COVID rants /shares 2.0 thread

[Rat Luv]

1 hour ago, Evah Baxton said:

If there is enough vaccine to vaccinate everyone who wants / needs it, will you be afraid of the people who chose not to vaccinate? 

I haven't heard a good reason why I should be worried about others once I am fully vaccinated.

I think I'd be cautious. The vaccine can reduce your chance of dying from Covid, or getting to that stage...but I'd still rather not get infected and become really ill...or spread it to someone who does die as a result.

Edited March 31, 2021 by Rat Luv

[Madelaine McMasters]

1 hour ago, Evah Baxton said:

If there is enough vaccine to vaccinate everyone who wants / needs it, will you be afraid of the people who chose not to vaccinate? 

I haven't heard a good reason why I should be worried about others once I am fully vaccinated.

We don't yet know how well the vaccines cover variant strains of the virus, nor do we have good data on the transmissivity and severity of infections from those variants. Early indications are that some variants are more contagious and result in greater morbidity and mortality than the original. I recall reading that the J&J vaccine was only around 50% effective against the South African variant. The ability of the virus to create worrisome variants is proportional to the number of mutation factories (humans, infected but not yet immune) in operation. That's why it's so important to vaccinate people. Achieving immunity via infection does nothing to prevent the creation of variants.

Even for the main virus, efficacy ranges from ~70% (J&J) to ~95% (Pfizer/Moderna). Some vaccinated individuals will get sick, perhaps asymptomatically, and be an infection risk for others.

I've had my first shot, but expect to be wearing a mask in public well into 2022. When I finally re-open my home and yard for social activities, I will inquire about the vaccination status of all who enter, and accommodate as necessary, taking into account the state of our understanding at that time.

Caution costs me very little. YMMV.

[Evah Baxton]

21 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

The ability of the virus to create worrisome variants is proportional to the number of mutation factories (humans, infected but not yet immune) in operation.

This is great! Thank you.

Isn't this always a risk with any sort of virus? What if the mutations just create less deadly viruses?

Edited March 31, 2021 by Evah Baxton

[Pamela Galli]

25 minutes ago, Evah Baxton said:

This is great! Thank you.

Isn't this always a risk with any sort of virus? What if the mutations just create less deadly viruses?

Natural selection means that variants that transmit more efficiently will become dominant, given time. More effective transmission means more infections and potential deaths. We are in a desperate race to get enough people on the planet vaccinated before variants can become dominant. 

Also, although current variants appear to be thwarted by current vaccines, it is likely if we don’t take action that future variants will require and endless cycle of updated vaccines. 

[Madelaine McMasters]

7 hours ago, Evah Baxton said:

This is great! Thank you.

What if the mutations just create less deadly viruses? Isn't this always a risk with any sort of virus?

The seriousness of a pandemic is proportional to both transmissibility and morbidity/mortality. One could imagine a virus that's exceptionally communicable, but produces no symptoms. We'd never know it was among us. Most (all?) of us are walking around carrying antibodies to things we have yet to identify. There might be strains of Covid-19 like that about.

You can also imagine a virus that's very hard to contract, but kills most hosts before they can infect anyone else. That virus burns out quickly. The worst case scenario is a virus that's highly communicable, has a very long delay to symptoms which are eventually horrific, kills nobody, and leaves a few completely asymptomatic. I'm sure there's been a movie about something like that.

Heaven help us if coronaviruses have the potential to do that. From what I've read, the underlying architecture of coronaviruses makes that unlikely. Nevertheless, that's a hypothesis best left untested.

The more contagious variants of Covid-19 are already out-competing the main virus, as seen from data in the wild. Early in the pandemic, UK citizens were infected almost exclusively with one strain of Covid-19. The B1.1.7 variant was first detected there in September and is now the dominant strain. It will be dominant in the US within weeks. It's currently looking 50% more transmissible and perhaps 50% more deadly than the original Covid-19 strain(s).

