Coffee Break: Elissa Belt

90 Comments

1. out of curiosity has anyone had their measles antibodies checked? it’s spreading fast where I live, yay.

   (did anyone else see that NYT thing about how these days it’s “bunker people vs everyone else”… betcha the bunker people are gonna require vaccines.)

   1. I’m immunocompromised on immunosuppression, and have to be very aggressive with my vaccinations (especially Covid, flu, pneumonia). But my docs were not interested/worried about checking my measles antibodies.

      That being said, if I lived in Texas or other areas where measles outbreaks were more concerning, I think the answer would be different.

      Are you immunocompromised?

      1. You may not actually be cleared to get the measles vaccination if you are immune compromised whatever your titers show. It’s not an inactive vaccine like the ones you’ve had.

         Avoidance (like masking in places where you could be exposed) is a bigger part of the strategy for people who can’t rely fully on vaccination because of immune issues and where herd immunity has been undermined.

   2. Unfortunately, I am not immune to measles. I last had my titers checked 30 years ago when I was pregnant with my son. I’ve had 5 measles vaccines through out my life and apparently none of them took. I had the inactive vaccine in ’65, that one was no good. I had a vaccine when I was in my early 20s. My midwife insisted on checking my titers when I was pregnant in my 30s, and since I wasn’t protected, gave me another vaccine. Same thing with my 2nd pregnancy. I had my titers checked 6 months after his birth and got yet another vaccine from my PCP. When my titers were checked about a year after that, I was still not immune, but my PCP said there wasn’t much point in getting the vaccine again. There’s also the possibility that I had measles as an infant. My sisters had it when I was about a year old and my parents tried to shield me, but I’m unclear on whether that worked or not, my sisters don’t remember and my parents have both passed.

      1. Ha, I edited that to chop down the length and made it incoherent. Sorry.

   3. I have an immune deficiency and had it checked as part of that management. I was no longer immune and was revaccinated. Failure to mount a vaccine response is a common feature of certain immune deficiencies.

   4. I did last year. Dr ordered the titer along with my usual blood work. Turned out I needed a booster so I got one.

   5. I did because I could only find proof of one shot so wanted to make sure I still had immunity. My PCP ordered it at my annual physical, but I think you can also just self-pay and get it done through Quest or Labcorp.

   6. No. My understanding is that negative antibodies after all this time doesn’t confirm lack of immunity. It just fails to confirm that we’re still immune. But if anyone failed a recent vaccine challenge, they should be seeing a primary immune deficiency specialist immunologist.

      But if your immune system is healthy and you’re good to get the booster (if you have no contraindication for an attenuated vaccine), you can just get the booster without testing first.

      I haven’t been sick with anything since 2020 since that is when I started relying on a mask. So I’m hoping that will keep me from catching measles or TB or whatever else they’re trying to bring back.

      1. Failing to confirm immunity seems like enough to warrant revaccination. But I would rather just get a booster than go through bloodwork.

         Before there was a COVID vaccine, our pediatrician told us that measles is much more shareable (not using the correct term to avoid mod) than COVID, and that the waiting room precautions for suspected cases of measles were much more stringent than those for COVID. I mask in high-risk situations, but even though I’ve had good results I don’t trust a mask to be enough to protect me against measles.

         1. The R0 of measles is definitely higher among people without immunity, but the vaccine is also more effective for the people who benefit from it. The waiting room precautions should really be the same.

            Not everyone can be revaccinated, so it’s just not a great situation in places with outbreaks for many reasons.

   7. I recommend it. Once I got pregnant they screened my immunity for multiple diseases and I was shocked to learn I’m missing a vaccination. My parents have always been aggressively pro-vaccine so either my childhood doctors missed something or this vaccine wasn’t available at the time.

      1. There was a point during the ’80s when kids were not given the necessary booster.

   8. No, afaik adults are all just suppose to get the MMR booster. I learned this after a particularly nasty bout of strep in which the doctor thought I had measles so I had to get a spinal tap and then when I was cleared was scheduled for my booster

   9. yes. i had them checked and then was reinnoculated about 5 years ago. Mind you i was tested because my employer required proof of vaccination and i didn’t have anything from my childhood so they told me to get my titers checked….

