|
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 August 21 2022 07:03 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2022 06:43 Symplectos wrote:If you assign 0 value to people being able to make decisions for themselves and decide what they put in their body then yes it's irrational to oppose vaccine mandates. You are interpreting things that I have not written. People can decide what they want to do, and they can decide what they put in their body (many people eat at McDonalds after all, and Cola seems to sell quite well). Their decisions, however, may still be irrational. I also haven't said a word about mandates. Sorry, I was confused by your statement "the position you defend is irrational" I'm not defending their decision to not get vaccinated. I'm defending their right to not get vaccinated. Subtle but important distinction. But that's often how it works. You can defend free speech but not defend everything people decide to say with their free speech.
We don't allow people to make a lot of decisions like that. You can't cause a riot with your speech. You can't drive unsafe on the road. You can't buy unsafe food or inject yourself with vaccines that aren't safe.
And no one has been forced to get the vaccine. Even a mandate isn't taking away peoples rights. Even if it was there is no moral or logical defence for not getting vaccinated.
The poison you defend therefore is irrational.
|
Sorry, I was confused by your statement "the position you defend is irrational"
I'm not defending their decision to not get vaccinated. I'm defending their right to not get vaccinated. Subtle but important distinction. But that's often how it works. You can defend free speech but not defend everything people decide to say with their free speech.
Fair enough - sorry for not being more clear. As others have already said though, there are several levels at play here, and certainly the distinction between free speech / free thinking / freedom of actions, and the outcome / consequences of choices made.
In my personal opinion, the first distinction to be made in scientific discussions is to separate scientific facts from political choices. Thus, on the topic of the thread, we have the, by now hopefully accepted, scientific consensus that the vaccine lowers infection rates (even if only for a small time), greatly reduces the personal risk of hospitalization, and is, statistically speaking, very safe.
After the scientific facts, come the choices. Science does not tell you what to do, but based on scientific facts, choices have to be made. First at a personal level, and then, at a community / country level.
A person might decide not to get the vaccine, which is obviously an acceptable choice. A community or a country then, however, has to look at a mathematical model - I will now throw in random unverified numbers - and decide what to do. Maybe a 30% vaccination rate will still lead to a too heavy workload for the healthcare sector, thus they decide to enact rules to wear masks, for example. If that is still not enough, and faced with harsh consequences, a community might decide that they want to enact a vaccine mandate, to protect, for example, its workforce, its elderly and/or its healthcare sector.
Now this vaccine mandate, at least in most communities or countries, still won't force anyone to take the vaccine. People still have their own choice, but the consequences of the choice of not taking the vaccine might be more severe now: from not being able to go to a grocery store, not being able to interact with society, to losing a job. Such rules, on how to live together, have always been in place, from the very first day humankind decided to work together and create tribes, communities, towns, cities, and countries. This vaccine mandate is not even a really new rule, but basically just an addendum to an already existing rule, adding one more item to a list of rules, to, for example, go to school.
What follows is my own opinion and a bit political, although I do not want to spark a new political discussion: Maybe I am too naive, but I can not fathom that the leaders of a community would nowadays come to such a decision just to irk the members of the community. However, as seems to be the current state of affairs, many people have no trust in their political leadership, and thus we are having this strange discussion, even though nothing has changed compared to the pre-COVID world - only for the fact that some media outlets are doubling down on their rhetoric to create anger, strife and division.
|
There's no need to worry about that, because the amount of antibodies you're producing after one vaccine is insignificant for your health. They remain in the blood stream for a while and get washed out, so if you get a frequent booster against only one disease at a time, there are no dangers coming from the antibodies. You can even get multiple vaccines against various diseases in short succession (e.g. for travel to dangerous regions) and there's still no risk. https://leaps.org/how-long-do-covid-antibodies-last/immunity-is-more-than-antibodies
Thank you for the information and the link.
