Originally posted by Gondwanaland
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
The Microchip in the Vaccine
Collapse
X
-
Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
- 3 likes
-
Originally posted by Gondwanaland View PostYeah, no. It's simply a value they will continue to shift to try to increase mandate usage.
https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-...nity.pdf?la=en
You will find that my description is accurate.
Do you want to deal with evidence, or are you just here to argue? I'll ignore you if it's the latter.
Originally posted by Gondwanaland View PostActual real world data from the entire country of Israel, and from a massive Cleveland Clinix study indicates no such difference in robustness of immune response. Indeed they indicate the same or better response in naturally infected.
I know at least one other study indicates that robustness of natural immunity is large and there doesn't even seem to be a difference between the amount of viral load they had to fight off, in giving that robustness.
In addition there is at least one study indicating that following such advice can actually inhibit t-cell response in people that were naturally inflected and then receive the vaccine.
Here's a few that support my contention:
Antibodies from vaccination neutralize more variants than those generated by infection:
https://stm.sciencemag.org/content/13/600/eabi9915
This one describes the high variability of antibodies produced by infection:
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedici...l.pmed.1003656
Enhanced protection from vaccinations after infection:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6549/1413
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03696-9
"Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostReally? Here's a description of how herd immunity thresholds are calculated:
https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-...nity.pdf?la=en
You will find that my description is accurate.
Do you want to deal with evidence, or are you just here to argue? I'll ignore you if it's the latter.
Can you provide citations to these studies? I'd be curious to see them.
Here's a few that support my contention:
Antibodies from vaccination neutralize more variants than those generated by infection:
https://stm.sciencemag.org/content/13/600/eabi9915
This one describes the high variability of antibodies produced by infection:
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedici...l.pmed.1003656
Enhanced protection from vaccinations after infection:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6549/1413
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03696-9
Nationwide Israel study of 6.3 MILLION people indicating the already infected had protection levels of 94.8% from reinfection and 96.4% from severe illness versus effectiveness of 92.8% and 94.4%, respectively, from the vaccines:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...670v1.full.pdf
People with even mild prior infection have robust protection against, for example, the South African variant: https://twitter.com/andrewbostom/sta...50677591445507
Higher risk of vaccine side effects including severe ones, in people with natural immunity when getting vaccinated:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....26.21252096v1
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....15.21252192v1
Covid shots in naturally immune people causing contraction in T-cell response:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...441v1.full.pdf
Longitudinal study indicates broad and long-lasting immune memory and t-cell response across varying infection/viral-load levels: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8253687/
Another study showing durable immunity across a range of varying infection loads: https://science.sciencemag.org/conte.../eabf4063.full
And another: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z
More recently in Israel wrt variants: https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/n...israeli-health
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gondwanaland View PostThat may be how some do so.
In any case, thanks for the links - will look those over tonight. I can tell you i've already looked at the first link, and the relevant study population (previously infected, not vaccinated) was only 1,300 or so people, not 52,000."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostIt's how it's scientifically defined.
In any case, thanks for the links - will look those over tonight. I can tell you i've already looked at the first link, and the relevant study population (previously infected, not vaccinated) was only 1,300 or so people, not 52,000.
Given your post here, I won't hold my breath in you considering anything that might threaten your Branch Covidian belief system.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gondwanaland View PostThe study was of 52,000 people. The comparison is between previously infected, not vaccinated, and those who are vaccinated. Duh. Like!???!??!? no one said it was 52,000 of one type of person because that wouldn't give any sort of comparison.....
Let me put it this way: you could increase the control population to 5 billion, and it wouldn't change the statistical significance of this result.
Originally posted by Gondwanaland View PostGiven your post here, I won't hold my breath in you considering anything that might threaten your Branch Covidian belief system.Last edited by TheLurch; 08-04-2021, 03:45 PM."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gondwanaland View PostNot when the topic is comparison of effectiveness between vaccinated and natural immunity without vaccination.....
I'll also note that "natural immunity without vaccination" is the infected but unvaccinated population. So you appear to be agreeing with me in the sentence you're using to tell me i'm wrong."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostLarge portions of your post are simply false. I'm going to go through and offer corrections.
This is only a minor technical correction. Coronaviruses pick up mutations at a relatively slow pace compared to most other viruses, because its polymerase has a built in proof reading function that corrects errors while replication is in progress. The frequent appearance of new strains is largely a function of its population size, which is incredibly large because we as a global society have done an absolutely horrific job of adapting the measures that could contain it.
Even if you were right - and seriously, you just argued for a specific definition of 'breakneck speed' when I didn't say anything about relative speeds so you aren't right - so what? The point was that mutation speed - and the speed being observed presently - is likely to mess up your proposed methodology. By the time they can evaluate the delta, they will be dealing with several others.
