|
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. |
On December 10 2020 06:51 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2020 11:31 eviltomahawk wrote:On December 09 2020 11:13 Vivax wrote:On December 09 2020 11:00 Amui wrote:
Ethical exposure is just letting them go on with their daily lives, albeit with regular checkins. Same as almost every other vaccine ever made in the last few decades.
Detection method is looking for virus itself, not anti-bodies for it. Vaccinated people should have no traces of the virus once the vaccine course has run. Find me a law anywhere that makes an exception for lockdowns and other restrictions for vaccinated people, I am currently not aware of such a thing. Is the vaccine effective if they are tested negative? Or if they are tested positive and symptomless? You can't look for the virus itself in people (you can detect it in selected tissue under an electron microscope, but you'd have to know it's there by other means first), just parts of it. Vaccinated people will have traces of the virus, or rather, the antibodies against it. Humoral hepatitis detection is a good example to get insight into how that works. "Go on with their daily lives" means that they're still following the same mask and social distancing guidelines as everyone else in their respective territories. According to the papers submitted to the FDA, (which you should definitely read through, btw, if you're so concerned about the study design of the trials), efficacy was assessed as follows: Efficacy is being assessed throughout a participant’s follow-up in the study through surveillance for potential cases of COVID-19. If, at any time, a participant develops acute respiratory illness, an illness visit occurs. Assessments for illness visits include a nasal (midturbinate) swab, which is tested at a central laboratory using a reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test (e.g., Cepheid; FDA authorized under EUA), or other sufficiently validated nucleic acid amplification-based test (NAAT), to detect SARS-CoV-2. The central laboratory NAAT result is used for the case definition, unless it is not possible to test the sample at the central laboratory. In that case, the following NAAT results are acceptable: Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2Roche cobas SARS-CoV-2 real-time RT-PCR test (EUA200009/A001) Abbott Molecular/RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay (EUA200023/A001). So basically, when they feel sick, they get tested for Covid. It happened to be that more people out of the placebo group tested positive compared to that of the vaccinated group. For example, 192 positive cases from the placebo group and 8 positive cases from the vaccinated group. Page 24 of the document I linked has details on the efficacy studies. And here's another paper from Pfizer submitted to the FDA meeting that has additional details. So basically, when they feel sick, they get tested for Covid They didnt test everyone in the trial twice? (right after the infections and upon reaching the benchmark number). That seems odd to me,i thought they would test everyone right after getting the vaccine (to make sure noone had been infected yet) and then again after a certain amount of weeks. I dont understand why they would not test the whole group after the benchmark had been reached,it could give valuable information. People not getting sick is a very good result obviously,but it would be even better if they didnt get the virus at all. Testing everyone could also eliminate some of the statistical noise and uncertaintys and since testing is very cheap i dont fully understand why this has not been done.
Well, the whole point of a vaccine isn't to stop you from getting infected. It's too boost your immune system so that when you get infected, your body can deal with it before it makes you sick.
That also means that antibody tests won't work, because you're body should have antibodies despite never haven gotten infected: that's the whole point of the vaccine. Viral RNA/DNA tests can only detect the virus while it's still in your system, so doing it at specific intervals will only tell you who is infected at that time, not who got infected since the previous benchmarking time.
Testing could still be useful to estimate what percentage of the trial population actually got infected (based on these snapshot tests), but statistics and all the tests already happening in the general populace to figure out infection rates in all regions and subgroups makes that unnecessary: these tests probably give better precision for what percentage of the trial population got infected, if the trial population is correctly sampled from this general population (and statistical corrections are applied to account for different composition of different subgroups, e.g. more old people in the trial, etc.).
|
On December 11 2020 18:23 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2020 06:51 pmh wrote:On December 09 2020 11:31 eviltomahawk wrote:On December 09 2020 11:13 Vivax wrote:On December 09 2020 11:00 Amui wrote:
Ethical exposure is just letting them go on with their daily lives, albeit with regular checkins. Same as almost every other vaccine ever made in the last few decades.