I must admit when I first started to look into mathematical models of disease transmissions, and had to learn about how the defense mechanisms of the human body works, I was in complete awe. Maybe one thing those in charge of creating school curricula could emphasize on, is to better explain how our body defends itself against intruders. Maybe that is different for other countries, but I myself only had a very shallow understanding of memory cells, for example.
|
I'm definitely curious to know about the 'what if' scenarios through scientific modelling (which I know isn't perfect, at least not until we get more data and better technology).
It is a bit difficult to discuss those models, as most are not really accessible yet, as in, they necessitate a lot of mathematical knowledge to understand.
The Imperial College of London published the source code for their modeling on GitHub, and the corresponding paper is free as well.
The University of Munich also published their tool for crowd simulations, called VADERE, which they used to model COVID infections. A paper explaining what they did is also freely available.
|
On August 21 2022 15:43 Symplectos wrote:Show nested quote +I'm definitely curious to know about the 'what if' scenarios through scientific modelling (which I know isn't perfect, at least not until we get more data and better technology). It is a bit difficult to discuss those models, as most are not really accessible yet, as in, they necessitate a lot of mathematical knowledge to understand. The Imperial College of London published the source code for their modeling on GitHub, and the corresponding paper is free as well. The University of Munich also published their tool for crowd simulations, called VADERE, which they used to model COVID infections. A paper explaining what they did is also freely available.
One of those models were linked from the Worldometers page. I followed it for a while. It was completely worthless IMO. It was especially terrible at predicting new strains and their impact, but also massively exaggerating how much cases would climb before dropping. They tried to include "masks/no masks" as a separate metric too, which was useless when looking at what actually happened.
My feeling is that the models were a complete waste of resources.
|
Thank you for the information, I wasn't really able to follow them. I guess it is very difficult to create a model that is understandable by the wide public, yet still accurate or powerful enough.
Another difficulty is to create accurate models that modern computers can still visualize. Often complicated models are still "solved" in a mathematical abstract way, which is difficult to visualize, or present to the public.
|
On August 21 2022 16:00 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2022 15:43 Symplectos wrote:I'm definitely curious to know about the 'what if' scenarios through scientific modelling (which I know isn't perfect, at least not until we get more data and better technology). It is a bit difficult to discuss those models, as most are not really accessible yet, as in, they necessitate a lot of mathematical knowledge to understand. The Imperial College of London published the source code for their modeling on GitHub, and the corresponding paper is free as well. The University of Munich also published their tool for crowd simulations, called VADERE, which they used to model COVID infections. A paper explaining what they did is also freely available. One of those models were linked from the Worldometers page. I followed it for a while. It was completely worthless IMO. It was especially terrible at predicting new strains and their impact, but also massively exaggerating how much cases would climb before dropping. They tried to include "masks/no masks" as a separate metric too, which was useless when looking at what actually happened. My feeling is that the models were a complete waste of resources.
It's probably also difficult to make models due to unpredictable variables based on human behaviour (compliance to restrictions, social interaction, lifestyle habits, etc). Maybe someday, there will be an AI program accurate enough to measure human behavioural factors (but that will probably lead to some scary homicidal Hive-like containment system ala Resident Evil).
|
On August 21 2022 15:17 Symplectos wrote:Show nested quote +
Sorry, I was confused by your statement "the position you defend is irrational"
I'm not defending their decision to not get vaccinated. I'm defending their right to not get vaccinated. Subtle but important distinction. But that's often how it works. You can defend free speech but not defend everything people decide to say with their free speech.