   10. I did last year when there was the big outbreak in Texas. My doctor thought it was overly cautious but we were going on a cruise out of Galveston and I felt like it couldn’t hurt to check. They were good. My husband didn’t want to check his and I didn’t make him.

   11. I got an MMR booster about 8 years ago when I was traveling to a country with outbreaks and my nephew was a newborn. My parents also got a booster (the older shots didn’t offer as much protection). I’m very very grateful not to need to worry about it now!

   12. Yes, at my last physical I asked my PCP to order a measles titer with the rest of my bloodwork. He did it without any pushback. I still have immunity from my childhood vaccines.

   13. I had the titers done in 2019 shortly after I first read news articles about the defective vaccine given in the mid-sixties – and sure enough, I had NO immunity. Got a shot right away. Later, my boyfriend asked his PCP about it and she just gave him the shot without even doing the blood work.

2. I’m team belts, but this one looks like it came from The Limited in 1988, which is not my vibe. (Although what do I, an old, actually know? I recently have seen several of those Y2K leather medallion hip belts in the wild on zoomers.)

   1. I think this is a situation where people who lived through the trend the first time see it as dowdy and outdated, and the youths think it’s adorably vintage. Sort of like the 20-somethings wearing old lady watches that no 40-something would ever be caught wearing.

   2. it’s such a wild thing to complain about, that you think something is dated because you saw it 50 years ago

      1. Hey! 1988 was 38 years ago! Don’t make me older than I am!

   3. This is a knockoff of the Madewell “chunky metal leather belt,” which I wear and get frequent compliments on.

3. How much do you worry about being overdressed to things?

   I realized I have a lot of not even formal but just not casual clothes. ANd idk if its the era of life or what but many of my friends wear athleisure most of the time. Then I WFH. So I never wear these clothes.

   I kinda just want to start wearing them and if I’m a little bit more formally dressed than other people, whatever.

   1. Literally never. My aesthetic and lifestyle are outdoor dork and there has never been an occasion in my life where I felt overdressed. I know how to dress appropriately for a special occasion but the rest of the time, I push it pretty far in the most casual of casual directions.

      1. Yes, this is me. But if you want to dress up, I don’t care, just don’t make me wear things I don’t want to wear.

   2. You want to start wearing athleisure? Your comment is hard to understand.

      1. No, it’s not and that’s not what she said.

   3. I don’t.

      1. +1 I wear what I want, when I want. I’m 46, I DGAF what anyone else thinks of my outfit.

   4. Clarification: I want to start wearing my slightly more formal clothes to occasions/places where people are more casually dressed.

      1. OOooOOOo. Thanks for clarifying.

   5. I try to fit into the normal range of whatever setting I’m in, but I do think our culture has become very casual, and so sometimes I will look somewhat formal if I just wear an intentional outfit (especially if I compare myself to people who don’t work outside the home who I see at school pick up or whatever, who really put in zero effort and look like they barely brush their hair or change clothes from whatever they slept in).

   6. Not a lot. If my plans are taking me multiple places, I am not inclined to change in between just because one occasion is more formal than another. So what if I’m wearing nice shoes at the theater or hard pants at the coffee shop.

      My most casual events are out in the country (bbqs, bonfires), and sundresses or an outfit based on a pair of jeans are plenty casual enough for that setting.

   7. I don’t mind dressing more formally than others at public events and in public places. I don’t care that people are showing up to the opera in hiking clothes these days; I am still dressing properly. I will dress up to go to a nice restaurant even if jeans are allowed. But I still dress in a way that is objectively appropriate to the situation, even if the majority is underdressed. I’m not going to show up to a baseball game in a church dress.

      On the other hand, it feels tone-deaf to dress a lot more formally than others for social gatherings. I might wear a leather jacket when others are wearing puffers, a sweater when others are in sweatshirts, or a very casual t-shirt dress or sundress when others are in athleisure. But I won’t take it much farther than that. No evening gowns when the invitation specifies c-tail attire.

   8. What kind of clothes are you talking about wearing? As long as they are appropriate for the activity at hand I would not consider you overdressed, even if others are in athleisure.