Detection method is looking for virus itself, not anti-bodies for it. Vaccinated people should have no traces of the virus once the vaccine course has run. Find me a law anywhere that makes an exception for lockdowns and other restrictions for vaccinated people, I am currently not aware of such a thing. Is the vaccine effective if they are tested negative? Or if they are tested positive and symptomless? You can't look for the virus itself in people (you can detect it in selected tissue under an electron microscope, but you'd have to know it's there by other means first), just parts of it. Vaccinated people will have traces of the virus, or rather, the antibodies against it. Humoral hepatitis detection is a good example to get insight into how that works. "Go on with their daily lives" means that they're still following the same mask and social distancing guidelines as everyone else in their respective territories. According to the papers submitted to the FDA, (which you should definitely read through, btw, if you're so concerned about the study design of the trials), efficacy was assessed as follows: Efficacy is being assessed throughout a participant’s follow-up in the study through surveillance for potential cases of COVID-19. If, at any time, a participant develops acute respiratory illness, an illness visit occurs. Assessments for illness visits include a nasal (midturbinate) swab, which is tested at a central laboratory using a reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test (e.g., Cepheid; FDA authorized under EUA), or other sufficiently validated nucleic acid amplification-based test (NAAT), to detect SARS-CoV-2. The central laboratory NAAT result is used for the case definition, unless it is not possible to test the sample at the central laboratory. In that case, the following NAAT results are acceptable: Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2Roche cobas SARS-CoV-2 real-time RT-PCR test (EUA200009/A001) Abbott Molecular/RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay (EUA200023/A001). So basically, when they feel sick, they get tested for Covid. It happened to be that more people out of the placebo group tested positive compared to that of the vaccinated group. For example, 192 positive cases from the placebo group and 8 positive cases from the vaccinated group. Page 24 of the document I linked has details on the efficacy studies. And here's another paper from Pfizer submitted to the FDA meeting that has additional details. So basically, when they feel sick, they get tested for Covid They didnt test everyone in the trial twice? (right after the infections and upon reaching the benchmark number). That seems odd to me,i thought they would test everyone right after getting the vaccine (to make sure noone had been infected yet) and then again after a certain amount of weeks. I dont understand why they would not test the whole group after the benchmark had been reached,it could give valuable information. People not getting sick is a very good result obviously,but it would be even better if they didnt get the virus at all. Testing everyone could also eliminate some of the statistical noise and uncertaintys and since testing is very cheap i dont fully understand why this has not been done. Well, the whole point of a vaccine isn't to stop you from getting infected. It's too boost your immune system so that when you get infected, your body can deal with it before it makes you sick. That also means that antibody tests won't work, because you're body should have antibodies despite never haven gotten infected: that's the whole point of the vaccine. Viral RNA/DNA tests can only detect the virus while it's still in your system, so doing it at specific intervals will only tell you who is infected at that time, not who got infected since the previous benchmarking time. Testing could still be useful to estimate what percentage of the trial population actually got infected (based on these snapshot tests), but statistics and all the tests already happening in the general populace to figure out infection rates in all regions and subgroups makes that unnecessary: these tests probably give better precision for what percentage of the trial population got infected, if the trial population is correctly sampled from this general population (and statistical corrections are applied to account for different composition of different subgroups, e.g. more old people in the trial, etc.).
I'd like to elaborate on this to get ahead of potential confusion.
An infection is defined as an "invasion and multiplication of microorganisms in body tissues". Vaccines cause a host to create antibodies that are supposed to fight off an infection when an invasion is detected.
Whether a vaccine actually stops an infection (makes people immune) or simply treats the disease is a question that can be answered with human challenge trials, but those pose an ethical dilemma because they require the patients to be deliberately exposed to the virus after vaccination. These trials are only done when a specific treatment to the disease is available.
I don't know exactly how human challenge trials work, so if anyone with more insight wants to jump in, please go ahead.
|
On December 11 2020 19:00 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2020 18:23 Acrofales wrote:On December 10 2020 06:51 pmh wrote:On December 09 2020 11:31 eviltomahawk wrote:On December 09 2020 11:13 Vivax wrote:On December 09 2020 11:00 Amui wrote:
Ethical exposure is just letting them go on with their daily lives, albeit with regular checkins. Same as almost every other vaccine ever made in the last few decades.