Fair enough - sorry for not being more clear. As others have already said though, there are several levels at play here, and certainly the distinction between free speech / free thinking / freedom of actions, and the outcome / consequences of choices made. In my personal opinion, the first distinction to be made in scientific discussions is to separate scientific facts from political choices. Thus, on the topic of the thread, we have the, by now hopefully accepted, scientific consensus that the vaccine lowers infection rates (even if only for a small time), greatly reduces the personal risk of hospitalization, and is, statistically speaking, very safe. After the scientific facts, come the choices. Science does not tell you what to do, but based on scientific facts, choices have to be made. First at a personal level, and then, at a community / country level. A person might decide not to get the vaccine, which is obviously an acceptable choice. A community or a country then, however, has to look at a mathematical model - I will now throw in random unverified numbers - and decide what to do. Maybe a 30% vaccination rate will still lead to a too heavy workload for the healthcare sector, thus they decide to enact rules to wear masks, for example. If that is still not enough, and faced with harsh consequences, a community might decide that they want to enact a vaccine mandate, to protect, for example, its workforce, its elderly and/or its healthcare sector. Now this vaccine mandate, at least in most communities or countries, still won't force anyone to take the vaccine. People still have their own choice, but the consequences of the choice of not taking the vaccine might be more severe now: from not being able to go to a grocery store, not being able to interact with society, to losing a job. Such rules, on how to live together, have always been in place, from the very first day humankind decided to work together and create tribes, communities, towns, cities, and countries. This vaccine mandate is not even a really new rule, but basically just an addendum to an already existing rule, adding one more item to a list of rules, to, for example, go to school. What follows is my own opinion and a bit political, although I do not want to spark a new political discussion: Maybe I am too naive, but I can not fathom that the leaders of a community would nowadays come to such a decision just to irk the members of the community. However, as seems to be the current state of affairs, many people have no trust in their political leadership, and thus we are having this strange discussion, even though nothing has changed compared to the pre-COVID world - only for the fact that some media outlets are doubling down on their rhetoric to create anger, strife and division.
At the end of the day we probably have a difference of opinion. I've even said before in this thread that I don't outright oppose all vaccine mandates theoretically. I oppose them for COVID based on the circumstances.
But I do take issue with one thing that you've said, and now you're the 3rd person saying it today. The idea that people still have a choice to not get vaccinated - they just have to accept the consequences. No offense to you but this is a really bad piece of nonsense. It's a catch-all that applies to every rule so it really means nothing. If someone went around saying that women in Texas are still able to choose to have an abortion and they just have to accept the consequence of being sued under the bounty hunter law you'd rightfully think this is a pretty dumb argument even though it's logically formulated in the exact same way as "people can still choose to be unvaccinated as long as they pay the consequences." If there is a government-sanctioned punishment for doing something or not doing something then by definition you don't have the right to do it.
|
But I do take issue with one thing that you've said, and now you're the 3rd person saying it today. The idea that people still have a choice to not get vaccinated - they just have to accept the consequences. No offense to you but this is a really bad piece of nonsense. It's a catch-all that applies to every rule so it really means nothing.
You might consider that a bad piece of nonsense, that however does not refute what we said. Those rules have always been in place, every community has rules, and especially vaccination mandates have existed for a long time now. And yes, that somehow is the definition of rules that govern how to interact in a society.
If someone went around saying that women in Texas are still able to choose to have an abortion and they just have to accept the consequence of being sued under the bounty hunter law you'd rightfully think this is a pretty dumb argument even though it's logically formulated in the exact same way as "people can still choose to be unvaccinated as long as they pay the consequences." If there is a government-sanctioned punishment for doing something or not doing something then by definition you don't have the right to do it.
As you said, the "same logic" still applies. This topic does not belong here, but the new abortion laws are targeted at specific people, endangering their lives, for the only reason to appease religious nutjobs, while vaccine mandate are a way for a society to protect their community.
But yes, if a society decides to enact such laws and to forbid abortions, then, to have a place in that society, one either adheres to the rules, tries to change them, or leaves for a community or society that is closer to your ideals.
Besides from an ideological difference, there is a slight logical difference as well though. The vaccine mandate does not target you directly for your actions, it simply changes the rules to follow to take part in certain social activities. You are not directly being punished though, by the government, for not taking the vaccine. In the other example, jurisdiction targets and punishes a person directly.
The problem with such "discussions" is very often that the human language is not accurate or detailed enough, to be able to adhere to the scientific principle all the time. To be able to say that the same logic applies for both situations, you would first have to determine that both situations are of the same type or class, which they seem not to be.
|
I really wasn’t expecting you to agree that the same logic applies there.