      So tailored trousers with a silk blouse and heels would be out of place for browsing the farmers market with your friends wearing joggers and puffy vests on a Saturday morning, while a tweed blazer with jeans, a band tee and sneakers would be fine.

      1. Yeah much more the tweed blazer than silk blouse of course. Who wears heels to a farmers market!?

         Yesterday I wore a midi skirt, tshirt, and loafers

         1. Oh I’m not saying you were considering heels for the farmers market! Just using that as an example of attire that isn’t really compatible with the activity at hand.

      2. +1. If it’s appropriate for the occasion I don’t see a problem. But I also consider how flashy my outfit looks. I won’t show up dripping in fine jewelry with a statement purse if I know other people will be in leggings.

   9. I used to work with a woman who once said “I’m almost always more dressed up than everybody else, and that’s okay with me.” Words to live by, in my view.

      1. This is me. Never something I’m going to worry about and I wish more people dressed nicely.

   10. I still dress nicely and it’s part of who I am. I never try to be overdressed, just put together. I don’t wear athleisure in public. (I don’t care how popular the tennis skirts are right now, I think they look ridiculous when you’re shopping for a sofa at Pottery Barn.)

       I was raised in a family where you always dressed presentably – hair, makeup, jewelry. I’m dressed casually today to take my 80 yo mom to the doctor – jeans, old loafers, J.Jill top, lightweight cargo jacket, ball cap, but I’m still wearing jewelry and full makeup.

   11. I grew up in a family that pushed formality and I have worked in white shoe firms for 20+ years so I tend to be on the more formal end of what everyone is wearing. I’ll wear gym clothes to run errands on the weekend before I hit the gym but otherwise I tend to default to real clothes vs. athleisure.

   12. I have never worried about this and I am consistently the most dressed up person anywhere, but it’s my brand.

4. IDK if anyone saw the article in the WSJ over the weekend re law firms pushing 50ish partners to retire. IDK how the math works for that since those are prime kid-in-college years. And beyond that, we don’t offer retiree medical insurance and IIRC Medicare doesn’t start until 65. That’s a gamble I’d rather not take. But in a world without pensions or retiree medical, how do you get the top earners to just leave (unless they get offered a package)???

   1. I think there are two kinds of big-firm lawyers: those who are just there to rack up the massive paycheck until they can retire early, and those who will never be able to give up being “important.” I’m not sure you can influence either group to change its retirement plans.

   2. Oh my god, if you’re a law firm partner and you don’t have enough capital saved to retire in your mid to late 50s (while cash flowing your kids’ college), you’re doing it really, really wrong.

      1. Seriously. Some high earners are so bad with money it’s shocking. (Once upon a time I worked a job where I reviewed auto loans, financial literacy is abysmal.)

      2. Depends on the longevity in your family and if you are a woman, if you went straight through, if you had kids early or late, if you still have loans, etc. I can see how it hits some in a really unfair way. The health insurance would scare me for not being in a group plan any more.

         1. The people in question are often making high seven, low eight figures annually. They also have insane networks and could easily find part time-ish jobs earning high six figures or low seven. This isn’t a financial hardship issue

            1. OMG this is so not me. Low-$ part time partner here and I will likely make nothing like that. But I’ve carved out a niche that works for me and my clients and after finally having things come together later in life, I hate that now I’ve got to watch my back. Maybe this is all about the big rainmakers, but there are smaller practices that run in the black, even within larger firms.

            2. +1, and while I understand that not everyone in their position lives within their means, this is just not the group I feel sorry for. They have the means to support themselves just fine, even if it will require them to adjust their lifestyle.

            3. That’s simply not true at all. A lot of equity partners in my AmLaw 100 firm are making less than associates. We have some equity partners making in the $100ks – less than starting salary for first year associates in NYC.

               Everyone hears about the ultra high earners, but that’s not what articles like this are about. This is about pushing out people who are probably very good lawyers but not good business developers. And why should the firm (or their clients) want to keep on a servicing partner who’s billing $1500+/hour when a junior partner or associate can do the same work for much less.