Detection method is looking for virus itself, not anti-bodies for it. Vaccinated people should have no traces of the virus once the vaccine course has run. Find me a law anywhere that makes an exception for lockdowns and other restrictions for vaccinated people, I am currently not aware of such a thing. Is the vaccine effective if they are tested negative? Or if they are tested positive and symptomless? You can't look for the virus itself in people (you can detect it in selected tissue under an electron microscope, but you'd have to know it's there by other means first), just parts of it. Vaccinated people will have traces of the virus, or rather, the antibodies against it. Humoral hepatitis detection is a good example to get insight into how that works. "Go on with their daily lives" means that they're still following the same mask and social distancing guidelines as everyone else in their respective territories. According to the papers submitted to the FDA, (which you should definitely read through, btw, if you're so concerned about the study design of the trials), efficacy was assessed as follows: Efficacy is being assessed throughout a participant’s follow-up in the study through surveillance for potential cases of COVID-19. If, at any time, a participant develops acute respiratory illness, an illness visit occurs. Assessments for illness visits include a nasal (midturbinate) swab, which is tested at a central laboratory using a reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test (e.g., Cepheid; FDA authorized under EUA), or other sufficiently validated nucleic acid amplification-based test (NAAT), to detect SARS-CoV-2. The central laboratory NAAT result is used for the case definition, unless it is not possible to test the sample at the central laboratory. In that case, the following NAAT results are acceptable: Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2Roche cobas SARS-CoV-2 real-time RT-PCR test (EUA200009/A001) Abbott Molecular/RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay (EUA200023/A001). So basically, when they feel sick, they get tested for Covid. It happened to be that more people out of the placebo group tested positive compared to that of the vaccinated group. For example, 192 positive cases from the placebo group and 8 positive cases from the vaccinated group. Page 24 of the document I linked has details on the efficacy studies. And here's another paper from Pfizer submitted to the FDA meeting that has additional details. So basically, when they feel sick, they get tested for Covid They didnt test everyone in the trial twice? (right after the infections and upon reaching the benchmark number). That seems odd to me,i thought they would test everyone right after getting the vaccine (to make sure noone had been infected yet) and then again after a certain amount of weeks. I dont understand why they would not test the whole group after the benchmark had been reached,it could give valuable information. People not getting sick is a very good result obviously,but it would be even better if they didnt get the virus at all. Testing everyone could also eliminate some of the statistical noise and uncertaintys and since testing is very cheap i dont fully understand why this has not been done. Well, the whole point of a vaccine isn't to stop you from getting infected. It's too boost your immune system so that when you get infected, your body can deal with it before it makes you sick. That also means that antibody tests won't work, because you're body should have antibodies despite never haven gotten infected: that's the whole point of the vaccine. Viral RNA/DNA tests can only detect the virus while it's still in your system, so doing it at specific intervals will only tell you who is infected at that time, not who got infected since the previous benchmarking time. Testing could still be useful to estimate what percentage of the trial population actually got infected (based on these snapshot tests), but statistics and all the tests already happening in the general populace to figure out infection rates in all regions and subgroups makes that unnecessary: these tests probably give better precision for what percentage of the trial population got infected, if the trial population is correctly sampled from this general population (and statistical corrections are applied to account for different composition of different subgroups, e.g. more old people in the trial, etc.). I'd like to elaborate on this to get ahead of potential confusion. An infection is defined as an "invasion and multiplication of microorganisms in body tissues". Vaccines cause a host to create antibodies that are supposed to fight off an infection when an invasion is detected. Whether a vaccine actually stops an infection (makes people immune) or simply treats the disease is a question that can be answered with human challenge trials, but those pose an ethical dilemma because they require the patients to be deliberately exposed to the virus after vaccination. These trials are only done when a specific treatment to the disease is available. I don't know exactly how human challenge trials work, so if anyone with more insight wants to jump in, please go ahead.
Checking where a vaccine treats the disease is actually quite simple and has no ethical dillemas. All you have to do is grab people that already have the disease and apply the vaccine to them (and apply a placebo to a control group that also has the disease).
|
On December 11 2020 20:53 Sbrubbles wrote:
Checking where a vaccine treats the disease is actually quite simple and has no ethical dillemas. All you have to do is grab people that already have the disease and apply the vaccine to them (and apply a placebo to a control group that also has the disease).