But either way I think it’s just a dumb statement whether applying it to vaccine mandates or abortion or any of the other thousands of things we have rules or laws for. The problem is it applies to every single rule or law that we have so there is nothing to glean from the sentence. It tells you nothing of the merit or the morality of the law you’re talking about. I think it’s just a bit of double-speak to create the illusion that this rule doesn’t restrict freedom because “hey you’re still free to not follow the rule and suffer the consequences.”
|
On August 21 2022 01:16 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2022 23:51 xM(Z wrote:i don't get how Against infection:
"First month after a booster: strong protection." works; mechanically. i'll give you 2 shots and a booster; it's two weeks after booster. i get a covid19 infected snot filled cup and throw it up your nostrils. how are you not getting infected.? (to me, infected = virus enters your cells/tissues) Active antibodies protect against infection. They fade over time because the host flushes things out that it doesn't need. This is an important function of the host and completely normal. Right after recovery from infection or after a completed vaccination program the antibody count peaks. More defenders = better chance of total immunity. A single virus particle is much less likely to break through 1000 defenders than through 100 or 10 defenders. This initial line of defense is therefore key for protection against infection. The second line of defense are T-cells and memory B cells, which only respond after the host detects an infection. They protect well against the disease by rapidly producing fresh antibodies, but less so against the initial infection. Boosters trigger the host to produce more active antibodies, thus returning protection against infection to the same/similar level as after the previous vaccination. https://www.astrazeneca.com/what-science-can-do/topics/covid-19/waning-immunity.html i don't know dude,Active antibodies protect against infection. any antibodies you produce will be inside your tissues. there is no antibody based force shield, surrounding you, protecting you from getting infected.
in my scenario, you get infected 100%.
antibodies attack the virus/virus infected cells, inside your tissues, after you get infected. the vaccine gives you zero protection against the virus entering your tissues.
(there is some argument to be made here about some type of antibodies/detection cells being present in the mucus on the outside of some tissues, but that is neither here nor there)
even your link clearly states In the days and weeks following vaccination, there is an initial surge in immune cells and antibodies that act as the ‘frontline fighters’ against a foreign invader in the body, such as a virus.1 unless you get nanobots covering your whole body with virus repelling robots, there is no vaccine in the world that prevents a virus/pathogen from entering your tissues.
|
On August 21 2022 20:16 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2022 01:16 Magic Powers wrote:On August 20 2022 23:51 xM(Z wrote:i don't get how Against infection:
"First month after a booster: strong protection." works; mechanically. i'll give you 2 shots and a booster; it's two weeks after booster. i get a covid19 infected snot filled cup and throw it up your nostrils. how are you not getting infected.? (to me, infected = virus enters your cells/tissues) Active antibodies protect against infection. They fade over time because the host flushes things out that it doesn't need. This is an important function of the host and completely normal. Right after recovery from infection or after a completed vaccination program the antibody count peaks. More defenders = better chance of total immunity. A single virus particle is much less likely to break through 1000 defenders than through 100 or 10 defenders. This initial line of defense is therefore key for protection against infection. The second line of defense are T-cells and memory B cells, which only respond after the host detects an infection. They protect well against the disease by rapidly producing fresh antibodies, but less so against the initial infection. Boosters trigger the host to produce more active antibodies, thus returning protection against infection to the same/similar level as after the previous vaccination. https://www.astrazeneca.com/what-science-can-do/topics/covid-19/waning-immunity.html i don't know dude, any antibodies you produce will be inside your tissues. there is no antibody based force shield, surrounding you, protecting you from getting infected. in my scenario, you get infected 100%. antibodies attack the virus/virus infected cells, inside your tissues, after you get infected. the vaccine gives you zero protection against the virus entering your tissues. (there is some argument to be made here about some type of antibodies/detection cells being present in the mucus on the outside of some tissues, but that is neither here nor there) even your link clearly states Show nested quote +In the days and weeks following vaccination, there is an initial surge in immune cells and antibodies that act as the ‘frontline fighters’ against a foreign invader in the body, such as a virus.1 unless you get nanobots covering your whole body with virus repelling robots, there is no vaccine in the world that prevents a virus/pathogen from entering your tissues.
