|
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 12 2021 23:08 xM(Z wrote:
so what if you get infected if you're vaccinated?; your pro-science/pro-medicine people say you should be mostly fine.
You have a significantly lower chance of experiencing serious negative health effects if you're vaccinated than if you're unvaccinated, yes. However, there are at-risk populations (the elderly, the immunocompromised, etc.) that absolutely need the people around them to stay covid-free too. Furthermore, with so many people still willing to be infected, coronavirus will continue to spread and mutate into potentially more-dangerous and/or vaccine-resistant strains. Our pandemic has been perpetuated by infected individuals who didn't social distance, mask, or vaccinate when they should have, and coronavirus is likely to become endemic because of those people who were careless/selfish and/or anti-science/anti-medicine.
|
but you vaccinate those people; they were the first ones vaccinated.
covid never mutates into more dangerous strains 'cause if it did, we'll all be dead by now(thinking evolution here).
and honesty i doubt anyone here(maybe 2-3 exceptions) know what immunocompromised means; it's when your immune system is killed by either treatment or medications(or doesn't exists - extremely rare genetic issues) and those people were on guard of any flues anyway.
|
On December 13 2021 00:10 xM(Z wrote:
but you vaccinate those people; they were the first ones vaccinated.
covid never mutates into more dangerous strains 'cause if it did, we'll all be dead by now(thinking evolution here).
and honesty i doubt anyone here(maybe 2-3 exceptions) know what immunocompromised means; it's when your immune system is killed by either treatment or medications(or doesn't exists - extremely rare genetic issues) and those people were on guard of any flues anyway.
I know you are romanian, but i have a really hard time figuring out if you are trying to say something by ironically reducing it to nonsense, or if you want to make that statement exactly. The partially broken English sadly doesn't help with that.
Do you really think that covid doesn't mutate because if it did, it would have already killed us due to evolution? Or do you think that statement is absurd and use it as an argument against something?
Do you believe people here don't know what immunocompromised means? And why is that relevant?
|
|
|
On December 13 2021 00:26 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2021 00:10 xM(Z wrote:
but you vaccinate those people; they were the first ones vaccinated.
covid never mutates into more dangerous strains 'cause if it did, we'll all be dead by now(thinking evolution here).
and honesty i doubt anyone here(maybe 2-3 exceptions) know what immunocompromised means; it's when your immune system is killed by either treatment or medications(or doesn't exists - extremely rare genetic issues) and those people were on guard of any flues anyway. I know you are romanian, but i have a really hard time figuring out if you are trying to say something by ironically reducing it to nonsense, or if you want to make that statement exactly. The partially broken English sadly doesn't help with that. Do you really think that covid doesn't mutate because if it did, it would have already killed us due to evolution? Or do you think that statement is absurd and use it as an argument against something? Do you believe people here don't know what immunocompromised means? And why is that relevant?
I am quite sure he means it exactly the way he said it. The amount of people who seem to think that mutation is somehow goal oriented is staggering. The reality is that it is more or less completely random. If incubation times and other factors stay the same there could absolutely be a more deadly variant if it spreads fast enough. The only way to curb that would then be lockdowns and all the other measures people like him rail against.
Edit: Not to mention the issue with the sentence about the rarety of immuno compromised people. I can tell you I personally know several of them. This might be anecdotal evidence but I think they are not as rare as he thinks.
|
On December 12 2021 21:38 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2021 11:00 NewSunshine wrote:
A normal cloth mask is 37% effective? Okay, great. I've been wearing them the whole time, I literally don't even think about it anymore. Again, the requirement suddenly being "but is it 100% effective" is disingenuous to the point of being concern trolling. The real lens to look at it through is level of benefit versus level of effort, because that's how you sell any recommendations to the public about anything. A mask doesn't need to do the whole job of stopping the pandemic, it never has, and it's a load of crap to suddenly make that the standard here. It's the bare minimum, and it's a casual level of effort that should be well and truly routine to everybody by now. Give me the 37% efficacy for doing literally nothing to change my behavior except wear a small piece of cloth on my face. It's superior to nothing, and every little bit matters. Viral load matters, transmission levels matter, proximity requirements matter.