Is there any reason to believe that the effects of that sort of reactive protocol would be any different than the effects of a proactive protocol, i.e., making the sick feel better vs. stopping the non-sick from getting sick in the first place?
Edit: Nouar covered it below.
|
On December 11 2020 20:53 Sbrubbles wrote:
Checking where a vaccine treats the disease is actually quite simple and has no ethical dillemas. All you have to do is grab people that already have the disease and apply the vaccine to them (and apply a placebo to a control group that also has the disease).
What? No. That's not how it works. A vaccine doesn't treat a disease, it's purely preventative.
If you have the disease your body will produce antibodies (whether they are made soon enough and in sufficient quantity while your body is under attack is determined by your health/immune system)
Injecting the vaccine while the person is ill doesn't achieve anything. It's purpose is to train the immune system so that it can answer faster when it's under attack, later.
|
I was responding to Magic's comment, sorry I will quote to make things clear. He seems to be under the impression that a vaccine can treat a disease, I was merely commenting on what followed up that assessment
|
On December 11 2020 23:51 Sbrubbles wrote:
I was responding to Magic's comment, sorry I will quote to make things clear. He seems to be under the impression that a vaccine can treat a disease, I was merely commenting on what followed up that assessment
I'm not under that impression at all, I don't know where I've said anything alluding to that. Vaccines are supposed to offer immunity (as in stop the infection rather than just treat the disease). But it doesn't always work out that way. Human challenge trials can definitively answer that question, but those can only be done after a treatment for the disease is available.
|
On December 12 2020 04:43 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2020 23:51 Sbrubbles wrote:
I was responding to Magic's comment, sorry I will quote to make things clear. He seems to be under the impression that a vaccine can treat a disease, I was merely commenting on what followed up that assessment I'm not under that impression at all, I don't know where I've said anything alluding to that. Vaccines are supposed to offer immunity (as in stop the infection rather than just treat the disease). But it doesn't always work out that way. Human challenge trials can definitively answer that question, but those can only be done after a treatment for the disease is available.
The bolded part in the quote in my previous post.
|
On December 11 2020 15:32 Uldridge 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. 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.
And isn't RNA part of the totality of genetic code? Thus the vaccine alters your genome, but not your intranuclear chromatine and mitochondrial genetic code, presumably.
On December 11 2020 20:53 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2020 19:00 Magic Powers wrote:On December 11 2020 18:23 Acrofales wrote:On December 10 2020 06:51 pmh wrote:On December 09 2020 11:31 eviltomahawk wrote:On December 09 2020 11:13 Vivax wrote:On December 09 2020 11:00 Amui wrote:
Ethical exposure is just letting them go on with their daily lives, albeit with regular checkins. Same as almost every other vaccine ever made in the last few decades.
Detection method is looking for virus itself, not anti-bodies for it. Vaccinated people should have no traces of the virus once the vaccine course has run. Find me a law anywhere that makes an exception for lockdowns and other restrictions for vaccinated people, I am currently not aware of such a thing. Is the vaccine effective if they are tested negative? Or if they are tested positive and symptomless? You can't look for the virus itself in people (you can detect it in selected tissue under an electron microscope, but you'd have to know it's there by other means first), just parts of it. Vaccinated people will have traces of the virus, or rather, the antibodies against it. Humoral hepatitis detection is a good example to get insight into how that works. "Go on with their daily lives" means that they're still following the same mask and social distancing guidelines as everyone else in their respective territories. According to the papers submitted to the FDA, (which you should definitely read through, btw, if you're so concerned about the study design of the trials), efficacy was assessed as follows: Efficacy is being assessed throughout a participant’s follow-up in the study through surveillance for potential cases of COVID-19. If, at any time, a participant develops acute respiratory illness, an illness visit occurs. Assessments for illness visits include a nasal (midturbinate) swab, which is tested at a central laboratory using a reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test (e.g., Cepheid; FDA authorized under EUA), or other sufficiently validated nucleic acid amplification-based test (NAAT), to detect SARS-CoV-2. The central laboratory NAAT result is used for the case definition, unless it is not possible to test the sample at the central laboratory. In that case, the following NAAT results are acceptable: Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2Roche cobas SARS-CoV-2 real-time RT-PCR test (EUA200009/A001) Abbott Molecular/RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay (EUA200023/A001). So