?? If 8 stalkers blink into the main and immediately get blasted by 15 siege tanks, it makes a big difference compared to running your bio back from half across the map.
|
|
|
There is a whole list of government agencies that deal with things you are not free to do because it affects you and the people around you. Trying to equate a contagious disease that will harm you greater when you don't get the vaccine vs republicans wanting to punish women by specifically only increasing female mortality is highly offensive.
This brings us back to the same question you keep dodging and yet another instance of you being anti vaxx.
At the end of the day we probably have a difference of opinion. I've even said before in this thread that I don't outright oppose all vaccine mandates theoretically. I oppose them for COVID based on the circumstances.
So whats special about the covid vaccine to you that makes it especially not worth applying the standard we have with hosts of other things?
|
On August 21 2022 20:16 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2022 01:16 Magic Powers wrote:On August 20 2022 23:51 xM(Z wrote:i don't get how Against infection:
"First month after a booster: strong protection." works; mechanically. i'll give you 2 shots and a booster; it's two weeks after booster. i get a covid19 infected snot filled cup and throw it up your nostrils. how are you not getting infected.? (to me, infected = virus enters your cells/tissues) Active antibodies protect against infection. They fade over time because the host flushes things out that it doesn't need. This is an important function of the host and completely normal. Right after recovery from infection or after a completed vaccination program the antibody count peaks. More defenders = better chance of total immunity. A single virus particle is much less likely to break through 1000 defenders than through 100 or 10 defenders. This initial line of defense is therefore key for protection against infection. The second line of defense are T-cells and memory B cells, which only respond after the host detects an infection. They protect well against the disease by rapidly producing fresh antibodies, but less so against the initial infection. Boosters trigger the host to produce more active antibodies, thus returning protection against infection to the same/similar level as after the previous vaccination. https://www.astrazeneca.com/what-science-can-do/topics/covid-19/waning-immunity.html i don't know dude, any antibodies you produce will be inside your tissues. there is no antibody based force shield, surrounding you, protecting you from getting infected.* in my scenario, you get infected 100%. antibodies attack the virus/virus infected cells, inside your tissues, after you get infected. the vaccine gives you zero protection against the virus entering your tissues. (there is some argument to be made here about some type of antibodies/detection cells being present in the mucus on the outside of some tissues, but that is neither here nor there) even your link clearly states Show nested quote +In the days and weeks following vaccination, there is an initial surge in immune cells and antibodies that act as the ‘frontline fighters’ against a foreign invader in the body, such as a virus.1 unless you get nanobots covering your whole body with virus repelling robots, there is no vaccine in the world that prevents a virus/pathogen from entering your tissues.
"Viruses can also be removed from the body by antibodies before they get the chance to infect a cell. Antibodies are proteins that specifically recognise invading pathogens and bind (stick) to them."
In such a case, the virus particles get disabled and eventually flushed out of the system, along with the antibodies that are stuck to them. This is why, when a host has a lot of active antibodies, they can prevent an infection altogether.
With more antibodies in the host, the chance of preventing an infection increases. This is why during the first few months after vaccination the defense is the strongest, and this is how boosters are helping minimize the spread of the virus in the communities.
https://www.immunology.org/public-information/bitesized-immunology/pathogens-and-disease/immune-responses-viruses
For a complete (basic) explanation of how a virus operates inside a host, I recommend this article:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02039-y
|
On August 21 2022 23:49 Sermokala wrote:There is a whole list of government agencies that deal with things you are not free to do because it affects you and the people around you. Trying to equate a contagious disease that will harm you greater when you don't get the vaccine vs republicans wanting to punish women by specifically only increasing female mortality is highly offensive. This brings us back to the same question you keep dodging and yet another instance of you being anti vaxx. Show nested quote +
At the end of the day we probably have a difference of opinion. I've even said before in this thread that I don't outright oppose all vaccine mandates theoretically. I oppose them for COVID based on the circumstances.
