|
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 sure research is being done in labs, but would be good for governments to have a voluntary testing program at a larger scale to collect more data on efficacy waning over time. I would sign up instantly. Weekly or daily test, bring it on! So long as the test is subsidised, of course.
|
they know about waning, hard data, but they have to shove vaccines into people.
(you're not supposed to confuse your victim.)
|
On October 17 2021 23:49 xM(Z wrote:
they know about waning, hard data, but they have to shove vaccines into people.
(you're not supposed to confuse your victim.)
What does this mean? It sounds to me like you're saying "Despite what the hard data says about vaccines, scientists are still forcing people to take them", as if vaccines are bad and the vaccinated are victims, which surely isn't what you're meaning?
|
On October 17 2021 04:19 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2021 02:50 Sermokala wrote:On October 16 2021 07:34 BlackJack wrote:On October 16 2021 07:17 Sermokala wrote:On October 16 2021 06:35 BlackJack wrote:On October 16 2021 06:18 Simberto wrote:On October 16 2021 05:57 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2021 21:10 Sermokala wrote:On October 15 2021 14:14 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2021 13:14 Sermokala wrote:
Getting rid of teachers who don't believe in science medical professionals that don't believe in medicine and armed defenders of the public who don't believe in defending the public is a good thing.
This isn't a right/left thing its a basic competency thing at this point. Some people want to be part of the solution and some people want to be part of the problem. Can't we just ship them to re-education camps? Or do you think all hope is lost. Maybe we can cordon off a section of Mohdoo Island to use for the camps until they are permitted to re-enter society. No I think stripping groups of people from jobs they clearly don't want and are incapable of competently preforming is something that capitalism loves to do. They can try and find some job they acomidates their desire to trust misinformation over not killing people. Have you ever talked to people? Almost everyone believes some kind of anti-science bullshit. Even smart people like Steve Jobs thought he could cure his cancer with all kinds of bullshit alternative medicine. If you think holding irrational opinions makes you incompetent to do your job, good luck at getting rid of 90%+ of the workforce. Not generally, but some irrational opinions do make you incompetent in some jobs. For example, if steve jobs believed that orgon crystals are really good for computing and pushed lots of apple research money into that direction, he would be bad at his job. Similarly, if a doctor believes in homeopathic medicine, that makes them a bad doctor, because they will try to prescribe those pointless placebo pills to people as if they actually help. If the doctor thinks that he is really good at rap battles when all evidence points to the contrary, that does not hinder his performance as a doctor. And if a judge doesn't believe in the law, that makes him bad at his job. If a judge believes that crystal healing is totally a real thing, that usually doesn't hinder him a lot. Lots of working class people irrationally believe that they know really well what would be the best course of action for a specific sports team. That doesn't hinder them in their job. But if a construction worker started to belief that he is immune to damage from falling rocks due to his superior skull structure and thus stop wearing hard hats, he would be out of a job pretty soon. Some irrational beliefs immediately impact your job, usually if those beliefs are linked to central stuff you do at your job. Other irrational beliefs only impact your private life, usually if those beliefs don't have anything to do with your job. No, if a doctor believes in homeopathic medicine it does not make him a bad doctor. If he tries to prescribe homeopathic medicine instead of real medicine then it does make him a bad doctor. If a teacher holds some stupid beliefs it does not make them a bad teacher. If they try to push those stupid beliefs onto their students then it does make them a bad teacher. Don't conflate acts of incompetence with thoughts of incompetence as an excuse to herald in the thought police. I think you defeated your own argument with this. By not vaccinating they're pushing their opinions about being pro covid on other people around them. People not believing in the vaccine in it of itself isn't the issue the problem is not taking the vaccine and killing themselves and other people around them. How is not getting vaccinated at all equal to pushing your opinion to not vaccinate on other people? Can you tell which people are vaccinated by just looking at them? Ironically you defeated your own argument by saying it's not about not believing in the vaccine it's about spreading COVID. In that case someone that works in a factory doing a job that could be done by a robot should also not be permitted to work if they don't get vaccinated. So it has literally nothing to do with job competency, don't you agree? That's not how logic works. Not beliving in the vaccine isn't the problem in it of itself that you are trying to frame it as. Are you sure it's me framing it that way and it's not in fact what you literally wrote to start this digression? Show nested quote +On October 15 2021 13:14 Sermokala wrote:
Getting rid of teachers who don't believe in science medical professionals that don't believe in medicine and armed defenders of the public who don't believe in defending the public is a good thing.