            4. Maybe I’m missing something but I don’t think there are a lot of 50 year old partners at Latham, Debevoise, etc mentioned in the article making less than a million. Nonshare partners are relatively recent developments.

         2. If you still have loans after being an associate for 7+ years, you also are doing it really, really wrong.

      3. But just because you have enough money to retire doesn’t mean you should be forced to retire. Some people really love their jobs.

         1. Oh no, dear, that is not how this works.

            I’m not advocating for people to be forced out, but it’s also not realistic to pretend that companies keep people on simply because they love their jobs.

            1. Huh? Nobody said you keep your job “just” because you love it, obviously you have to be good at it as well. And I understand a conversation about mandatory retirement when you’re talking about age 70+. But forcing a 50 year old who’s otherwise good at their job out because they’ve made “enough” money is bananas.

         2. Plenty of people are forced out of jobs they love every year. You aren’t special just because you’re wealthy.

   3. I’m not aware of any 50-somethings being encouraged to leave, and I work with two of the firms mentioned in the article. There is an issue with some people in their late 60s and early 70s who just kind of refuse to retire — seems like they are workaholics who never really developed interests that they can see themselves pursuing in retirement, which is just sad.

      1. I agree with this. I know some burnt out people in their 50s considering retiring early but I don’t know anyone in that age being asked to leave. Theres more of an issue with the 65+ crew who refuse to let go

      2. I know a lawyer well into his 80s who refuses to fully retire because he can’t stand giving up the status and power. He doesn’t practice, but he is involved in policy issues beyond his capacity.

      3. Yea, I know the article talked about some people in their 50s who had retired, but really I think the issue is those past the standard 65 retirement age. I know a lot of boomer lawyers who just will. not. retire. because it’s their whole identity and they don’t know what to do besides being a lawyer.

         1. Yeah my husband reluctantly retired at 75 and it’s been a struggle.

      4. Given that retirement ages are rising to mid 70s by the time young people retire, this ought to give us all pause for thought.

   4. I don’t think you read the article. Are we talking about “Law Firms Have a Big Problem: Senior Partners Aren’t Retiring”? The article was about partners over the age of 65 who don’t want to retire. The article says, “It isn’t unusual to see lawyers work well into their 80s and even 90s” (which prevents younger partners from taking on leadership roles). Then younger talent gets annoyed and leaves the firm. It’s not a question of money or health insurance. Basically, people who have worked 80 hours a week their whole life can’t envision doing anything else once they are retirement age. So some firms hire consultants to help older attorneys figure out what other passions they have in their lives besides work.

      1. I did read the article and just looked at it again after reading this comment.

         The article discusses a man named John Balsdon at Latham who retired at age 59. It also says that Latham “offers various financial incentives for partners when they turn 55 to make retirement more appealing.” It then discusses Sven Volcker who was at WilmerHale and then Latham before retiring at 59. Likewise, it says that David Shapiro retired from Latham at 55 after using the consulting services.

         Based on OP’s question, I think she read the article.

         1. No WSJ access (paywall) but interesting with this additional info that it’s the GenX partners who are taking the bait and retiring at appropriate ages, vs. the Boomers hanging on forever.

            1. That tracks.

         2. At a prior firm, partners were de-equitized a bit each year starting at 50. Then they lost a big EEOC case that basically dinged them on ADEA for this (so partner being really in name only because how little control any of them had over the firm on this point). So I think you really have to give people a package to make them jump vs pushing them out. Plenty of firms will take a 50YO with a book of business. And if firms still had pensions (they don’t), my guess is that people would retire because they’d get paid anyway.

      2. finally something that law and academia have in common (and politics I guess).

   5. Caveat that I didn’t see the article, but I am in management in a large law firm.

      Since Covid, many large firms have aggressively increased their billable rates year over year. That upward pressure is hard on people at the bottom and the top – first years get all their time written off because no client wants to pay $700/hr for training, and senior partners can’t bill their time because no one is actually worth $2500/hr. If you’re senior and a rainmaker then your billable hours don’t matter much anyway so it’s nbd if you write off your own time or just don’t record it.

