|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
I'm also wondering when states and businesses will start lifting mask restrictions. I hope they continue to play it safe and not remove mask restrictions within the next few months. Even those who are vaccinated should still be required to wear masks for at least 3 reasons:
1. Being vaccinated doesn't guarantee, with 100% certainty, that it's impossible for you to contract/spread coronavirus, and we'll still be in the middle of a global pandemic;
2. Being allowed to not wear a mask will send mixed signals to uninformed people, making it appear as though it's suddenly safe enough for everyone to stop wearing a mask;
3. Verifying that every person who is not wearing a mask has been properly vaccinated (as opposed to an unvaccinated person just being lazy and selfish) isn't something that can be efficiently checked in most areas (and who knows if unvaccinated people will start carrying fraudulent verification that claims they were vaccinated anyway).
|
On December 10 2020 22:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm also wondering when states and businesses will start lifting mask restrictions. I hope they continue to play it safe and not remove mask restrictions within the next few months. Even those who are vaccinated should still be required to wear masks for at least 3 reasons:
1. Being vaccinated doesn't guarantee, with 100% certainty, that it's impossible for you to contract/spread coronavirus, and we'll still be in the middle of a global pandemic;
2. Being allowed to not wear a mask will send mixed signals to uninformed people, making it appear as though it's suddenly safe enough for everyone to stop wearing a mask;
3. Verifying that every person who is not wearing a mask has been properly vaccinated (as opposed to an unvaccinated person just being lazy and selfish) isn't something that can be efficiently checked in most areas (and who knows if unvaccinated people will start carrying fraudulent verification that claims they were vaccinated anyway). Yeah I would keep a mask mandate until general vaccination is done.
|
On December 10 2020 11:38 Vivax wrote:
I see that you're well read on the matter, but maybe you're cutting out on the fantasy here to predict unstudied effects.
I would not say 'so what' if your immune system starts gobbling up neurons or your own immune cells, or somehow the mRNA doesn't degrade, because maybe the spike protein sequence is already in your genome (transposons and all that) and its expression is reactivated/upregulated, you have the protein expressed permanently, and the effect carries over to offspring.
And, what else do I want? I like musing about this topic and enjoy the back and forth. Maybe learn something.
How exactly would injecting a shot in your arm of somewhere in the upper body part (not intravenous) would somehow manage to modify the genome in your testicles/ovaries exactly ? Do you believe that modifying the genome of a kind of cells would somehow spread through the whole body ?
I am really curious as to how that would be biologically possible. I didn't really find info on the possible bodily spread of lipid-encapsulated mRNA when injected in intramuscular or subcutaneous. But instinctively, the sheer low amount of mRNA injected is dwarved by the amount of cells in the body.
Beliefs of DNA/genome being modified by a mRNA injection was deemed as pure idiocy and ignorance by one of the foremost geneticians in France on the radio two days ago.
|
On December 10 2020 22:16 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2020 22:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm also wondering when states and businesses will start lifting mask restrictions. I hope they continue to play it safe and not remove mask restrictions within the next few months. Even those who are vaccinated should still be required to wear masks for at least 3 reasons:
1. Being vaccinated doesn't guarantee, with 100% certainty, that it's impossible for you to contract/spread coronavirus, and we'll still be in the middle of a global pandemic;
2. Being allowed to not wear a mask will send mixed signals to uninformed people, making it appear as though it's suddenly safe enough for everyone to stop wearing a mask;
3. Verifying that every person who is not wearing a mask has been properly vaccinated (as opposed to an unvaccinated person just being lazy and selfish) isn't something that can be efficiently checked in most areas (and who knows if unvaccinated people will start carrying fraudulent verification that claims they were vaccinated anyway). Yeah I would keep a mask mandate until general vaccination is done.
Masks are extremely powerful symbols, but should be treated rationally. Research should bring clarity to when they make a difference, why countries suffer huge outbreaks despite masks and where they cause more harm than good.
One of the most important symbols of irresponsability in Spain is walking maskless in the street, which has nothing to do with reality.