This is completely false. I follow the literature, and there are typically dozens of papers every month of groups that have tested existing drugs and compound panels against coronavirus proteins. A lot of that work is government funded. Pfizer has indicated it already has a drug in safety trials. It's safe to assume that if they do, other companies have some in the pipeline as well. Drug development has gone on at a rapid pace, and three different ones received Emergency Use Authorizations before any vaccines did.
Case management is SEPERATE from public health INTERVENTION. You were the one complaining that I didn't specify symptom versus disease management - now you fail to recognize the difference between case management (which encompasses both) and presumptive treatment - which is what I'd been talking about the entire time.
I have both professional training and experience - and I have been following along, The CDC barely mentions tx and nothing in the media has been about presumptive. But presumptive IS the gold standard of public health policy.
So show me all these papers on presumptive tx you claim exist.
It's been done so much that already back in January people were analyzing the lessons learned from the early efforts in the hope of improving the success rate. And it hasn't stopped since.
Outbreak intervention, sure. Pandemic control, less so. Public health authorities from the start have indicated that a vaccine would be necessary to control this pandemic. This is especially true because the virus spreads extensively prior to the onset of symptoms, and most people would not even know they needed treatment before spreading the virus. This would again keep the viral population large, and increase the probability that drug resistant strains would evolve.
There's no question that it would be great to have a COVID treatment. But it's clear that the experts in this area feel we need both, and it's not hard to see why. And, in the absence of an effective treatment, it shouldn't be in the least bit surprising that vaccines are the focus. I fail to understand why you seem to object to that.
Quit assuming that I object to vaccination - I don't. I object to mandatory vaccination, especially now and I am VERY critical of how this was done from a public health stand point. They went after vaccines and did little in the presumptive treatment field - and it was the FDA that got that part done. (It's limited to contact use but that's the definition of presumptive tx - and if it pans out, it's GREAT.)
What side effects are not rare? What vaccine has been pulled for side effects that are more rare? Specifics please, not vague, unsupported generalizations.
The original SARS, if memory serves. I'll track down the article later - the doctor that wrote it listed several recent (relatively) ones.
As for the rest, there's now tens of millions of people who are several months out from the shot. Unless you're proposing that side effects will develop six months after all the vaccine components have been cleared from the body, then we have sufficient data to conclude that side effects are rare. Remember, the FDA was able to identify an extremely rare blood clotting issue with the J&J vaccine even though it's the least frequently used vaccine in the US.
Here's a quick example.
Blatantly false. We have data from numerous countries, including the US, that clearly indicates this. Here's one example of many: "88% effectiveness against hospitalization and 91% effectiveness against severe illness." Here's another: "CDC: Less than 1% of COVID-19 breakthrough cases led to hospitalization or death."The vaccines dramatically reduce the risk of death and hospitalization, even against the delta variant.
I'll go ahead and answer for you - it's almost certainly an extrapolation from the observed differences - which might work in a study but in case reviews? Not hardly - and it's not that easy to isolate in studies, either. That might well explain the 39% number from that first article headline.
There's a number of things wrong here. The first is that there are a huge number of studies that show these measures reduce infection rates. It's not even hard to find; the very top hit for "effectiveness of mask use" is this JAMA summary of multiple studies, which states plainly that "Compelling data now demonstrate that community mask wearing is an effective nonpharmacologic intervention to reduce the spread of this infection, especially as source control to prevent spread from infected persons, but also as protection to reduce wearers’ exposure to infection." And that's from February; further data's come in since.
And these are all crap - communal studies with MULTIPLE VARIABLES? You did notice the lockdowns and the social distancing and the rest, right? Surely variable isolation came up in college/
They do not eliminate infections, so yes, you still see new cases even if these measures are widely adopted. And that last bit is an incredibly important caveat; the US has generally been terrible at adopting basic pandemic control measures of any sort. So, the fact that we are still being new cases wouldn't be an indication of their ineffectiveness anyway.
Finally, i'll point out that what you term "relatively low numbers of new cases" presently involves roughly 1.5x the surge of cases we saw at the beginning of last summer, and just under half the all-time peak in the US. This one you don't even have to click a link, as Google shows the graph on its search results page.
I don't use Google - this would be one of many reasons why.
The CDC has this terribly unhelpful page - can you find the countrywide numbers by month? Week? Anything?
It took two clicks and a download to get this thing from the CDC - and the current spike isn't anywhere near the size of the one last summer.
cases_073021.jpg?noicon.jpg
And a magnifying glass to find out the dates on this graph - even enlarged, they are microscopic. Gee, wonder why?
Actually, the one thing that we have data on is that contact spreading is extremely rare, so washing your hands makes little difference. In contrast, social distancing and mask use is supported by extensive data from multiple countries.
Eh, MAYBE a delay in the second wave - I'll grant that from just this. But since we don't understand its morphology all that well (longitudinal studies only, please - because that's what it takes to know a disease 's full cycle - and yes, we're getting better, just not there yet) it could just as easily be the normal cycle and we wouldn't know it.