basically, when they feel sick, they get tested for Covid. It happened to be that more people out of the placebo group tested positive compared to that of the vaccinated group. For example, 192 positive cases from the placebo group and 8 positive cases from the vaccinated group. Page 24 of the document I linked has details on the efficacy studies. And here's another paper from Pfizer submitted to the FDA meeting that has additional details. So basically, when they feel sick, they get tested for Covid They didnt test everyone in the trial twice? (right after the infections and upon reaching the benchmark number). That seems odd to me,i thought they would test everyone right after getting the vaccine (to make sure noone had been infected yet) and then again after a certain amount of weeks. I dont understand why they would not test the whole group after the benchmark had been reached,it could give valuable information. People not getting sick is a very good result obviously,but it would be even better if they didnt get the virus at all. Testing everyone could also eliminate some of the statistical noise and uncertaintys and since testing is very cheap i dont fully understand why this has not been done. Well, the whole point of a vaccine isn't to stop you from getting infected. It's too boost your immune system so that when you get infected, your body can deal with it before it makes you sick. That also means that antibody tests won't work, because you're body should have antibodies despite never haven gotten infected: that's the whole point of the vaccine. Viral RNA/DNA tests can only detect the virus while it's still in your system, so doing it at specific intervals will only tell you who is infected at that time, not who got infected since the previous benchmarking time. Testing could still be useful to estimate what percentage of the trial population actually got infected (based on these snapshot tests), but statistics and all the tests already happening in the general populace to figure out infection rates in all regions and subgroups makes that unnecessary: these tests probably give better precision for what percentage of the trial population got infected, if the trial population is correctly sampled from this general population (and statistical corrections are applied to account for different composition of different subgroups, e.g. more old people in the trial, etc.). I'd like to elaborate on this to get ahead of potential confusion. An infection is defined as an "invasion and multiplication of microorganisms in body tissues". Vaccines cause a host to create antibodies that are supposed to fight off an infection when an invasion is detected. Whether a vaccine actually stops an infection (makes people immune) or simply treats the disease is a question that can be answered with human challenge trials, but those pose an ethical dilemma because they require the patients to be deliberately exposed to the virus after vaccination. These trials are only done when a specific treatment to the disease is available. I don't know exactly how human challenge trials work, so if anyone with more insight wants to jump in, please go ahead. Checking where a vaccine treats the disease is actually quite simple and has no ethical dillemas. All you have to do is grab people that already have the disease and apply the vaccine to them (and apply a placebo to a control group that also has the disease).
I'm not sure if this is sarcasm honestly.
|
That is literally in the header on wiki. The genome is the heritable genetic code. That means DNA, not RNA, unless you are yourself a virus.
I am a biologist. I do not have anywhere near the patience or time that Christian has put into dealing with you. If you have to ask questions like this, you need to think about whether your ignorance justifies your confidence.
This thread is Dunning-Krueger in action lately.
|
On December 12 2020 07:22 Belisarius wrote:
That is literally in the header on wiki. The genome is the heritable genetic code. That means DNA, not RNA, unless you are yourself a virus.
I am a biologist. I do not have anywhere near the patience or time that Christian has put into dealing with you. If you have to ask questions like this, you need to think about whether your ignorance justifies your confidence.
This thread is Dunning-Krueger in action lately.
So mitochondrial DNA in males is not part of the genome, if that's your definition. Because only the female gets inherited in humans at least.
Guess I should check wikipedia more often..
I started this discussions about mostly semantics and intersections, but I'd rather talk about mRNA vaccines.
|
On December 12 2020 07:36 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2020 07:22 Belisarius wrote:
That is literally in the header on wiki. The genome is the heritable genetic code. That means DNA, not RNA, unless you are yourself a virus.
I am a biologist. I do not have anywhere near the patience or time that Christian has put into dealing with you. If you have to ask questions like this, you need to think about whether your ignorance justifies your confidence.
This thread is Dunning-Krueger in action lately. So mitochondrial DNA in males is not part of the genome, if that's your definition. Because only the female gets inherited in humans at least. Guess I should check wikipedia more often.. I started this discussions about mostly semantics and intersections, but I'd rather talk about mRNA vaccines.