The risk that seems to fall on deaf ears is that infectious diseases need factory space (us) to churn out both the mainstream virus and endless variations that might or might not catch on. If more people understood exponentiation, I think we'd handle these things better. Unfortunately, whether it's compound interest, or epidemiology, interest in exponentiation just isn't contagious enough.

Edited April 1, 2021 by Madelaine McMasters
Because I'm still learning to write good.

[Qie Niangao]

1 minute ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

The risk that seems to fall on deaf ears is that infectious diseases need factory space (us) to churn out both the mainstream virus and endless variations that might or might not catch on. If more people understood exponentiation, I think we'd handle these things better. Unfortunately, whether it's compound interest, or epidemiology, interest in exponentiation just isn't contagious enough.

Yes. There's one other factor I'd like to see modelled but haven't so far: What about the selective pressure favoring vaccine resistance in partially immune hosts?

For example, Canada currently expects to delay second doses for four months, in order to get one dose to as many people as quickly as possible, even though we'll be less immune while "between doses." Now, if there were no risk of variants arising, this would be absolutely the right idea because it would surely reduce total mortality much more than Fauci's approach of sticking to the "recommended" dosage interval. (Fauci has the luxury of many times more vaccine in the US than Canada is getting any time soon, so the math is all different there.)

Also, if we consider variants emerging at random, a delayed second dose may be specifically developed to prevent the variants that crop up in the meantime (as opposed to a third, special booster shot in about the same timeframe).

But what about the possibility that people with partial immunity after the first dose are actually little factories for vaccine resistant mutations, specifically? The analogy is the danger of creating drug-resistant bacteria strains by not completing a course of antibiotics.

Now viruses aren't bacteria and vaccines don't fight an existing infection, so maybe the analogy breaks down when the details are modelled. But mutations are mutations, evolution is evolution, and resistant variants will come from somewhere. In lieu of expert analysis, it seems a little risky to me.

(None of which is to justify never getting vaccinated at all, which certainly and willfully contributes to the next generation of lethal variants. It's socially irresponsible and grotesquely selfish.)

[Madelaine McMasters]

12 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

But what about the possibility that people with partial immunity after the first dose are actually little factories for vaccine resistant mutations, specifically? The analogy is the danger of creating drug-resistant bacteria strains by not completing a course of antibiotics.

Yep, my "factory" analogy didn't encompass potential competition inside the factory for "products" that make best use of the production machinery. There are a lot of moving parts in this, each with the potential to carry an exponent.

[Nalates Urriah]

On 3/30/2021 at 9:36 AM, Qie Niangao said:

What do you even think you're talking about? Why should anybody be informed about adverse reactions to a totally different vaccine for a completely different virus?

We may as well worry about contracting Guillain-Barré, once thought (probably erroneously) to be an adverse effect of the vaccine for the 1976 swine flu epidemic.

I'm convinced. All COVID-19 vaccines have one disastrous effect: hysterical paranoia among the hesitant.

So that a previous mRNA vaccine for a CaronaSARS virus results in the death of all the test subjects and you think we shouldn't be informed?

You missed the whole point of informed consent. We have laws which require patients be informed of the risks of any medical study they enter. While its your choice what you decide it isn't your doctor's or the vaccinators choice. They are required by law to make sure you are giving 'informed consent'. Do you have any idea why that it is?

On 3/30/2021 at 9:38 AM, Luna Bliss said:

I think I'll pass speaking with one of the member doctors, like this one:

 

That is your choice about Stella. But there are lots of smart well educated people that have bizarre beliefs and opinions out side their field of expertise. Steven Hawkin wrote a book on the origin of the universe. A large portion of the physics community told him to stick to his physics because when he got into philosophy he sucked. But, his ideas and math on physics were brilliant.