We are very visual beings, but what we see is not always what matters the most.
|
On December 11 2020 00:35 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2020 22:16 Gorsameth wrote:On December 10 2020 22:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm also wondering when states and businesses will start lifting mask restrictions. I hope they continue to play it safe and not remove mask restrictions within the next few months. Even those who are vaccinated should still be required to wear masks for at least 3 reasons:
1. Being vaccinated doesn't guarantee, with 100% certainty, that it's impossible for you to contract/spread coronavirus, and we'll still be in the middle of a global pandemic;
2. Being allowed to not wear a mask will send mixed signals to uninformed people, making it appear as though it's suddenly safe enough for everyone to stop wearing a mask;
3. Verifying that every person who is not wearing a mask has been properly vaccinated (as opposed to an unvaccinated person just being lazy and selfish) isn't something that can be efficiently checked in most areas (and who knows if unvaccinated people will start carrying fraudulent verification that claims they were vaccinated anyway). Yeah I would keep a mask mandate until general vaccination is done. Masks are extremely powerful symbols, but should be treated rationally. Research should bring clarity to when they make a difference, why countries suffer huge outbreaks despite masks and where they cause more harm than good. One of the most important symbols of irresponsability in Spain is walking maskless in the street, which has nothing to do with reality. We are very visual beings, but what we see is not always what matters the most.
Most outbreaks seem to be cultural in nature. Oregon has extremely widespread mask use everywhere you go, but people still feel entitled to seeing friends and family. They aren't wearing masks while hanging out in their homes with family. It isn't a coincidence that countries with particularly entitled citizens are having the worst issues. From what we can tell, a huge majority of infection is taking place from people hanging out inside without masks. Preventing spread in public places is hugely beneficial but it doesn't remove the fact that shitty people still say "well you still gotta live your life!"
|
Strangely enough, I find it entitled for any government to tell free people to avoid friends and family for something around nine months, all the while during massive public protests, post-election celebrations, and political leader lockdown hypocrisy.
I have great affinity towards encouraging people to stay away from the elderly and encourage mask use and social distancing. They should have the good sense to avoid actual lockdown mandates for long periods with selective enforcement and capricious exemptions. It’s like everybody decided that the best way to control a “free society” during a pandemic is to stoke rebellion and encourage the most draconian measures. And this is from someone with a major problem with anyone spending more time than normal visiting physically with friends and not spending more time outdoors socializing compared to indoors.
It’s gonna take an actual Black Plague killing children like in the 1300s for any chance of a return to institutional trust.
|
On December 11 2020 00:35 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2020 22:16 Gorsameth wrote:On December 10 2020 22:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm also wondering when states and businesses will start lifting mask restrictions. I hope they continue to play it safe and not remove mask restrictions within the next few months. Even those who are vaccinated should still be required to wear masks for at least 3 reasons:
1. Being vaccinated doesn't guarantee, with 100% certainty, that it's impossible for you to contract/spread coronavirus, and we'll still be in the middle of a global pandemic;
2. Being allowed to not wear a mask will send mixed signals to uninformed people, making it appear as though it's suddenly safe enough for everyone to stop wearing a mask;
3. Verifying that every person who is not wearing a mask has been properly vaccinated (as opposed to an unvaccinated person just being lazy and selfish) isn't something that can be efficiently checked in most areas (and who knows if unvaccinated people will start carrying fraudulent verification that claims they were vaccinated anyway). Yeah I would keep a mask mandate until general vaccination is done. Masks are extremely powerful symbols, but should be treated rationally. Research should bring clarity to when they make a difference, why countries suffer huge outbreaks despite masks and where they cause more harm than good. One of the most important symbols of irresponsability in Spain is walking maskless in the street, which has nothing to do with reality. We are very visual beings, but what we see is not always what matters the most.
This isn't a question of what circumstances masks are helpful in, but a question of what kind of instructions is the public capable of following. It's the same reason nuance doesn't exist in traffic rules.
|
On December 11 2020 02:24 Danglars wrote:
Strangely enough, I find it entitled for any government to tell free people to avoid friends and family for something around nine months, all the while during massive public protests, post-election celebrations, and political leader lockdown hypocrisy.