This isn't a right/left thing its a basic competency thing at this point. Now you've shifted your argument away from it's not about whether you believe in the vaccine to it's about spreading COVID to other people while on the job. To which I replied that can apply to almost every job and has nothing to do with competence. Or at the very least, your definition of competence is very interesting if everyone that doesn't get vaccinated is incompetent at their job.
My statement applied to people whos job and credibility are directly taken away by their vaccine stance. Someone who works in a machine shop isn't expected to understand how MRNA vaccines work but they are expected to understand why they don't want to lose their hand when they can just not.
You've tried to shift my argument repeatedly and mischaracterize it. I'm not going to accept you trying to change what I said.
I mean if people can't follow simple safety directions then yes It would be hard to find a job that they are competent at.
|
On October 17 2021 23:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2021 23:49 xM(Z wrote:
they know about waning, hard data, but they have to shove vaccines into people.
(you're not supposed to confuse your victim.) What does this mean? It sounds to me like you're saying "Despite what the hard data says about vaccines, scientists are still forcing people to take them", as if vaccines are bad and the vaccinated are victims, which surely isn't what you're meaning?
You should be able to catch onto the crazies who think that covid is a myth and that the MRNA vaccines are meant to turn you DNA so that you turn gay.
|
On October 17 2021 23:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2021 23:49 xM(Z wrote:
they know about waning, hard data, but they have to shove vaccines into people.
(you're not supposed to confuse your victim.) What does this mean? It sounds to me like you're saying "Despite what the hard data says about vaccines, scientists are still forcing people to take them", as if vaccines are bad and the vaccinated are victims, which surely isn't what you're meaning? you read wayyyyyy to much into it; was just funny.
i'm in the 7th stage of recovery from everything covid. i've accepted the all the collateral damage that comes with it(including mine if ...).
i don't give a fuck anymore; something snapped. to much hate, and white lies, and actual lies and segregation, and fear, and mistrust, and wepiotuhnperwhnerthrt.
if a covid infected dude coughs on me, i don't care. i have a 100% chance to be fine 50% of the time.
Edit: i mean the guy above me, he looks pretty insane to me.
|
On October 18 2021 01:40 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2021 23:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 17 2021 23:49 xM(Z wrote:
they know about waning, hard data, but they have to shove vaccines into people.
(you're not supposed to confuse your victim.) What does this mean? It sounds to me like you're saying "Despite what the hard data says about vaccines, scientists are still forcing people to take them", as if vaccines are bad and the vaccinated are victims, which surely isn't what you're meaning? You should be able to catch onto the crazies who think that covid is a myth and that the MRNA vaccines are meant to turn you DNA so that you turn gay.
I believe I did, but I figured I'd double check and offer the benefit of the doubt, just to be safe lol.
Edit:
On October 18 2021 02:03 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2021 23:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 17 2021 23:49 xM(Z wrote:
they know about waning, hard data, but they have to shove vaccines into people.
(you're not supposed to confuse your victim.) What does this mean? It sounds to me like you're saying "Despite what the hard data says about vaccines, scientists are still forcing people to take them", as if vaccines are bad and the vaccinated are victims, which surely isn't what you're meaning? you read wayyyyyy to much into it; was just funny. i'm in the 7th stage of recovery from everything covid. i've accepted the all the collateral damage that comes with it(including mine if ...). i don't give a fuck anymore; something snapped. to much hate, and white lies, and actual lies and segregation, and fear, and mistrust, and wepiotuhnperwhnerthrt. if a covid infected dude coughs on me, i don't care. i have a 100% to be fine 50% of the time.
Yeah  Nailed it x.x
|
Northern Ireland26101 Posts
On October 18 2021 02:03 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2021 23:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 17 2021 23:49 xM(Z wrote:
they know about waning, hard data, but they have to shove vaccines into people.
(you're not supposed to confuse your victim.) What does this mean? It sounds to me like you're saying "Despite what the hard data says about vaccines, scientists are still forcing people to take them", as if vaccines are bad and the vaccinated are victims, which surely isn't what you're meaning? you read wayyyyyy to much into it; was just funny. i'm in the 7th stage of recovery from everything covid. i've accepted the all the collateral damage that comes with it(including mine if ...). i don't give a fuck anymore; something snapped. to much hate, and white lies, and actual lies and segregation, and fear, and mistrust, and wepiotuhnperwhnerthrt. if a covid infected dude coughs on me, i don't care. i have a 100% chance to be fine 50% of the time. Edit: i mean the guy above me, he looks pretty insane to me.