When smart people say or do dumb things we go beyond them on those subjects and look at what other evidence is available. We don't buy their stupid because they have a rep. In these days of fake news and propaganda appeal to authority just doesn't cut it. So, when a non-fireman says your car is on fire we look to see if that is so. When we look at the papers and studies quoted by the AFD site, its 78 footnotes, doctors - like Stella and OTHERS, to support its and their positions we find the AFD people are just pointing out what others are reporting in peer reviewed papers and studies.

When people can't attack the merits of an argument they attack the messenger. It is a basic tactic of people with an agenda and one of the Rules for Radicals. So, the tactic is well known and easily recognized by the knowledgable. I am finding you often do the messenger attack.

People losing a debate are often told to ridicule the opponent when they can't win on merit. Alinsky was big on that one too as it tends to be effective. Plus it is often fun. But eventually people learn to recognize it. Also, people with confidence in their personal ability recognize reason and logic and find facts to get to the truth are immune to that tactic. You seem to frame your responses as ridicule, but that is my opinion.

Whatever, you seem to have adopted two of the loser's tactics. You might try upping your game and challenging the facts.

Edited April 2, 2021 by Nalates Urriah
wrong form of a keyword

[Qie Niangao]

9 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

So that a previous mRNA vaccine for a CaronaSARS virus results in the death of all the test subjects and you think we shouldn't be informed?

This makes you zero for how many now?

[Coffee Pancake]

It's far worse than you think.

Herd immunity via vaccination is a statistical model. It assumes an even distribution of unvaccinated people. The few people who are unable to be vaccinated will fit the statistical model.

Anti-vaxers tend to gather in groups, they are socially linked. They will always be outside of the herd. They will be the foothold the virus needs to survive and continue to mutate.

I do not consent to their willfully misinformed pedantry putting me or the rest of the species at risk of a good mulching.

 

[Sid Nagy]

We live in 2021 and there are still people who believe the earth is flat, man did not go to the moon, that the pope never fails, or that SL is a sphere.We have anti vaxxers and even people who think the whole virus is a hoax.
That is how people have been in the past, are now and will be in the future.
We sadly have to live with that.
There is no medicine against stupidity.

Edited April 3, 2021 by Sid Nagy
Elvis supervised this text. :)

[Rat Luv]

41 minutes ago, Sid Nagy said:

That is how people have been in the past, are now and will be in the future.
We sadly have to live with that.

I've been thinking about this recently...we're all told in the UK about WW2 and the blackout during the blitz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackout_(wartime)#World_War_II

This is an interesting line! Blackouts proved one of the more unpleasant aspects of the war, disrupting many civilian activities and causing widespread grumbling and lower morale.^[9]

It does make me wonder if some people said "Oh, your chances of being bombed are tiny, I'm going to leave my curtains open tonight, it's my right!"

[sirhc DeSantis]

17 minutes ago, Rat Luv said:

I've been thinking about this recently...we're all told in the UK about WW2 and the blackout during the blitz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackout_(wartime)#World_War_II

This is an interesting line! Blackouts proved one of the more unpleasant aspects of the war, disrupting many civilian activities and causing widespread grumbling and lower morale.^[9]

It does make me wonder if some people said "Oh, your chances of being bombed are tiny, I'm going to leave my curtains open tonight, it's my right!"

Blitz spirit eh

https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/10-facts-about-crime-on-the-home-front-in-the-second-world-war/

[Rat Luv]

10 minutes ago, sirhc DeSantis said:

Blitz spirit eh

https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/10-facts-about-crime-on-the-home-front-in-the-second-world-war/

Wow...1 and 2 are really depressing 

In west London, a dodgy contractor conspired for gain with the Hammersmith clerk of works to falsely certify air-raid shelters as sound when they had been shoddily built, fraudulently expensed and were unfit for purpose. 

Hmm...reminds me of a few PPE deals last year...!

[Rowan Amore]

2 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

When people can't attack the merits of an argument they attack the messenger. It is a basic tactic of people with an agenda and one of the Rules for Radicals. So, the tactic is well known and easily recognized by the knowledgable. I am finding you often do the messenger attack.

