my demographic information and vaccine history using a big spreadsheet and Baye's law, but they're not going to be generally exportable. Relative incidences for my age cohort after a second and third dose of Moderna with 56x and 8x, and a bit lower for Pfizer.

                    Everything about this is an astounding injustice that should have been avoided years upstream of your experience.

                    This we absolutely agree on, my point in commenting in the thread is that I don't think there's much value in assigning more than the tiniest smidge of anger or blame at the person who brings this systemic injustice home.