Is wepiotuhnperwhnerthrt a German compound noun?
|
... with some stutter from being emotional
|
On October 18 2021 01:37 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2021 04:19 BlackJack wrote:On October 17 2021 02:50 Sermokala wrote:On October 16 2021 07:34 BlackJack wrote:On October 16 2021 07:17 Sermokala wrote:On October 16 2021 06:35 BlackJack wrote:On October 16 2021 06:18 Simberto wrote:On October 16 2021 05:57 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2021 21:10 Sermokala wrote:On October 15 2021 14:14 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
Can't we just ship them to re-education camps? Or do you think all hope is lost. Maybe we can cordon off a section of Mohdoo Island to use for the camps until they are permitted to re-enter society.
No I think stripping groups of people from jobs they clearly don't want and are incapable of competently preforming is something that capitalism loves to do. They can try and find some job they acomidates their desire to trust misinformation over not killing people. Have you ever talked to people? Almost everyone believes some kind of anti-science bullshit. Even smart people like Steve Jobs thought he could cure his cancer with all kinds of bullshit alternative medicine. If you think holding irrational opinions makes you incompetent to do your job, good luck at getting rid of 90%+ of the workforce. Not generally, but some irrational opinions do make you incompetent in some jobs. For example, if steve jobs believed that orgon crystals are really good for computing and pushed lots of apple research money into that direction, he would be bad at his job. Similarly, if a doctor believes in homeopathic medicine, that makes them a bad doctor, because they will try to prescribe those pointless placebo pills to people as if they actually help. If the doctor thinks that he is really good at rap battles when all evidence points to the contrary, that does not hinder his performance as a doctor. And if a judge doesn't believe in the law, that makes him bad at his job. If a judge believes that crystal healing is totally a real thing, that usually doesn't hinder him a lot. Lots of working class people irrationally believe that they know really well what would be the best course of action for a specific sports team. That doesn't hinder them in their job. But if a construction worker started to belief that he is immune to damage from falling rocks due to his superior skull structure and thus stop wearing hard hats, he would be out of a job pretty soon. Some irrational beliefs immediately impact your job, usually if those beliefs are linked to central stuff you do at your job. Other irrational beliefs only impact your private life, usually if those beliefs don't have anything to do with your job. No, if a doctor believes in homeopathic medicine it does not make him a bad doctor. If he tries to prescribe homeopathic medicine instead of real medicine then it does make him a bad doctor. If a teacher holds some stupid beliefs it does not make them a bad teacher. If they try to push those stupid beliefs onto their students then it does make them a bad teacher. Don't conflate acts of incompetence with thoughts of incompetence as an excuse to herald in the thought police. I think you defeated your own argument with this. By not vaccinating they're pushing their opinions about being pro covid on other people around them. People not believing in the vaccine in it of itself isn't the issue the problem is not taking the vaccine and killing themselves and other people around them. How is not getting vaccinated at all equal to pushing your opinion to not vaccinate on other people? Can you tell which people are vaccinated by just looking at them? Ironically you defeated your own argument by saying it's not about not believing in the vaccine it's about spreading COVID. In that case someone that works in a factory doing a job that could be done by a robot should also not be permitted to work if they don't get vaccinated. So it has literally nothing to do with job competency, don't you agree? That's not how logic works. Not beliving in the vaccine isn't the problem in it of itself that you are trying to frame it as. Are you sure it's me framing it that way and it's not in fact what you literally wrote to start this digression? On October 15 2021 13:14 Sermokala wrote:
Getting rid of teachers who don't believe in science medical professionals that don't believe in medicine and armed defenders of the public who don't believe in defending the public is a good thing.
This isn't a right/left thing its a basic competency thing at this point. Now you've shifted your argument away from it's not about whether you believe in the vaccine to it's about spreading COVID to other people while on the job. To which I replied that can apply to almost every job and has nothing to do with competence. Or at the very least, your definition of competence is very interesting if everyone that doesn't get vaccinated is incompetent at their job. My statement applied to people whos job and credibility are directly taken away by their vaccine stance. Someone who works in a machine shop isn't expected to understand how MRNA vaccines work but they are expected to understand why they don't want to lose their hand when they can just not. You've tried to shift my argument repeatedly and mischaracterize it. I'm not going to accept you trying to change what I said. I mean if people can't follow simple safety directions then yes It would be hard to find a job that they are competent at.
I think the posts I quoted made it pretty clear that your argument is all over the place and you're the one shifting it. But you're entitled to your opinion.
|
On October 17 2021 21:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2021 19:43 BlackJack wrote:
Anyone get their antibodies tested after vaccination?