I've been pretty convinced for a while now that BJ just loves to play devil's advocate, at all points in time, about literally anything, and that's about it, because that's all I've seen him do in any discussion I've seen him in. In reality, where I have a set of beliefs that I stick to, and a consistent logic behind what I do and why, I think it's ridiculous to say that a mask is asking too much, regardless of who I'm talking to and what their argument happens to be that day. To borrow a great word, it's bollocks. I've never worn any cloth masks. I only wear surgical masks or n95 respirators because the science is quite clear that these are more effective than cloth masks. I don't consider myself less selfish than you just because you choose to do the "bare minimum" when you could easily be doing just as much as me. If I was doing the "bare minimum" I wouldn't be criticizing anyone.
You just can't stop, can you. You'd rather pick a fight with someone on the basis of doing the bare minimum, then acknowledge that maybe they have a right to be frustrated with people who can't even do the bare minimum. You're making bad faith assumptions and interpretations just to make another argument out of it, when you don't know exactly what I do about COVID besides what I specified in one post. Get lost dude, I'm not wasting the time.
|
On December 13 2021 01:28 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2021 00:26 Simberto wrote:On December 13 2021 00:10 xM(Z wrote:
but you vaccinate those people; they were the first ones vaccinated.
covid never mutates into more dangerous strains 'cause if it did, we'll all be dead by now(thinking evolution here).
and honesty i doubt anyone here(maybe 2-3 exceptions) know what immunocompromised means; it's when your immune system is killed by either treatment or medications(or doesn't exists - extremely rare genetic issues) and those people were on guard of any flues anyway. I know you are romanian, but i have a really hard time figuring out if you are trying to say something by ironically reducing it to nonsense, or if you want to make that statement exactly. The partially broken English sadly doesn't help with that. Do you really think that covid doesn't mutate because if it did, it would have already killed us due to evolution? Or do you think that statement is absurd and use it as an argument against something? Do you believe people here don't know what immunocompromised means? And why is that relevant? I am quite sure he means it exactly the way he said it. The amount of people who seem to think that mutation is somehow goal oriented is staggering. The reality is that it is more or less completely random. If incubation times and other factors stay the same there could absolutely be a more deadly variant if it spreads fast enough. The only way to curb that would then be lockdowns and all the other measures people like him rail against. Edit: Not to mention the issue with the sentence about the rarety of immuno compromised people. I can tell you I personally know several of them. This might be anecdotal evidence but I think they are not as rare as he thinks.
I have family members and friends who are immunocompromised too. It's scary.
|
On December 13 2021 02:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2021 01:28 justanothertownie wrote:On December 13 2021 00:26 Simberto wrote:On December 13 2021 00:10 xM(Z wrote:
but you vaccinate those people; they were the first ones vaccinated.
covid never mutates into more dangerous strains 'cause if it did, we'll all be dead by now(thinking evolution here).
and honesty i doubt anyone here(maybe 2-3 exceptions) know what immunocompromised means; it's when your immune system is killed by either treatment or medications(or doesn't exists - extremely rare genetic issues) and those people were on guard of any flues anyway. I know you are romanian, but i have a really hard time figuring out if you are trying to say something by ironically reducing it to nonsense, or if you want to make that statement exactly. The partially broken English sadly doesn't help with that. Do you really think that covid doesn't mutate because if it did, it would have already killed us due to evolution? Or do you think that statement is absurd and use it as an argument against something? Do you believe people here don't know what immunocompromised means? And why is that relevant? I am quite sure he means it exactly the way he said it. The amount of people who seem to think that mutation is somehow goal oriented is staggering. The reality is that it is more or less completely random. If incubation times and other factors stay the same there could absolutely be a more deadly variant if it spreads fast enough. The only way to curb that would then be lockdowns and all the other measures people like him rail against. Edit: Not to mention the issue with the sentence about the rarety of immuno compromised people. I can tell you I personally know several of them. This might be anecdotal evidence but I think they are not as rare as he thinks. I have family members and friends who are immunocompromised too. It's scary.