Then start by not arguing that mRNA in a vaccine could somehow transmit to your children by changing sperm/egg dna and it would not end that way.
You're risking more everyday by getting some sunlight.
|
Trust him guys, Vivax always knows what scientists really think but are afraid to tell you cause they don't want to suicide their careers. Here's a pic of where on my country's graph he told me too many people were immune now for a second wave to hit hard and that the disease is overhyped, when I brought up some worrying local trends following the 1st lockdown being lifted:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On December 12 2020 08:32 Dan HH wrote:Trust him guys, Vivax always knows what scientists really think but are afraid to tell you cause they don't want to suicide their careers. Here's a pic of where on my country's graph he told me too many people were immune now for a second wave to hit hard and that the disease is overhyped, when I brought up some worrying local trends following the 1st lockdown being lifted: + Show Spoiler +
Trust me on what? If you want, you can applaud lockdowns, stay at home, and take the vaccine. That's your choice. Don't try to make it other peoples.
I've said a while ago in this thread that the idea you couldn't get immunity after infection was nonsensical. According to my local medical university, that has recently been proven true. Sometimes thinking on your own and not just copypasting versions from the media proves to be the right approach. I could also just bleat the opinion of everyone else in here, then I'd be looking for validation and not a correct approach.
|
On December 12 2020 08:53 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2020 08:32 Dan HH wrote:Trust him guys, Vivax always knows what scientists really think but are afraid to tell you cause they don't want to suicide their careers. Here's a pic of where on my country's graph he told me too many people were immune now for a second wave to hit hard and that the disease is overhyped, when I brought up some worrying local trends following the 1st lockdown being lifted: + Show Spoiler + Trust me on what? If you want, you can applaud lockdowns, stay at home, and take the vaccine. That's your choice. Don't try to make it other peoples. I've said a while ago in this thread that the idea you couldn't get immunity after infection was nonsensical. According to my local medical university, that has recently been proven true. Sometimes thinking on your own and not just copypasting versions from the media proves to be the right approach. I could also just bleat the opinion of everyone else in here, then I'd be looking for validation and not a correct approach.
"Thinking on your own" is generally very bad advice for a layman. It's not like people have firsthand knowledge regarding COVID-19. Nobody has a lab in their basement that they are using to run experiments on the virus. Everything you know about COVID-19 you've learned from other sources so you're not so much thinking on your own as you are thinking on what information you choose to believe. Sometimes you will see someone against masks say something like "The virus is 0.02 microns, you think a mask is going to be able to stop something that small? Use some common sense and think for yourself." The irony is that they have no way of measuring the virus themselves so they are completely trusting in science to believe how big the virus is but they won't trust in science to believe that masks are effective. People that claim to be thinking for themselves are often just choosing to believe junk science while ignoring real science.
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On December 11 2020 12:01 LegalLord wrote:
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.
Can’t speak for other humans or the general populace, it’s certainly approaching that point for me anyway.
I would, expressed at the time and in retrospect have much, much preferred a hardline crackdown than months and months of wavering and completely arbitrary (at times) restrictions.
Bars are open again now as of today, but hey I can’t see mental health services in person through, and haven’t been able to since this crisis emerged, makes sense. Schools are open full capacity makes loaaaaadds of sense and is totally backed by evidence.
Christmas in retail is going to be fucking unholy hell this year because so much ‘non-essential’ retail was shut so even more traffic of it will be concentrated on the big generic places such as me workplace. God have mercy on the souls of Amazon workers right now.
Hey it’s vent time, I suppose I’m merely injecting the ‘and you’ part back into the thread. God knows I can’t with much of my wider social circle who are irritatingly pious on this and associated topics.
Some people will absolutely crack, for me the aggravation isn’t making these sacrifices, it’s the completely haphazard attempts to placate various groups while shafting other people, that’s massively extended the period of restrictions.
Thus far I’m managing my mental health but it’s fucking hard and it’s basically a solo effort on my part. The health service components can’t accommodate physical meetings, anything like a tangential organisation can’t operate properly (your AAs of the world). I’m quite good at self-analysis, sometimes to the point of paralysis so that has kept me ticking over, but everyone I’ve kept contact with my previous (and hopefully sole) hospitalisation have ended up re-hospitalised. Learned the other day of a suicide of a distant acquaintance.