None of this has anything to do with the government. You should be doing these things because the situation is what it is, using your own brain and your own analysis. Government mandates help people who don't understand or don't have the drive to understand. You're an educated dude who understands that viruses exist without humans negotiating with nature. HIV, Ebola and everything else all happened without considering "but will humans still have a mostly normal life?". I don't live my life in accordance with what my governor says is technically allowable. I go beyond that because I have background in microbiology and my wife is a covid researcher. With the information I have available to me, it would be really dumb to indulge myself in family-induced emotional fulfillment. We've all decided to just chill for a bit and wait for ~June when we're all vaccinated.
|
On December 11 2020 02:41 Mohdoo wrote:
With the information I have available to me, it would be really dumb to indulge myself in family-induced emotional fulfillment. We've all decided to just chill for a bit and wait for ~June when we're all vaccinated.
I applaud your individualistic focus and directing it inward in this part.
|
On December 11 2020 02:52 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2020 02:41 Mohdoo wrote:
With the information I have available to me, it would be really dumb to indulge myself in family-induced emotional fulfillment. We've all decided to just chill for a bit and wait for ~June when we're all vaccinated. I applaud your individualistic focus and directing it inward in this part.
What do you think about the fact that government mandates should not be what you focus on? We can look at data and determine going to restaurants and hanging out with people indoors is a bad idea. It is not clear to me why the government part is such a big deal to you when many government mandates don't go as far as science would dictate is needed. When restaurants were open for in-person dining, I didn't, because that would be stupid. You can completely separate the government portion from all of this. This is about people deciding what quality of life they are entitled to despite the easily understood risks.
|
On December 11 2020 03:03 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2020 02:52 Danglars wrote:On December 11 2020 02:41 Mohdoo wrote:
With the information I have available to me, it would be really dumb to indulge myself in family-induced emotional fulfillment. We've all decided to just chill for a bit and wait for ~June when we're all vaccinated. I applaud your individualistic focus and directing it inward in this part. What do you think about the fact that government mandates should not be what you focus on? We can look at data and determine going to restaurants and hanging out with people indoors is a bad idea. It is not clear to me why the government part is such a big deal to you when many government mandates don't go as far as science would dictate is needed. When restaurants were open for in-person dining, I didn't, because that would be stupid. You can completely separate the government portion from all of this. This is about people deciding what quality of life they are entitled to despite the easily understood risks.
You did read and fail to quote the portion of my post on this, and the first line of “government has nothing to do with this” literally precludes any examination of to what extent and why. So I’d ask why you failed to address that part in the first place, and if you actually had a response that didn’t ignore all of it.
|
On December 11 2020 00:23 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2020 11:38 Vivax wrote:
I see that you're well read on the matter, but maybe you're cutting out on the fantasy here to predict unstudied effects.
I would not say 'so what' if your immune system starts gobbling up neurons or your own immune cells, or somehow the mRNA doesn't degrade, because maybe the spike protein sequence is already in your genome (transposons and all that) and its expression is reactivated/upregulated, you have the protein expressed permanently, and the effect carries over to offspring.
And, what else do I want? I like musing about this topic and enjoy the back and forth. Maybe learn something. How exactly would injecting a shot in your arm of somewhere in the upper body part (not intravenous) would somehow manage to modify the genome in your testicles/ovaries exactly ? Do you believe that modifying the genome of a kind of cells would somehow spread through the whole body ? I am really curious as to how that would be biologically possible. I didn't really find info on the possible bodily spread of lipid-encapsulated mRNA when injected in intramuscular or subcutaneous. But instinctively, the sheer low amount of mRNA injected is dwarved by the amount of cells in the body. Beliefs of DNA/genome being modified by a mRNA injection was deemed as pure idiocy and ignorance by one of the foremost geneticians in France on the radio two days ago.