So whats special about the covid vaccine to you that makes it especially not worth applying the standard we have with hosts of other things?
Do you understand how an analogy works? They don’t “equate” the things they are comparing. Here let’s try again: you wouldn’t say “you have the right to drive 20mph over the speed limit you just have to pay the penalty.” That’s not how rights work.
|
|
|
On August 22 2022 00:07 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2022 20:16 xM(Z wrote:On August 21 2022 01:16 Magic Powers wrote:On August 20 2022 23:51 xM(Z wrote:i don't get how Against infection:
"First month after a booster: strong protection." works; mechanically. i'll give you 2 shots and a booster; it's two weeks after booster. i get a covid19 infected snot filled cup and throw it up your nostrils. how are you not getting infected.? (to me, infected = virus enters your cells/tissues) Active antibodies protect against infection. They fade over time because the host flushes things out that it doesn't need. This is an important function of the host and completely normal. Right after recovery from infection or after a completed vaccination program the antibody count peaks. More defenders = better chance of total immunity. A single virus particle is much less likely to break through 1000 defenders than through 100 or 10 defenders. This initial line of defense is therefore key for protection against infection. The second line of defense are T-cells and memory B cells, which only respond after the host detects an infection. They protect well against the disease by rapidly producing fresh antibodies, but less so against the initial infection. Boosters trigger the host to produce more active antibodies, thus returning protection against infection to the same/similar level as after the previous vaccination. https://www.astrazeneca.com/what-science-can-do/topics/covid-19/waning-immunity.html i don't know dude, Active antibodies protect against infection. any antibodies you produce will be inside your tissues. there is no antibody based force shield, surrounding you, protecting you from getting infected.* in my scenario, you get infected 100%. antibodies attack the virus/virus infected cells, inside your tissues, after you get infected. the vaccine gives you zero protection against the virus entering your tissues. (there is some argument to be made here about some type of antibodies/detection cells being present in the mucus on the outside of some tissues, but that is neither here nor there) even your link clearly states In the days and weeks following vaccination, there is an initial surge in immune cells and antibodies that act as the ‘frontline fighters’ against a foreign invader in the body, such as a virus.1 unless you get nanobots covering your whole body with virus repelling robots, there is no vaccine in the world that prevents a virus/pathogen from entering your tissues. "Viruses can also be removed from the body by antibodies before they get the chance to infect a cell. Antibodies are proteins that specifically recognise invading pathogens and bind (stick) to them." In such a case, the virus particles get disabled and eventually flushed out of the system, along with the antibodies that are stuck to them. This is why, when a host has a lot of active antibodies, they can prevent an infection altogether. With more antibodies in the host, the chance of preventing an infection increases. This is why during the first few months after vaccination the defense is the strongest, and this is how boosters are helping minimize the spread of the virus in the communities. https://www.immunology.org/public-information/bitesized-immunology/pathogens-and-disease/immune-responses-virusesFor a complete (basic) explanation of how a virus operates inside a host, I recommend this article: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02039-y
This is correct, but there are some very good reasons why we are not all getting 20 booster shots a year to protect ourselves against different viruses.
Having had a previous infection with a similar virus could turn out to give much better long-term protection than shots.
Being slaves of yearly shots will mostly benefit vaccine producers, they should be reserved for the most vulnerable.
Remember that rolling out millions of dosis is not free, and the cost must be weighed against other healtchare measures with much higher and more secure impact.
|
If you drive over the speed limit and you get fined, that's a legal hit as well, that goes on your record and you get points on your license that you have to deal with. Because you don't have the right to break the law.
Under Obamacare, you have the right to be uninsured, you just pay a penalty if you choose to do so. But that's written into the law, you're not breaking the law by being uninsured. It doesn't go on a record.
So let's not pretend all penalties are the same, or mean the same thing. It ain't true. Don't split hairs over the distinctions you like and gloss over the ones you don't.
|
Yeah the penalties aren't the same. Paying a $85 speeding ticket is way way way worse than losing your job. Good point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