Yep, same here. It informs a lot of my distancing habits, and the way I schedule my time, my outings, and what we do before and after those outings.
|
In addition to folks who have immune system suppressing disorders, many people with autoimmune disorders like rheumatoid arthritis rely on immune suppressing medications, so the world of people at higher risk from diseases like Covid is much larger than may seem obvious, and that’s only with respect to the immune system. Folks with serious cardiovascular problems and others like those who have diabetes are also worth keeping mind.
|
On December 13 2021 02:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2021 01:28 justanothertownie wrote:On December 13 2021 00:26 Simberto wrote:On December 13 2021 00:10 xM(Z wrote:
but you vaccinate those people; they were the first ones vaccinated.
covid never mutates into more dangerous strains 'cause if it did, we'll all be dead by now(thinking evolution here).
and honesty i doubt anyone here(maybe 2-3 exceptions) know what immunocompromised means; it's when your immune system is killed by either treatment or medications(or doesn't exists - extremely rare genetic issues) and those people were on guard of any flues anyway. I know you are romanian, but i have a really hard time figuring out if you are trying to say something by ironically reducing it to nonsense, or if you want to make that statement exactly. The partially broken English sadly doesn't help with that. Do you really think that covid doesn't mutate because if it did, it would have already killed us due to evolution? Or do you think that statement is absurd and use it as an argument against something? Do you believe people here don't know what immunocompromised means? And why is that relevant? I am quite sure he means it exactly the way he said it. The amount of people who seem to think that mutation is somehow goal oriented is staggering. The reality is that it is more or less completely random. If incubation times and other factors stay the same there could absolutely be a more deadly variant if it spreads fast enough. The only way to curb that would then be lockdowns and all the other measures people like him rail against. Edit: Not to mention the issue with the sentence about the rarety of immuno compromised people. I can tell you I personally know several of them. This might be anecdotal evidence but I think they are not as rare as he thinks. I have family members and friends who are immunocompromised too. It's scary.
My fathers wife, while not technically immunocompromised afaik, did not react to the vaccine at all, and had 0 antibodies in tests afterwards, so we currently assume that she is as much in danger as someone who hasn't been vaccinated.
|
|
|
On December 12 2021 23:08 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2021 21:38 BlackJack wrote:On December 12 2021 11:00 NewSunshine wrote:
A normal cloth mask is 37% effective? Okay, great. I've been wearing them the whole time, I literally don't even think about it anymore. Again, the requirement suddenly being "but is it 100% effective" is disingenuous to the point of being concern trolling. The real lens to look at it through is level of benefit versus level of effort, because that's how you sell any recommendations to the public about anything. A mask doesn't need to do the whole job of stopping the pandemic, it never has, and it's a load of crap to suddenly make that the standard here. It's the bare minimum, and it's a casual level of effort that should be well and truly routine to everybody by now. Give me the 37% efficacy for doing literally nothing to change my behavior except wear a small piece of cloth on my face. It's superior to nothing, and every little bit matters. Viral load matters, transmission levels matter, proximity requirements matter.
I've been pretty convinced for a while now that BJ just loves to play devil's advocate, at all points in time, about literally anything, and that's about it, because that's all I've seen him do in any discussion I've seen him in. In reality, where I have a set of beliefs that I stick to, and a consistent logic behind what I do and why, I think it's ridiculous to say that a mask is asking too much, regardless of who I'm talking to and what their argument happens to be that day. To borrow a great word, it's bollocks. I've never worn any cloth masks. I only wear surgical masks or n95 respirators because the science is quite clear that these are more effective than cloth masks. I don't consider myself less selfish than you just because you choose to do the "bare minimum" when you could easily be doing just as much as me. If I was doing the "bare minimum" I wouldn't be criticizing anyone. Are there any studies comparing surgical, n95 and multilayer cloth masks with a filter layer? I recall reading that there is a significant difference between multilayer cloth masks with filters and ordinary cloth masks. I've also noticed that most people wearing surgical/n95 masks have large gaps between their face and the mask, with the exception of medical staff wearing n95 masks.
kn95 fit different people differently. Same with the "surgical masks". Many of the masks that look like surgical ones are not nearly the quality or design of the real ones used in hospitals. Lots of duplicates that specifically say "this isn't for medical use".
From all the reading I have done, nothing beats a good ole fashion N95. It perfectly wraps around anyone's face and has the best protection. I live with someone immunocompromised, so I strictly use N95 anywhere I go.
|
Not all N95 fit well, let alone perfectly. Dunno about the US, but over here in the UK they typically sell them in one size, which differs depending on the brand and the design.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland25958 Posts
On December 12 2021 14:56 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2021 11:12 WombaT wrote:On December 12 2021 11:00 NewSunshine wrote:
A normal cloth mask is 37% effective? Okay, great. I've been wearing them the whole time, I literally don't even think about it anymore. Again, the requirement suddenly being "but is it 100% effective" is disingenuous to the point of being concern trolling. The real lens to look at it through is level of benefit versus level of effort, because that's how you sell any recommendations to the public about anything. A mask doesn't need to do the whole job of stopping the pandemic, it never has, and it's a load of crap to suddenly make that the standard here. It's the bare minimum, and it's a casual level of effort that should be well and truly routine to everybody by now. Give me the 37% efficacy for doing literally nothing to change my behavior except wear a small piece of cloth on my face. It's superior to nothing, and every little bit matters. Viral load matters, transmission levels matter, proximity requirements matter.