You and another poster in this thread really do need to CHECK YOUR DAMN FACTS.  You're not quite as knowledgeable as you might think you are.  

Once you said we should all just wait for herd immunity BEFORE the vaccine, you lost all credibility in this discussion

 

[Zzevir]

I found something what is sad, funny and al kinda wrong but I would need to translate it. And I just can't. I spare you all from the brain rot. 

[Sid Nagy]

3 hours ago, Zzevir said:

I found something what is sad, funny and al kinda wrong but I would need to translate it. And I just can't. I spare you all from the brain rot. 

Come on, don't let us hanging...

[Zzevir]

39 minutes ago, Sid Nagy said:

Come on, don't let us hanging...

Well short version. A "celebrity" shared on his fb that the mask + our  breath + the bacterias in the breath making tread worms in the mask. And he has a lot of falowers. 

Spelling is 💩 as I just finished my night shift and can't go to bed. 

[Amina Sopwith]

9 hours ago, Rat Luv said:

Wow...1 and 2 are really depressing 

In west London, a dodgy contractor conspired for gain with the Hammersmith clerk of works to falsely certify air-raid shelters as sound when they had been shoddily built, fraudulently expensed and were unfit for purpose. 

Hmm...reminds me of a few PPE deals last year...!

Reminds me of Grenfell Tower 😢 

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

[Luna Bliss]

18 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

On 3/30/2021 at 11:38 AM, Luna Bliss said:

I think I'll pass speaking with one of the member doctors, like this one:

 

Expand  Expand  

That is your choice about Stella. But there are lots of smart well educated people that have bizarre beliefs and opinions out side their field of expertise. Steven Hawkin wrote a book on the origin of the universe. A large portion of the physics community told him to stick to his physics because when he got into philosophy he sucked. But, his ideas and math on physics were brilliant.

When smart people say or do dumb things we go beyond them on those subjects and look at what other evidence is available. We don't buy their stupid because they have a rep. In these days of fake news and propaganda appeal to authority just doesn't cut it. So, when a non-fireman says your car is on fire we look to see if that is so. When we look at the papers and studies quoted by the AFD site, its 78 footnotes, doctors - like Stella and OTHERS, to support its and their positions we find the AFD people are just pointing out what others are reporting in peer reviewed papers and studies.

When people can't attack the merits of an argument they attack the messenger. It is a basic tactic of people with an agenda and one of the Rules for Radicals. So, the tactic is well known and easily recognized by the knowledgable. I am finding you often do the messenger attack.

People losing a debate are often told to ridicule the opponent when they can't win on merit. Alinsky was big on that one too as it tends to be effective. Plus it is often fun. But eventually people learn to recognize it. Also, people with confidence in their personal ability recognize reason and logic and find facts to get to the truth are immune to that tactic. You seem to frame your responses as ridicule, but that is my opinion.

Whatever, you seem to have adopted two of the loser's tactics. You might try upping your game and challenging the facts.

These doctors you cite are nothing but conservative shills trying to make the world fit their religious right-wing views. Stella Immanuel is bat****crazy and a danger to society -- imagine going to her with gynecological problems and she insists a spirit husband had sex with you when sleeping and made a deposit in you that caused your fibroids. Would she prescribe an exorcism as treatment? LOL  She's dangerous and should have her license removed.

I choose not to debate you most of the time anymore since essentially you're not worth debating (because you try and make everything fit your right-wing religious agenda, get your information from right-wing rags, and don't understand how Science works). But when you post something dangerous to society (like the bat****crazy doctor) this should be pointed out.
Your theory as to why I don't debate you is ridiculous, as I have the skills and sources to do so -- I am not 'killing the messenger' because I cannot defend my position. The 'messenger' is already dead, is the problem.

