coronavirus

[Fenring]

The NIH is huge and gives out a lot of research grants. The grant to Wuhan was given as part of a larger grant from the NIH to some other organization for virus research. If he asked his staff, did we give any grants to the Wuhan lab and they said no. Then he may have not even known about the money Paul was talking about.

See, I've seen too many interviews before the senate where the person answering the questions (for instance Federal Reserve representatives answering about the Fed audit) either claims not to remember, says they don't know, or denies it, anytime it might conceivably look bad to answer honestly. At this point it's well-known that as long as you could conceivably show that you might not have known about it, you can go right ahead and lie to the Congress. In fact even if it's not plausible at all you didn't know it you can lie anyhow, they can't do anything about it. If Fauci knew the severity of the need to question him, and didn't do his due diligence to investigate and find out the truth so that he could present it to Congress, in my book that is a deliberate move in order to make claims that if necessary he could later say were honest since he didn't know. It's an old game. Could he have been ignorant? Sure, I guess. But then why so vehemently and angrily dismiss Sen Paul's questions out of hand, as if from some superior position? You end up with a funny fork in the argument if you take the tack you're taking: either he's a liar, or else he's a total a**hole acting superior when in fact he's clueless.

[ScottF]

Lol, Fauci is caught dead to rights in a lie but

- Silly know-nothing Rand Paul. When he said "never" what he really meant was according to a different definition of the term "gain of function" and not what the research, you know, was actually producing. Other experts have repeatedly stated that the NIH-funded research was indeed gain of function by any definition. They must have all missed Fauci's definition memo.

- He may not have known about that particular grant. One would think that if you know you're about to get questioned on the senate floor, you'd do a bit of i-dotting and t- crossing before you felt prepared to answer a question of that magnitude. Fauci strikes me as many things but stupid and unprepared aren't two of them.

I have a feeling that if an email or call transcript surfaced where Fauci literally said it was gain of function (because IT WAS), his disciples would say he didn't really mean it and it was taken out of context. Then again, we live in a world where suggesting that it came out of a lab was initially called racist and banned from social media, so facts stopped mattering a long time ago.

[TheDrake]

What was the point of the question anyway?

[Fenring]

What was the point of the question anyway?

Meaning, what was the follow-up going to be if Fauci straight-up said that, yes, they had funded gain-of-function research? Personally I expect there are two reasonable paths the questioning could take at that point: (1) how seriously were they following up on security precautions (for example in China), and (2) whether there is any potential trail of covid-19 to a lab leak.

Issue #1 is potentially more about ensuring precautions are taken in the future. Since we've seen what a coronavirus can do now, if gain of function research is done there needs to be a zero percent chance such a thing could get loose.

Issue #2 is self-explanatory. I see the problem with this line being that it will be impossible to ever get transparent answers from China about anything. So even if the Wuhan lab is literally responsible for this pandemic there will be no way to prove it. I'm sure China would sooner burn the lab and all its records before admitting to such a thing.

[ScottF]

The broader issue is that we probably shouldn't be actively manufacturing gain of function viruses to proactively get ahead of catastrophic outbreaks - if conducting the research itself has the possibility of literally causing the catastrophe we're hypothetically researching.

Beyond the ethical aspects of it, Fauci's lie about the NIH's participation removes that question from the equation.

[TheDrake]

So we should just wait for such a thing to happen in nature and just react to it? That seems short sighted. Because we know it is going to happen in nature, and we now know that people will actively fight countermeasures.

As to the research question and oversight, I believe the company receiving the grant violated its terms. Maybe all grants should prevent the money going to any third party entity without approval? In any event, this particular research didn't lead to coronavirus because the genetic signature is way off.

Of course, there's nothing that will stop China from funding their own gain of function research, or Europe for that matter. So it's going to happen by whatever definition you'd like to apply to "gain of function".

[Fenring]

The broader issue is that we probably shouldn't be actively manufacturing gain of function viruses to proactively get ahead of catastrophic outbreaks - if conducting the research itself has the possibility of literally causing the catastrophe we're hypothetically researching.