Genome isn't really an accurate term. There's genetic code, and a whole load of other proteins and structures surrounding it and regulating it and each other. Methylation comes to mind spontaneously. Very unlikely the genetic code is changed as that'd happen through mutation. To my knowledge there isn't a function in our body that makes that possible besides crossing-over in meiosis.
Scientists speaking in public will most of the time try to stick to the official/wanted narrative because they don't want to suicide their career. That can make them sometimes little more than salesmen.
I don't think that the vaccine is necessarily not going to work fine, without consequences. But the process by which it is being deployed isn't ethically or scientifically sound by practices in act otherwise.
|
On December 10 2020 20:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2020 13:38 RKC wrote:Perhaps the more difficult question (from both a scientific and political aspect) is to what extent governments will shape policies on vaccine preference 1) Internal - Can Government X justify investing and mandating Vaccine A and B (instead of C and D) on its citizens? 2) External - Can Government X impose travel restrictions on people originating from countries which chose Vaccine C and D? My government has publicly announced making orders for Vaccine C (let's just say they're not the vaccines that the mainstream Western media has been hyping about). Should I be concerned? Maybe C is even safer than A and B? Should I be given a choice between A, B, C and D? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55212787 Those are good questions. I would imagine that the general population would prefer to get whichever vaccine reduces the chance of coronavirus infection to the lowest probability out of all the vaccines (assuming similar side effects across all the vaccines). If I was able to choose which vaccine I could get, and my ideal one (the most effective one) was currently unavailable, I probably wouldn't mind waiting a few weeks if another shipment of that vaccine was coming in soon, rather than immediately getting a less-ideal alternative (since I'm currently in a reasonably safe/privileged position, working from home every day and not going out). But if a country simply didn't offer the "ideal" vaccine option, or didn't let individuals choose which vaccine they wanted, I could imagine quite a bit of outrage / backlash / people traveling to other countries to try to get their preferred vaccine / possibly even a black market for different vaccines. I just hope that the vaccines are functionally similar enough, with close-enough efficacy rates and close-enough side effect rates/severities, that this doesn't end up being an issue 
I also think there's a simmering fear and anger that certain quarters are taking advantage of the pandemic to 'steal a march' on others. Internally - unequal treatment between industries. Externally - trade and travel.
For instance, Asian countries are generally coping with the pandemic better, and their economy is recovering faster. Would this invite envy and countermeasures by other countries crippled by the virus (regardless of their own government's fault)? If policies on mask, social-distancing, and lockdown are already being weaponised and politicised, should we not worry about vaccines as well?
The efficacy of any policy depends on execution. We can't just argue in abstract on whether you and I should be vaccinated (and when). More so when the success of vaccination and getting back to normalcy largely depends on getting support of the the majority of population. So we need to take a step back, and think: "How can the authorities ensure all my next-door neighbours - including Crazy Jim at the corner - stay safe?"
(I'm deliberately trying to avoid names, examples and details, so to keep the discussion open and not limited to specific incidents.)
|
On December 11 2020 09:15 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2020 00:23 Nouar wrote:On December 10 2020 11:38 Vivax wrote:
I see that you're well read on the matter, but maybe you're cutting out on the fantasy here to predict unstudied effects.
I would not say 'so what' if your immune system starts gobbling up neurons or your own immune cells, or somehow the mRNA doesn't degrade, because maybe the spike protein sequence is already in your genome (transposons and all that) and its expression is reactivated/upregulated, you have the protein expressed permanently, and the effect carries over to offspring.