Frankly I don’t think mental health services and cultural awareness were really up to par in normal times, so you can imagine how atrocious I think they are now.
Anyway to reiterate my gripe is we didn’t have a proper, sensible, harsh enough plan to get the job done. Didn’t get the cultural buyin from people either and we’ve just dragged out half-measures to such a degree that they’re going to be terrible for the mental health of ‘normal’ people, never mind people whose baseline is much less stable.
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On December 12 2020 08:53 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2020 08:32 Dan HH wrote:Trust him guys, Vivax always knows what scientists really think but are afraid to tell you cause they don't want to suicide their careers. Here's a pic of where on my country's graph he told me too many people were immune now for a second wave to hit hard and that the disease is overhyped, when I brought up some worrying local trends following the 1st lockdown being lifted: + Show Spoiler + Trust me on what? If you want, you can applaud lockdowns, stay at home, and take the vaccine. That's your choice. Don't try to make it other peoples. I've said a while ago in this thread that the idea you couldn't get immunity after infection was nonsensical. According to my local medical university, that has recently been proven true. Sometimes thinking on your own and not just copypasting versions from the media proves to be the right approach. I could also just bleat the opinion of everyone else in here, then I'd be looking for validation and not a correct approach.
What’s wrong with that?
It’s a fair while ago my understanding was that science was erring on the side of proof vs assumption on that. I.e assuming that post-infection immunity was a sure-fire thing would be extremely detrimental if it was used to inform wider policy, if it subsequently proved not to be the case.
Overly cautious perhaps, if understandable. Likewise the idea that it’s confirmed that children can contract the virus but not known if they can spread it. The latter would seem to appear obviously the case but they erred on confirmation.
|
On December 12 2020 09:29 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2020 08:53 Vivax wrote:On December 12 2020 08:32 Dan HH wrote:Trust him guys, Vivax always knows what scientists really think but are afraid to tell you cause they don't want to suicide their careers. Here's a pic of where on my country's graph he told me too many people were immune now for a second wave to hit hard and that the disease is overhyped, when I brought up some worrying local trends following the 1st lockdown being lifted: + Show Spoiler + Trust me on what? If you want, you can applaud lockdowns, stay at home, and take the vaccine. That's your choice. Don't try to make it other peoples. I've said a while ago in this thread that the idea you couldn't get immunity after infection was nonsensical. According to my local medical university, that has recently been proven true. Sometimes thinking on your own and not just copypasting versions from the media proves to be the right approach. I could also just bleat the opinion of everyone else in here, then I'd be looking for validation and not a correct approach. "Thinking on your own" is generally very bad advice for a layman. It's not like people have firsthand knowledge regarding COVID-19. Nobody has a lab in their basement that they are using to run experiments on the virus. Everything you know about COVID-19 you've learned from other sources so you're not so much thinking on your own as you are thinking on what information you choose to believe. Sometimes you will see someone against masks say something like "The virus is 0.02 microns, you think a mask is going to be able to stop something that small? Use some common sense and think for yourself." The irony is that they have no way of measuring the virus themselves so they are completely trusting in science to believe how big the virus is but they won't trust in science to believe that masks are effective. People that claim to be thinking for themselves are often just choosing to believe junk science while ignoring real science.
I don't care about mask wearing, though its effectiveness is debateable. As is the effectiveness of social distancing. Not improbable that there's more studies on that by now.
I'd say lockdown is the single most effective measure, but it's draconic, and pointless if not enforced properly and followed up by preventative measures. Given that now politics is making the end of the pandemic dependent on vaccinations, one could say lockdown was effective in keeping ICUs at capacity, and a complete failure in eradicating the virus.
The implication of what I mentioned is that anyone who's had Covid-19 already and maybe didn't even notice is getting restricted for no reason for what has now been almost a year.
No, thinking on one's own even for laymen is highly desireable unless you want to drift into top-down-directed conformism in matters dictated by selected individuals, which opens up possibilities for all sort of abuse. For other matters like drug intake or fixing stuff, it may be accurate.