This issue I'm not sure of. In one of the previous articles cited (by LR, I think) the line of reasoning given is that within the past 10 years scientists were becoming concerned at the massive threat potential coronaviruses had. The question would be what the odds are, if we do absolutely nothing, that one of these jumps out and massacres us at one point. Something with the damage potential of SARS and the infectious rate of covid-19 or worse. If this threat is as big as they make it sound, I would personally support doing proactive, even potentially dangerous, research so long as it was purely medical in intent.

I should put an asterisk next to "intent" because to whatever extent actual bio-weapons research goes on in various countries, I would want to know that gain-of-function research for medical understanding would not be lumped in, either in funding or even in the same facility, as weapons research designed to make killer viruses. If black ops are going on, I don't like it as it is, but I definitely don't want something called medical research to end up being used for black ops CIA-type use as well (e.g. releasing a virus in an enemy country).

[ScottF]

So we should just wait for such a thing to happen in nature and just react to it?

I don't know. It seems reasonable to actively research these things but imagine if the virus that was created had a high IFR instead of the tiny one this one had. If we manufacture and release something with a 10% IFR, would it have been better to deal with it if/when it ever happened to occur on it's own?

[cherrypoptart]

More smoking gun?

https://news.yahoo.com/bombshell-nih-letter-bat-coronavirus-064500240.html

I like the part at the end where the NIH says that since these weren't experiments on humans they don't count.

"An NIH spokesperson told the Daily Caller that “because a mouse got sicker doesn’t mean it would make a human sicker” and added that “the mouse study doesn’t tell us anything about human biology except how the viruses interact with the human ACE2 receptor."

Ebright offered a response to that as well.

“They have no shame. In essence, they are claiming that, because the NIH did not fund infection studies with lab-generated viruses and human subjects — Uyghur detainees? Falun Gong dissidents? — the NIH did not fund gain of function research or potential pandemic pathogen enhancement subject to the federal policies," he told the Daily Caller, which reported that the NIH spokesperson objected to Ebright’s interpretation."

[ScottF]

“I obviously totally disagree with Senator Paul. He's absolutely incorrect. Neither I nor Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the NIH, lied or misled about what we’ve done,”

Dr. Anthony Fauci tells @GStephanopoulos in response to NIH letter on Wuhan lab. https://abcn.ws/3nmWiBk

This is what happens when career bureaucracy meets high-order narcissism. When Fauci also says "gain of function of concern" he's still trying to insinuate that people are referencing a purposefully created bioweapon. That's why he adds "of concern" as opposed to we were just altering viruses to help find cures for them. He knows exactly what he's doing here.

[ScottF]

Ironically what sinks Fauci might not even have anything to do with covid but the barbaric animal (beagles) research he also funded in Tunisia. The pictures are horrific. PETA is sending in the #firefauci calvary.

[cherrypoptart]

You look at what they say as their excuses and it just makes you madder, like this part again:

“... the mouse study doesn’t tell us anything about human biology except how the viruses interact with the human ACE2 receptor."

Oh, except just that huh? Except how the viruses interact with the human ACE2 receptor? That's all? Well no big deal then I guess.

Uh, hey! Now just hold on a minute! Isn't that pretty much the whole ball of wax here!?

[LetterRip]

Lol, Fauci is caught dead to rights in a lie but

If he answered according to the legal definition - it isn't a lie.  No matter how many times you repeat your statement, doesn't make it a lie. 

- Silly know-nothing Rand Paul. When he said "never" what he really meant was according to a different definition of the term "gain of function" and not what the research, you know, was actually producing.

Rand Paul made abundantly clear what he meant by Gain of Function -using either the legal definition or Rand Paul's meaning - it wasn't gain of function research.

Other experts have repeatedly stated that the NIH-funded research was indeed gain of function by any definition. They must have all missed Fauci's definition memo.