I got my result today and it was 954 u/mL. Pretty happy with that. A study I found with testing 6-10 weeks after the 2nd shot showed an average level of 1108 u/mL for Pfizer. So maybe not much of a drop off for being 9+ months out after my 2nd shot. I also didn't have any side effects from either shot. I didn't get my antibodies tested after my shots, although to be fair, I don't actually know what numbers I should be looking for anyway. For example, I assume 1,000 is better than 900, simply because 1,000 is more, but I'm not sure how much better 1,000 is than 900 in this specific context (is that a significant difference in resistance, are there diminishing returns, is there a maximum benchmark such that any amount above that benchmark adds no additional resistance at all (like extra water spilling over the edge of an already-full cup), is there such a thing as having "too many" antibodies from a vaccine, etc.). When I took Pfizer, I basically had zero side effects as well, for either of the two doses. (I felt a tiny bit nauseated for about 24-48 hours, after one of the two doses, but it didn't actually inhibit me at all.) I'll probably get the booster within a few weeks, and we'll see if I have any side effects the third time around!
I've been asking people I know that also got their antibodies tested. So far the results are 75, 126, 341, 648. Then a few people with breakthrough infections that were all >2500 which is the max that the test goes.
I think the general consensus is there is correlation between higher antibody levels and protection from covid. I got mine tested at Labcorp for $10
|
On October 18 2021 10:51 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2021 21:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 17 2021 19:43 BlackJack wrote:
Anyone get their antibodies tested after vaccination?
I got my result today and it was 954 u/mL. Pretty happy with that. A study I found with testing 6-10 weeks after the 2nd shot showed an average level of 1108 u/mL for Pfizer. So maybe not much of a drop off for being 9+ months out after my 2nd shot. I also didn't have any side effects from either shot. I didn't get my antibodies tested after my shots, although to be fair, I don't actually know what numbers I should be looking for anyway. For example, I assume 1,000 is better than 900, simply because 1,000 is more, but I'm not sure how much better 1,000 is than 900 in this specific context (is that a significant difference in resistance, are there diminishing returns, is there a maximum benchmark such that any amount above that benchmark adds no additional resistance at all (like extra water spilling over the edge of an already-full cup), is there such a thing as having "too many" antibodies from a vaccine, etc.). When I took Pfizer, I basically had zero side effects as well, for either of the two doses. (I felt a tiny bit nauseated for about 24-48 hours, after one of the two doses, but it didn't actually inhibit me at all.) I'll probably get the booster within a few weeks, and we'll see if I have any side effects the third time around! I've been asking people I know that also got their antibodies tested. So far the results are 75, 126, 341, 648. Then a few people with breakthrough infections that were all >2500 which is the max that the test goes. I think the general consensus is there is correlation between higher antibody levels and protection from covid. I got mine tested at Labcorp for $10
How long does an antibody test lasts? As in roughly how many days or weeks the test results remain reliable before a new test is needed?
|
On October 18 2021 10:51 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2021 21:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 17 2021 19:43 BlackJack wrote:
Anyone get their antibodies tested after vaccination?
I got my result today and it was 954 u/mL. Pretty happy with that. A study I found with testing 6-10 weeks after the 2nd shot showed an average level of 1108 u/mL for Pfizer. So maybe not much of a drop off for being 9+ months out after my 2nd shot. I also didn't have any side effects from either shot. I didn't get my antibodies tested after my shots, although to be fair, I don't actually know what numbers I should be looking for anyway. For example, I assume 1,000 is better than 900, simply because 1,000 is more, but I'm not sure how much better 1,000 is than 900 in this specific context (is that a significant difference in resistance, are there diminishing returns, is there a maximum benchmark such that any amount above that benchmark adds no additional resistance at all (like extra water spilling over the edge of an already-full cup), is there such a thing as having "too many" antibodies from a vaccine, etc.). When I took Pfizer, I basically had zero side effects as well, for either of the two doses. (I felt a tiny bit nauseated for about 24-48 hours, after one of the two doses, but it didn't actually inhibit me at all.) I'll probably get the booster within a few weeks, and we'll see if I have any side effects the third time around! I've been asking people I know that also got their antibodies tested. So far the results are 75, 126, 341, 648. Then a few people with breakthrough infections that were all >2500 which is the max that the test goes. I think the general consensus is there is correlation between higher antibody levels and protection from covid. I got mine tested at Labcorp for $10
Good to know, thanks!
|
On October 18 2021 11:59 RKC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2021 10:51 BlackJack wrote:On October 17 2021 21:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 17 2021 19:43 BlackJack wrote:
Anyone get their antibodies tested after vaccination?