I've been pretty convinced for a while now that BJ just loves to play devil's advocate, at all points in time, about literally anything, and that's about it, because that's all I've seen him do in any discussion I've seen him in. In reality, where I have a set of beliefs that I stick to, and a consistent logic behind what I do and why, I think it's ridiculous to say that a mask is asking too much. To borrow a great word, it's bollocks. You forget sir that wearing a mask is tyranny Is wearing a mask an almost no-detriment mitigation measure? Well yeah, it is but it’s tyrannical, which is the important thing Yes, this is the point I was going for 
Ok fair enough that was needlessly facetious
|
On December 13 2021 01:28 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2021 00:26 Simberto wrote:On December 13 2021 00:10 xM(Z wrote:
but you vaccinate those people; they were the first ones vaccinated.
covid never mutates into more dangerous strains 'cause if it did, we'll all be dead by now(thinking evolution here).
and honesty i doubt anyone here(maybe 2-3 exceptions) know what immunocompromised means; it's when your immune system is killed by either treatment or medications(or doesn't exists - extremely rare genetic issues) and those people were on guard of any flues anyway. I know you are romanian, but i have a really hard time figuring out if you are trying to say something by ironically reducing it to nonsense, or if you want to make that statement exactly. The partially broken English sadly doesn't help with that. Do you really think that covid doesn't mutate because if it did, it would have already killed us due to evolution? Or do you think that statement is absurd and use it as an argument against something? Do you believe people here don't know what immunocompromised means? And why is that relevant? I am quite sure he means it exactly the way he said it. The amount of people who seem to think that mutation is somehow goal oriented is staggering. The reality is that it is more or less completely random. If incubation times and other factors stay the same there could absolutely be a more deadly variant if it spreads fast enough. The only way to curb that would then be lockdowns and all the other measures people like him rail against. Edit: Not to mention the issue with the sentence about the rarety of immuno compromised people. I can tell you I personally know several of them. This might be anecdotal evidence but I think they are not as rare as he thinks. what is staggering is you thinking that what i said implies: "viruses are having goals now".
a deadlier virus strain kills its host; a dead host won't spread the deadly virus anymore, so the deadly virus will die with it.
there is no choice or goal here; the less deadlier strains get to out compete the deadlier ones because their hosts get to live and to spread.
and yes, i do believe immunocompromised people that also can't receive the vaccine, are extremely rare.
(my english is fine)
|
On December 13 2021 05:46 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2021 23:08 maybenexttime wrote:On December 12 2021 21:38 BlackJack wrote:On December 12 2021 11:00 NewSunshine wrote:
A normal cloth mask is 37% effective? Okay, great. I've been wearing them the whole time, I literally don't even think about it anymore. Again, the requirement suddenly being "but is it 100% effective" is disingenuous to the point of being concern trolling. The real lens to look at it through is level of benefit versus level of effort, because that's how you sell any recommendations to the public about anything. A mask doesn't need to do the whole job of stopping the pandemic, it never has, and it's a load of crap to suddenly make that the standard here. It's the bare minimum, and it's a casual level of effort that should be well and truly routine to everybody by now. Give me the 37% efficacy for doing literally nothing to change my behavior except wear a small piece of cloth on my face. It's superior to nothing, and every little bit matters. Viral load matters, transmission levels matter, proximity requirements matter.
I've been pretty convinced for a while now that BJ just loves to play devil's advocate, at all points in time, about literally anything, and that's about it, because that's all I've seen him do in any discussion I've seen him in. In reality, where I have a set of beliefs that I stick to, and a consistent logic behind what I do and why, I think it's ridiculous to say that a mask is asking too much, regardless of who I'm talking to and what their argument happens to be that day. To borrow a great word, it's bollocks. I've never worn any cloth masks. I only wear surgical masks or n95 respirators because the science is quite clear that these are more effective than cloth masks. I don't consider myself less selfish than you just because you choose to do the "bare minimum" when you could easily be doing just as much as me. If I was doing the "bare minimum" I wouldn't be criticizing anyone. Are there any studies comparing surgical, n95 and multilayer cloth masks with a filter layer? I recall reading that there is a significant difference between multilayer cloth masks with filters and ordinary cloth masks. I've also noticed that most people wearing surgical/n95 masks have large gaps between their face and the mask, with the exception of medical staff wearing n95 masks. kn95 fit different people differently. Same with the "surgical masks". Many of the masks that look like surgical ones are not nearly the quality or design of the real ones used in hospitals. Lots of duplicates that specifically say "this isn't for medical use". From all the reading I have done, nothing beats a good ole fashion N95. It perfectly wraps around anyone's face and has the best protection. I live with someone immunocompromised, so I strictly use N95 anywhere I go.