[Coffee Pancake]

It has 4.5 stars on Amazon ... your sensible, logical and entirely science backed argument is invalid.

[Luna Bliss]

22 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

It has 4.5 stars on Amazon ... your sensible, logical and entirely science backed argument is invalid.

I bet this little horned thing from the spirit world would be better in bed than most of the guys roaming the material world.

Edited April 3, 2021 by Luna Bliss

[Nalates Urriah]

19 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

This makes you zero for how many now?

Interesting… Your reference makes some good points for your argument but for most readers I think your attempt to discredit me rather than the merits of my argument tell the story and then you skip what the papers on Marxist sites you link to report that make my point.

Two points I did technically get wrong. All the mice and ferrets didn’t die in their first exposure to the virus after vaccination. I was not clear. But you ignored what happened on their second exposure. Next, the earlier SARS vaccines were not strictly speaking mRNA human gene therapy. The more technically correct phrasing would class it as VLP and rDNA type therapies modifying the gene structure of the virus to create a vaccine. However, this pretty much all falls in the class of gene manipulation therapies.

I’ll point out that modifying the virus by gene manipulation to produce a vaccine has been failing for 50+ years. Why does anyone think manipulating the more complex human DNA will be more successful and take less time?

To support my earlier statements, again look at the American’s Frontline Doctors paper’s footnotes on page 13 and 14. Let’s try looking at those papers on the earlier SARS vaccine trials at a less biased site. Try this one, NIH Doc.

The NIH paper points out that all subjects of the test developed ADE… “…Th2-type immunopathology suggesting hypersensitivity to SARS-CoV components was induced.”

In English, the Th2 response is where any future exposure to the vaccine’s target virus causes the immune system to over produce cytokines and cause the immune system to attack parts of the body other than the virus. (Ref) This is the ADE problem.

 

But you, like others, miss the main point. People being given the vaccines are not informed of the risks. You mistakenly try to argue the point by attempting to minimize the risks or discredit the people pointing them out. I neither try to maximize or minimize the risks. I keep pointing out they are there and the establishment system and big pharma are failing to inform people and that is illegal and morally irresponsible.

[Nalates Urriah]

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

These doctors you cite are nothing but conservative shills trying to make the world fit their religious right-wing views. Stella Immanuel is bat****crazy and a danger to society -- imagine going to her with gynecological problems and she insists a spirit husband had sex with you when sleeping and made a deposit in you that caused your fibroids. Would she prescribe an exorcism as treatment? LOL  She's dangerous and should have her license removed.

I choose not to debate you most of the time anymore since essentially you're not worth debating (because you try and make everything fit your right-wing religious agenda, get your information from right-wing rags, and don't understand how Science works). But when you post something dangerous to society (like the bat****crazy doctor) this should be pointed out.
Your theory as to why I don't debate you is ridiculous, as I have the skills and sources to do so -- I am not 'killing the messenger' because I cannot defend my position. The 'messenger' is already dead, is the problem.

That is your opinion of the doctors. So what...

But, you make the same mistake others do. Thinking the paper and medical facts they are quoting are their opinions. If someone tells your house is on fire, it doesn't make any difference how crazy they are. You check to see if they are just crazy or are on to something. Because if it is, there are things you urgently need to do.

I didn't post that doctor or even mention her. But I'll give you the point those being ridiculous or having issues should be pointed out. Which is why I keep pointing out your inability to argue merit and have to resort to attempting to discredit those you disagree with.

Your reasons for not debating and coming up with cute excuses are using the same Alinsky tactic recommended when a subject can't be argued on merit, reason, or logic. So, it isn't me who's arguments you would need to rebut and can't.

Little weak on your spin.

[Sybaine Falconer]

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

I bet this little horned thing from the spirit world would be better in bed than most of the guys roaming the material world.

doubtful. this scene looks as if it non con! that person looks like their asleep. That thing is a rapist. and that thing is choking the sleeping person. BAD little horned thing!