      The problem is more senior partners who are servicing partners, ie don’t have much of a book of business. After 5 years of 20% per year increases, you’re now over $2k/hr, and most clients just won’t tolerate that number. Someone else more junior can do the work. Combine that with pressure to use AI and now you’re expected to basically never bill an entire hour to a client for your actual work (as opposed to meetings — including to prepare for meetings). So you can bill however many hours a day you’re actually in meetings, which clients increasingly cut you out of because you’re not even doing the work, and you start to look a lot more disposable.

      So the firm changes their metrics on how they pay partners. If you’re not already an equity partner they give you a “promotion” that allows them to pay you a fraction of what you used to make — which btw was never in the 7 figures anyway. Or they outright tell you to leave.

      1. oof that all sounds miserable

5. have you ever done a massive decluttering of your house in a short period of time? how did you stay on point, where did you hit first? the clutter is killing us.

   1. A version? I set timers. 20 minutes in the kitchen. 10 minutes in the garage. Do it with no kids around and, sometimes/depending on the space, no DH. Trash bag andddd go! The trash bag goes directly in to the barrel outside when the clock goes off. Repeat 1x/day each day of a weekend, each weekend.

      Ready to level up? Add two glasses of wine first and you’ll become ruthless.

      But, also, don’t make it A HUGE THING. Just get after it.

      1. The timer is the way to go. You can clean out a whole drawer in <5 minutes when you focus.

   2. Pick a room. Bring a large trash bag for actual trash, a laundry basket for collecting things that belong in other rooms, and a box for things to donate. Go until that room is tidy. Take the trash straight outside, walk around the house to redistribute the laundry basket stuff (don’t worry about putting it away-away, just place it in the destination room for now), and put the donate box in your car.

      If you get stuck on whether to donate or not, put the box in time-out for a week. Come back to it when the time-out is done. I often struggle with the idea of getting rid of stuff in the moment but once it has sat in my garage for a bit, I realize I don’t really want to keep the things after all.

      1. Also, don’t allow yourself to get stuck on the “proper” way to get rid of something (“is this recyclable…” “would Goodwill take this…”). Exercise basic judgment about the proper category for something but don’t hesitate to trash any item rather than let it sit in your house while you “research” what to do with it. Obviously hazardous waste should be dealt with appropriately.

         1. I just have 1800 junk take everything. It’s much better than sitting around with boxes of junk to deal with.

   3. Snowball method. Pick a room or closet and start there. You will be so pleased with the results that you will immediately want to start on another room.

      I am generally a fan of KonMari, but I don’t think the “one category at a time” approach is practical. I would go room by room first and then re-evaluate where various categories of stuff are stored once you have more space to work with.

   4. Is moving an option?
      only kinda joking

   5. Try Dana K White’s method, you’ll find her on youtube or at your library, you want the five step decluttering method from “Decluttering at the speed of life”.

      Short version: start in a visible space.
      Bring a black trash bag and a donatable donate box. Start with looking for obvious (to you) trash, obvious (to you) donations and then take things you already know where they go to their actual place immediately (no piles, no later box, no wait-and-see).

      These are her first three steps, that you can do without really thinking to start, just skip anything difficult for now, and get the easy stuff out of your house.

6. If you successfully limited your time spent online have you found that most of the usual places you used to visit have become boring? I cut down a lot on my screentime but now I’m finding I’m just not interested in reddit subs or Tumblr or Insta. I guess it’s not a bad thing, but still.

   1. Yeah Im experiencing this. I feel that it shows I was more addicted to the dopamine than actually getting something from those sites

   2. I know the content I turn to online has low value. It’s just that my job is often boring at times, and I feel lonely and stuck at my desk.

      1. The more I use social media the more substantive and interesting content it shows me. I guess it learns that I will only stop to watch or read recipes and instructional videos on my hobbies. The algorithm that’s designed to addict me achieves this by showing me stuff that I am actually willing to spend time on.

   3. I let go of Instagram because I don’t like being sold to. I lurk on bluesky and find that interesting enough.

7. This belt looks very similar to my favorite Triple Metal Keeper belt from Madewell!

8. can anyone recommend a UV window film or something that prevents, say, a bookcase full of books near the window from all getting faded? TIA

Comments are closed.