And, what else do I want? I like musing about this topic and enjoy the back and forth. Maybe learn something. How exactly would injecting a shot in your arm of somewhere in the upper body part (not intravenous) would somehow manage to modify the genome in your testicles/ovaries exactly ? Do you believe that modifying the genome of a kind of cells would somehow spread through the whole body ? I am really curious as to how that would be biologically possible. I didn't really find info on the possible bodily spread of lipid-encapsulated mRNA when injected in intramuscular or subcutaneous. But instinctively, the sheer low amount of mRNA injected is dwarved by the amount of cells in the body. Beliefs of DNA/genome being modified by a mRNA injection was deemed as pure idiocy and ignorance by one of the foremost geneticians in France on the radio two days ago. Genome isn't really an accurate term. There's genetic code, and a whole load of other proteins and structures surrounding it and regulating it and each other. Methylation comes to mind spontaneously. Very unlikely the genetic code is changed as that'd happen through mutation. To my knowledge there isn't a function in our body that makes that possible besides crossing-over in meiosis. Scientists speaking in public will most of the time try to stick to the official/wanted narrative because they don't want to suicide their career. That can make them sometimes little more than salesmen. I don't think that the vaccine is necessarily not going to work fine, without consequences. But the process by which it is being deployed isn't ethically or scientifically sound by practices in act otherwise.
How is it not ethical or scientific? What would they need to do beyond the 21k+ test vaccinations they did for the phase 3 trials?
|
I wonder, are psychologists, sociologists or whoever studying what it is that causes people to refuse things like masks, limiting gatherings, and ultimately getting vaccinated? Will there be measures to mitigate this by the next pandemic or is every time going to be just hoping for compliance and forcing it when people don't?
|
Forgive my scientific ignorance, but here are some questions that come to mind:
- To what extent do we know the similarities (or differences) between Vaccine A, B, C and D in terms of efficacy, and effects (short-term and long-term)?
- Is it possible that some vaccines may make us more or less vulnerable to related or mutated strains of the virus in the future (due to genetics, geographical factors, dietary lifestyle, prolonged pre-existing exposure to SARS-like strains, etc.)?
To be clear, this is not a question of whether to vaccinate or not to vaccinate, but which vaccine that people ought to be mandated or advised to take in light of the available alternatives. Another policy dilemma is whether governments should rush to mandate vaccination (whether strictly or softly) with Vaccine A and B so to build 'herd immunity' and kickstart the economy, or to wait and see a little longer to ensure the science is more certain as the best vaccine to take (and only vaccinate at risk people on a needs basis).
|
Anyone who thinks that nine months of near-total social isolation is viable on a large scale is a damn fool. Even the most rudimentary understanding of human psychology would tell you that.
Two months, like China did, backed by a government mandate that was both exceedingly stringent and thoroughly enforced? Maybe, at a gigantic cost. But it's no surprise that few people can stand it for 9 months because of a government that was never able to coordinate a response of that scale.
|
On December 11 2020 09:56 eviltomahawk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2020 09:15 Vivax wrote:On December 11 2020 00:23 Nouar wrote:On December 10 2020 11:38 Vivax wrote:
I see that you're well read on the matter, but maybe you're cutting out on the fantasy here to predict unstudied effects.
I would not say 'so what' if your immune system starts gobbling up neurons or your own immune cells, or somehow the mRNA doesn't degrade, because maybe the spike protein sequence is already in your genome (transposons and all that) and its expression is reactivated/upregulated, you have the protein expressed permanently, and the effect carries over to offspring.
And, what else do I want? I like musing about this topic and enjoy the back and forth. Maybe learn something. How exactly would injecting a shot in your arm of somewhere in the upper body part (not intravenous) would somehow manage to modify the genome in your testicles/ovaries exactly ? Do you believe that modifying the genome of a kind of cells would somehow spread through the whole body ? I am really curious as to how that would be biologically possible. I didn't really find info on the possible bodily spread of lipid-encapsulated mRNA when injected in intramuscular or subcutaneous. But instinctively, the sheer low amount of mRNA injected is dwarved by the amount of cells in the body. Beliefs of DNA/genome being modified by a mRNA injection was deemed as pure idiocy and ignorance by one of the foremost geneticians in France on the radio two days ago. Genome isn't really an accurate term. There's genetic code, and a whole load of other proteins and structures surrounding it and regulating it and each other. Methylation comes to mind spontaneously. Very unlikely the genetic code is changed as that'd happen through mutation. To my knowledge there isn't a function in our body that makes that possible besides crossing-over in meiosis. Scientists speaking in public will most of the time try to stick to the official/wanted narrative because they don't want to suicide their career. That can make them sometimes little more than salesmen. I don't think that the vaccine is necessarily not going to work fine, without consequences. But the process by which it is being deployed isn't ethically or scientifically sound by practices in act otherwise. How is it not ethical or scientific? What would they need to do beyond the 21k+ test vaccinations they did for the phase 3 trials?