Conversely, we could also have made things worse initially which would throw off the analysis. This is why we do longitudinal studies, boys and girls.
One thing that's striking about all of this is that your entire post is free of corroborating evidence; you just make blanket statements, and expect them to be accepted because you said so. Yet, when checked, nearly every single one of your statements contained an error. Maybe if you spent time trying to find supporting evidence, you'd come across the accurate information.
Physician, I think ya might wanna get a band aid.
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
Wow, thanks for taking the time and effort!"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostBut apparently no faster than normal.
The FDA gets its posterior kicked much more regularly than the CDC - although I worked more closely with the CDC, I tend to trust the FDA more. They have their issues - a bunch of them - but the FDA doesn't get a pass when they screw up, and they know it.. The CDC, not so much. and mostly because there aren't decades of subsequent litigation to check them up."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gondwanaland View PostThey've shifted the herd immunity goalposts again:
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/e...w-90-due-delta
No fair - you get a nice chart and I had to hunt mine down!
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostHospitalizations are rapidly rising FWICT.Yeah, it's just a correlation, but it is funny.
A rise in hospitalizations isn't terribly surprising - we've got a lot of people now seeking treatment for other things that should have been in treatment months ago - honestly, even without the variants, we expected to see rising hospitalizations with the relaxing restrictions - and sick people are the most vulnerable to C19.
Or it's the second wave finally showing up for dinner.
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostNo, it wasn't.
If we were just discussing then you could do this - but since you changed the rules - citation please.
https://www.cell.com/molecular-cell/...20)30518-9.pdf
Note that this paper is premised on the idea that developing a drug that blocks the proofreading function would cause so many errors in the virus that it would be inviable. Which brings us to this.
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostBS - I've seen exactly ONE presumptive - and I posted it yesterday. ONE.
But only because we foolishly shoved all our eggs in the vaccination basket and spent very little on treatment - other than to refute a president.
That is what i'm saying is false: the idea that we want after vaccines, and largely ignored the possibility of developing a treatment. We have not "shoved all our eggs in one basket. We've spent a lot of time and money trying to develop drugs that target the virus. I cited a paper that is a review, and therefore contained multiple references to other papers on the topic. Since that doesn't satisfy you, here's some more.
If you'd like to seem more of the research, this search is good:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?h...ng+covid&btnG=
but limited to repurposing existing, approved drugs.
Here's one that shows chemical libraries in general. This will include some of the studies in the earlier list, but will be significantly broader, and include some things that aren't relevant.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?h...es+covid&btnG=
Here's the attempts to develop neutralizing monoclonals to treat covid:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?h...al+covid+treat
Here's a list of all the programs the NIH runs in order to foster the development of drugs in parallel with vaccines:
https://www.nih.gov/research-trainin...tiatives/activ
We are trying very hard, and spending lots of money on trying to develop effective treatments.We have not put all our eggs in a basket labelled vaccines, and none of this has anything to do with the former president. Unless your argument is something other than what your words indicated - a prospect i can't rule out - your argument is wrong.
I've now spent about 15 minutes digging up material that clearly indicates your claim was wrong, and attempting to summarize them. Your response to my original evidence was to essentially say "no", repeat your claim, and provide no evidence.
I could go through the rest of your statements, but it would cost me about 3 hours of my life, and you could respond in the same way: just repeat what you said the first time, tell me i'm wrong, and produce no evidence. It would take you all of about a minute to do it, since there's a fundamental asymmetry between evidence based arguments and other stuff. So, i'd like to see how you respond to this before making the effort to do so."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
- 1 like
Comment
-
For anyone who's curious, this is what we expect to see for a successful intervention* - a taper then a precipitous drop.
Successfull Intervention Curve Appearance Example.jpg
Waves almost never follow in STD - but to be fair, I'm not sure about respiratory sine its vectors are very different. They could reasonably happen even after a successful intervention - but I'd expect them to be muted .
*Exception prevention by education - that one is rarely very effective in STD and it's probably worse for respiratory. Telling people not to have sex is one thing - kinda hard to tell them not to breathe. Education is the ugly stepchild we use when there's nothing else available. It DOES have some effect but it's usually very short term. There are successful programs - just not in the US - and even they just break the 20% mark which is huge in this intervention but paltry compared to presumptive tx or vaccination (relative time scales do apply)."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Today, 11:42 AM
|
4 responses
30 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Today, 01:15 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 10:24 AM
|
2 responses
27 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Diogenes
Today, 10:51 AM
|
||
Started by VonTastrophe, Today, 10:22 AM
|
2 responses
28 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Today, 11:38 AM
|
||
Started by VonTastrophe, Yesterday, 01:08 PM
|
46 responses
214 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 01:54 PM
|
||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 09:14 AM
|
172 responses
698 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
Today, 02:43 PM
|
Comment