Usually masks are modelled for men. KN or n95 alike.
So yes, they will have a worse fit for a large amount of the population.
But that's not the point that was made. It's about people balancing the top end of the mask on the tip of their nose.
Meaning that wearing properly is the anecdotal main reason for bad mask effectiveness regardless of quality.
I've got a turtle neck scarf that has two cloth layers and in between a ffp2 fabric. Fits super snugly around the nose thanks to a brass (I think) piece that molds well. On top of that there's a silicone layer on the inside to help it stay in place.
It's still not a medical product and if I don't replace the filter fabric, it won't help.
That's why vaccinations are so much better than masks in my opinion. Albeit not being a panacea, they require much less activity by the user and are harder to use improperly than masks.
(Of course people will think themselves invulnerable and do dumb shit)
|
On December 13 2021 15:01 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2021 01:28 justanothertownie wrote:On December 13 2021 00:26 Simberto wrote:On December 13 2021 00:10 xM(Z wrote:
but you vaccinate those people; they were the first ones vaccinated.
covid never mutates into more dangerous strains 'cause if it did, we'll all be dead by now(thinking evolution here).
and honesty i doubt anyone here(maybe 2-3 exceptions) know what immunocompromised means; it's when your immune system is killed by either treatment or medications(or doesn't exists - extremely rare genetic issues) and those people were on guard of any flues anyway. I know you are romanian, but i have a really hard time figuring out if you are trying to say something by ironically reducing it to nonsense, or if you want to make that statement exactly. The partially broken English sadly doesn't help with that. Do you really think that covid doesn't mutate because if it did, it would have already killed us due to evolution? Or do you think that statement is absurd and use it as an argument against something? Do you believe people here don't know what immunocompromised means? And why is that relevant? I am quite sure he means it exactly the way he said it. The amount of people who seem to think that mutation is somehow goal oriented is staggering. The reality is that it is more or less completely random. If incubation times and other factors stay the same there could absolutely be a more deadly variant if it spreads fast enough. The only way to curb that would then be lockdowns and all the other measures people like him rail against. Edit: Not to mention the issue with the sentence about the rarety of immuno compromised people. I can tell you I personally know several of them. This might be anecdotal evidence but I think they are not as rare as he thinks. what is staggering is you thinking that what i said implies: "viruses are having goals now". a deadlier virus strain kills its host; a dead host won't spread the deadly virus anymore, so the deadly virus will die with it. there is no choice or goal here; the less deadlier strains get to out compete the deadlier ones because their hosts get to live and to spread. and yes, i do believe immunocompromised people that also can't receive the vaccine, are extremely rare. (my english is fine)
I think the point was that if Omicron (or for that matter, a new strain) were more infectious AND more deadly it could very well coexist or outcompete the current strains, simply by infecting enough people before the host croaks. There is simply no guarantee of a new more deadly strain not popping up. Just as there isn't for flu: the usual flu season is not always the same, and if some particularly nasty new strain pops up (like in 2009), people do suddenly die again in greater numbers despite it "just being the flu".
As for your spiel about immunocompromised, you were condescending and rude, claiming people wouldn't even know what it was. It probably is very rare that immunocompromised people cannot be vaccinated, but I have an immunocompromised friend and she is scared shitless of COVID despite getting a third jab last week. She says the jabs (moderna) didn't affect her in any way, not even a sore arm, which is quite unusual for moderna. And that she suspects her immune system is too weak to react to the vaccine, meaning she is vaccinated, but it didn't give her any protection at all. Whether that is true or not, we obviously don't know, and
I told her that not having a physiological reaction doesn't mean her immune system didn't respond. But I also don't know how well the vaccine has been tested and how much protection it infers on severely immunocompromised people.