For starters, not make the government liable instead of pharma. The single best motivation for them to create something reliably safe is to be liable to catch the fallout if something goes wrong which wasn't in the substance's description.
The tax payer is going to pay for adverse effects. Though it's popular right now to think that government spending doesn't matter or concern anyone.
Why not ethical or scientific? Because it violates all the standard guidelines on substance development.
It is really really easy to underestimate how severe effects from most drugs can be until you start studying them.
|
|
|
On December 11 2020 09:15 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2020 00:23 Nouar wrote:On December 10 2020 11:38 Vivax wrote:
I see that you're well read on the matter, but maybe you're cutting out on the fantasy here to predict unstudied effects.
I would not say 'so what' if your immune system starts gobbling up neurons or your own immune cells, or somehow the mRNA doesn't degrade, because maybe the spike protein sequence is already in your genome (transposons and all that) and its expression is reactivated/upregulated, you have the protein expressed permanently, and the effect carries over to offspring.
And, what else do I want? I like musing about this topic and enjoy the back and forth. Maybe learn something. How exactly would injecting a shot in your arm of somewhere in the upper body part (not intravenous) would somehow manage to modify the genome in your testicles/ovaries exactly ? Do you believe that modifying the genome of a kind of cells would somehow spread through the whole body ? I am really curious as to how that would be biologically possible. I didn't really find info on the possible bodily spread of lipid-encapsulated mRNA when injected in intramuscular or subcutaneous. But instinctively, the sheer low amount of mRNA injected is dwarved by the amount of cells in the body. Beliefs of DNA/genome being modified by a mRNA injection was deemed as pure idiocy and ignorance by one of the foremost geneticians in France on the radio two days ago. Genome isn't really an accurate term. There's genetic code, and a whole load of other proteins and structures surrounding it and regulating it and each other. Methylation comes to mind spontaneously. Very unlikely the genetic code is changed as that'd happen through mutation. To my knowledge there isn't a function in our body that makes that possible besides crossing-over in meiosis. Scientists speaking in public will most of the time try to stick to the official/wanted narrative because they don't want to suicide their career. That can make them sometimes little more than salesmen. I don't think that the vaccine is necessarily not going to work fine, without consequences. But the process by which it is being deployed isn't ethically or scientifically sound by practices in act otherwise.
I'm confused because genome is exactly the correct term to talk about the totality of one's genetic information. Obviously once you brought in methylation you then can start talking about the epigenome, but that's another story.
Mutations happen all the time. Meiosis isn't a mutation mechanism per se, but a genetic scrambler, to ensure genetic diversity in the next generation.
Other than that, B cells undergo a similar mechanism called somatic hypermutation to get to very effective antibodies.
But there are other intrinsic mechanisms, part of our literal genome, called transposons - or jumping genes - which literally can excise and insert themselves, not wherever whenever but they can insert themselves in genes.
Next you have our intrinsic cellular mechanism to live -- ATP synthesis, which is a flawed system and produces reactive oxygen species, which will cause DNA damage over time.
DNA replication in itself is a flawed system too, because proofreading fails every million basepairs (and we have 3 billion, so every cell division we get quite a bit of those mutations)
Those last two mighte be unintentional mechanisms but they're an intrinsic part of our flawed biochemical machinery.
The thing is, our immune system is great at catching these cells that have caught dysfunctional mutations. This is because cells are hardwired to present molecules on their surface that the T-cells check. If there's a deviation from normalcy, the T-cell gives its signal to the somatic cell to kill itself. It's one of the reason why we aren't riddled with cancer from the age of 4 or something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