On December 12 2020 10:03 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2020 08:53 Vivax wrote:On December 12 2020 08:32 Dan HH wrote:Trust him guys, Vivax always knows what scientists really think but are afraid to tell you cause they don't want to suicide their careers. Here's a pic of where on my country's graph he told me too many people were immune now for a second wave to hit hard and that the disease is overhyped, when I brought up some worrying local trends following the 1st lockdown being lifted: + Show Spoiler + Trust me on what? If you want, you can applaud lockdowns, stay at home, and take the vaccine. That's your choice. Don't try to make it other peoples. I've said a while ago in this thread that the idea you couldn't get immunity after infection was nonsensical. According to my local medical university, that has recently been proven true. Sometimes thinking on your own and not just copypasting versions from the media proves to be the right approach. I could also just bleat the opinion of everyone else in here, then I'd be looking for validation and not a correct approach. What’s wrong with that? It’s a fair while ago my understanding was that science was erring on the side of proof vs assumption on that. I.e assuming that post-infection immunity was a sure-fire thing would be extremely detrimental if it was used to inform wider policy, if it subsequently proved not to be the case. Overly cautious perhaps, if understandable. Likewise the idea that it’s confirmed that children can contract the virus but not known if they can spread it. The latter would seem to appear obviously the case but they erred on confirmation.
If it's covid-19 we're talking about, then the assumption that reinfection could be possible went against all evidence based on other respiratory viruses. If a related coronavirus begins with 'reinfection' at some point, then it's not Covid-19 anymore, but a new virus. Same reason you don't have lifelong immunity from the flu. It's seasonal.
|
Study on reinfections:
"Conclusion RBD- and NCP-specific Bmem cells persisted for 8 months, indicating that the decline in serum antibodies after 1 month does not indicate waning of immunity but a contraction of the immune response. Flowcytometric detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific Bmem cells enables detection of long-term functional immunity following infection or vaccination for COVID-19."
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.17.20233544v1
There was also this study a few months ago:
"Results: Out of 133,266 laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases, 243 persons (0.18%) had at least one subsequent positive swab ≥45 days after the first-positive swab. Of these, 54 cases (22.2%) had strong or good evidence for reinfection. Median time between first and reinfection swab was 64.5 days (range: 45-129)."
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.24.20179457v2
|
On December 12 2020 09:29 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2020 08:53 Vivax wrote:On December 12 2020 08:32 Dan HH wrote:Trust him guys, Vivax always knows what scientists really think but are afraid to tell you cause they don't want to suicide their careers. Here's a pic of where on my country's graph he told me too many people were immune now for a second wave to hit hard and that the disease is overhyped, when I brought up some worrying local trends following the 1st lockdown being lifted: + Show Spoiler + Trust me on what? If you want, you can applaud lockdowns, stay at home, and take the vaccine. That's your choice. Don't try to make it other peoples. I've said a while ago in this thread that the idea you couldn't get immunity after infection was nonsensical. According to my local medical university, that has recently been proven true. Sometimes thinking on your own and not just copypasting versions from the media proves to be the right approach. I could also just bleat the opinion of everyone else in here, then I'd be looking for validation and not a correct approach. "Thinking on your own" is generally very bad advice for a layman. It's not like people have firsthand knowledge regarding COVID-19. Nobody has a lab in their basement that they are using to run experiments on the virus. Everything you know about COVID-19 you've learned from other sources so you're not so much thinking on your own as you are thinking on what information you choose to believe. Sometimes you will see someone against masks say something like "The virus is 0.02 microns, you think a mask is going to be able to stop something that small? Use some common sense and think for yourself." The irony is that they have no way of measuring the virus themselves so they are completely trusting in science to believe how big the virus is but they won't trust in science to believe that masks are effective. People that claim to be thinking for themselves are often just choosing to believe junk science while ignoring real science.
I disagree here. Thinking on your own is generally a good thing. Some people are just really bad at it. For example, if you are thinking on your own about something you have no clue about, the only reasonable conclusion is to either trust what people who know more about it say, or to put in a lot more research yourself.
The problem with thinking on your own is that a lot of people are utterly untrained in it, and assume that their pathetic attempts at babies first reasoning are the pinnacle of genius thought.
Step one of thinking on your own about a topic is getting a good understanding of what the commonly held ideas about that topic are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/dfNEhGY.png)