|
On December 13 2021 15:01 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2021 01:28 justanothertownie wrote:On December 13 2021 00:26 Simberto wrote:On December 13 2021 00:10 xM(Z wrote:
but you vaccinate those people; they were the first ones vaccinated.
covid never mutates into more dangerous strains 'cause if it did, we'll all be dead by now(thinking evolution here).
and honesty i doubt anyone here(maybe 2-3 exceptions) know what immunocompromised means; it's when your immune system is killed by either treatment or medications(or doesn't exists - extremely rare genetic issues) and those people were on guard of any flues anyway. I know you are romanian, but i have a really hard time figuring out if you are trying to say something by ironically reducing it to nonsense, or if you want to make that statement exactly. The partially broken English sadly doesn't help with that. Do you really think that covid doesn't mutate because if it did, it would have already killed us due to evolution? Or do you think that statement is absurd and use it as an argument against something? Do you believe people here don't know what immunocompromised means? And why is that relevant? I am quite sure he means it exactly the way he said it. The amount of people who seem to think that mutation is somehow goal oriented is staggering. The reality is that it is more or less completely random. If incubation times and other factors stay the same there could absolutely be a more deadly variant if it spreads fast enough. The only way to curb that would then be lockdowns and all the other measures people like him rail against. Edit: Not to mention the issue with the sentence about the rarety of immuno compromised people. I can tell you I personally know several of them. This might be anecdotal evidence but I think they are not as rare as he thinks. what is staggering is you thinking that what i said implies: "viruses are having goals now". a deadlier virus strain kills its host; a dead host won't spread the deadly virus anymore, so the deadly virus will die with it. there is no choice or goal here; the less deadlier strains get to out compete the deadlier ones because their hosts get to live and to spread. and yes, i do believe immunocompromised people that also can't receive the vaccine, are extremely rare. (my english is fine)
As acrofales already said, this logic only holds up if the virus kills its victim quickly. If the current incubation times etc. remain, infected people can probably spread it just fine before kicking the bucket. Which variant dominates is then only a question of how infectious they are and how harsh and fast the measures are. Furthermore, as has also been said - the argument about immunocompromised people is not only about the people who absolutely cannot be vaccinated.
Btw. I never criticized your English. I know you write what you think.
|
On December 13 2021 15:01 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2021 01:28 justanothertownie wrote:On December 13 2021 00:26 Simberto wrote:On December 13 2021 00:10 xM(Z wrote:
but you vaccinate those people; they were the first ones vaccinated.
covid never mutates into more dangerous strains 'cause if it did, we'll all be dead by now(thinking evolution here).
and honesty i doubt anyone here(maybe 2-3 exceptions) know what immunocompromised means; it's when your immune system is killed by either treatment or medications(or doesn't exists - extremely rare genetic issues) and those people were on guard of any flues anyway. I know you are romanian, but i have a really hard time figuring out if you are trying to say something by ironically reducing it to nonsense, or if you want to make that statement exactly. The partially broken English sadly doesn't help with that. Do you really think that covid doesn't mutate because if it did, it would have already killed us due to evolution? Or do you think that statement is absurd and use it as an argument against something? Do you believe people here don't know what immunocompromised means? And why is that relevant? I am quite sure he means it exactly the way he said it. The amount of people who seem to think that mutation is somehow goal oriented is staggering. The reality is that it is more or less completely random. If incubation times and other factors stay the same there could absolutely be a more deadly variant if it spreads fast enough. The only way to curb that would then be lockdowns and all the other measures people like him rail against. Edit: Not to mention the issue with the sentence about the rarety of immuno compromised people. I can tell you I personally know several of them. This might be anecdotal evidence but I think they are not as rare as he thinks. what is staggering is you thinking that what i said implies: "viruses are having goals now". a deadlier virus strain kills its host; a dead host won't spread the deadly virus anymore, so the deadly virus will die with it. there is no choice or goal here; the less deadlier strains get to out compete the deadlier ones because their hosts get to live and to spread. and yes, i do believe immunocompromised people that also can't receive the vaccine, are extremely rare. (my english is fine)
Two years in and you're still as clueless as ever. People infected with this coronavirus are most infectious during roughly 2-3 days before the symptoms occur and 2-3 days after wards. If the infection turns out to be deadly, the host dies a few weeks from the infection. If some mutations make it more deadly and don't affect its infectiousness, there is no reason why killing a higher proportion of the infected should affect R0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