I got my result today and it was 954 u/mL. Pretty happy with that. A study I found with testing 6-10 weeks after the 2nd shot showed an average level of 1108 u/mL for Pfizer. So maybe not much of a drop off for being 9+ months out after my 2nd shot. I also didn't have any side effects from either shot. I didn't get my antibodies tested after my shots, although to be fair, I don't actually know what numbers I should be looking for anyway. For example, I assume 1,000 is better than 900, simply because 1,000 is more, but I'm not sure how much better 1,000 is than 900 in this specific context (is that a significant difference in resistance, are there diminishing returns, is there a maximum benchmark such that any amount above that benchmark adds no additional resistance at all (like extra water spilling over the edge of an already-full cup), is there such a thing as having "too many" antibodies from a vaccine, etc.). When I took Pfizer, I basically had zero side effects as well, for either of the two doses. (I felt a tiny bit nauseated for about 24-48 hours, after one of the two doses, but it didn't actually inhibit me at all.) I'll probably get the booster within a few weeks, and we'll see if I have any side effects the third time around! I've been asking people I know that also got their antibodies tested. So far the results are 75, 126, 341, 648. Then a few people with breakthrough infections that were all >2500 which is the max that the test goes. I think the general consensus is there is correlation between higher antibody levels and protection from covid. I got mine tested at Labcorp for $10 How long does an antibody test lasts? As in roughly how many days or weeks the test results remain reliable before a new test is needed?
I've no idea. Varies by person I think
|
On October 18 2021 12:04 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2021 11:59 RKC wrote:On October 18 2021 10:51 BlackJack wrote:On October 17 2021 21:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 17 2021 19:43 BlackJack wrote:
Anyone get their antibodies tested after vaccination?
I got my result today and it was 954 u/mL. Pretty happy with that. A study I found with testing 6-10 weeks after the 2nd shot showed an average level of 1108 u/mL for Pfizer. So maybe not much of a drop off for being 9+ months out after my 2nd shot. I also didn't have any side effects from either shot. I didn't get my antibodies tested after my shots, although to be fair, I don't actually know what numbers I should be looking for anyway. For example, I assume 1,000 is better than 900, simply because 1,000 is more, but I'm not sure how much better 1,000 is than 900 in this specific context (is that a significant difference in resistance, are there diminishing returns, is there a maximum benchmark such that any amount above that benchmark adds no additional resistance at all (like extra water spilling over the edge of an already-full cup), is there such a thing as having "too many" antibodies from a vaccine, etc.). When I took Pfizer, I basically had zero side effects as well, for either of the two doses. (I felt a tiny bit nauseated for about 24-48 hours, after one of the two doses, but it didn't actually inhibit me at all.) I'll probably get the booster within a few weeks, and we'll see if I have any side effects the third time around! I've been asking people I know that also got their antibodies tested. So far the results are 75, 126, 341, 648. Then a few people with breakthrough infections that were all >2500 which is the max that the test goes. I think the general consensus is there is correlation between higher antibody levels and protection from covid. I got mine tested at Labcorp for $10 How long does an antibody test lasts? As in roughly how many days or weeks the test results remain reliable before a new test is needed? I've no idea. Varies by person I think
Are antibody tests even "needed" at all? I certainly won't bother taking them, unless I am called for some study.
Antibodies are just one part of the immune reaction and your body should be able to quickly make new ones even if the level drops.
|
I'd imagine having a lot of detectable antibodies is a bit like actively scanning for threats in the environment. If you get attacked, you're less likely to start from an unfavorable position because you can see it coming sooner. Could be similar with viral infections.
|
On October 18 2021 20:46 Magic Powers wrote:
I'd imagine having a lot of detectable antibodies is a bit like actively scanning for threats in the environment. If you get attacked, you're less likely to start from an unfavorable position because you can see it coming sooner. Could be similar with viral infections. Yes, from what I understand antibodies help prevent infection. But even with a low antibody count the body knows how to react (if vaccinated) so while you might get infected, the chance of hospitalization is still very small.
That also ties into the question about whether to use boosters or not. They are for helping prevent infection, not hospitalization because the latter holds over time based on the data we have so far.
|
|
|
|
|
that was a shit take on what your link says and your link also has shit takes.
“The job of antibodies is to stick to things, so they can create a positive test result if they react to a different type of coronavirus,” said Wojewoda.
“Antibody tests show the most promise if the way the human body controls the coronavirus is with an antibody response,” Wojewoda added. “If not, it doesn’t make any difference.” if antibodies are not the way humans control covid, then why are people getting the vaccine in the first place?(its whole purpose is to make the body create antibodies).
that's one example but there are more, and your take is shit because they refer to antibody testing not being reliable in diagnosing covid(solely because covid comes before antibodies, so you 'miss' the beginning of the infection), which is true, not what you implied there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