In a court of law - the legal meaning is what is used.  It doesn't matter what "other experts repeatedly state" - we have seen the legal definition and Fauci's statement is consistent with the legal definition.

- He may not have known about that particular grant. One would think that if you know you're about to get questioned on the senate floor, you'd do a bit of i-dotting and t- crossing before you felt prepared to answer a question of that magnitude. Fauci strikes me as many things but stupid and unprepared aren't two of them.

Even if he knew about this exact grant, his statement was correct.

[LetterRip]

What was the point of the question anyway?

To make ignorant people think that Rand Paul's claim that the Wuhan lab created and released the virus was credible.

[LetterRip]

“... the mouse study doesn’t tell us anything about human biology except how the viruses interact with the human ACE2 receptor."

Oh, except just that huh? Except how the viruses interact with the human ACE2 receptor? That's all? Well no big deal then I guess.

Uh, hey! Now just hold on a minute! Isn't that pretty much the whole ball of wax here!?

Viruses are specifically adapted to very particular host specific cell machinery - sometimes the machinery of different species is similar enough there can be cross infection, sometimes not.

Bats are about genetically as different from mice as they are to humans, and humans are about as different from mice as they as from bats (humans are slightly more similar to mice).  Mice have ACE2 receptors of their own - so already there is clear evidence that the genetic machinery of mice is insufficiently similar to human machinery for cross infection.  There are a large number of mice infections that can't infect humans; and human infections that can't infect mice.  Just because the virus could make the mice sick, there is no reason to assume the virus could productively infect humans, only that the created virus could bind to human ACE2 receptors.  Once inside the human cell, the cellular machinery can be different enough from the bat/mouse that it might not be able to reproduce.

[LetterRip]

As an analogy - think of species as cars.  They all have wheels, steering wheel, etc. - all designs are 'descendants' from say the Model T.

While are modern cars are clearly similar, only some parts interchangeable - often they have model specific parts.  Even if you put an adapter - to say use the engine of one car in another; it won't in any way guruntee that parts from the drive train, cooling system, AC, etc. will be compatible, even though the car that you put the engine in, almost certainly has a drive train, cooling system, and AC.

[Grant]

Ironically what sinks Fauci might not even have anything to do with covid but the barbaric animal (beagles) research he also funded in Tunisia. The pictures are horrific. PETA is sending in the #firefauci calvary.

Beagles are delicious.  They make the best gaegogi.

[TheDrake]

What was the point of the question anyway?

To make ignorant people think that Rand Paul's claim that the Wuhan lab created and released the virus was credible.

I think it might be worse than that. That it lends credibility to the idea that China conspired with democrats to create the virus and destroy America.

Not explicitly of course.

[ScottF]

What was the point of the question anyway?

To make ignorant people think that Rand Paul's claim that the Wuhan lab created and released the virus was credible.

In your opinion, what is the least credible thing about that theory? The thing that ignorant people just don't understand.

[cherrypoptart]

To boost or not to boost? That is the question.

https://news.yahoo.com/vaccine-boosters-widely-needed-federal-185102785.html

"But several panelists who did not wish to speak on the record said privately that the final recommendations for booster shots were inevitable as soon as President Joe Biden promised them to all adults.

“We are in a very difficult position to do much of anything other than what everybody has already announced that we’ve done,” said Long, one of the few to publicly express her unhappiness.

Some administration officials “pay lip service to science and the evidence,” she said.

Experts outside these committees also said that Biden’s promise of boosters, in August, made it difficult for the agencies to weigh the data objectively in September and October.

“The perception is that the horse is out of the barn, and there’s not really much you can do at this point,” said Dr. Celine Gounder, an infectious disease specialist at Bellevue Hospital Center who has previously advised the Biden administration.

“The fact is, you can’t have this confusing mess — it’s going to create more problems,” she added, referring to mixed signals from the White House and federal scientists."

---------------------------------------------------

Even after reading the article I'm still confused.

The only problem I'd see with boosters is if they make things worse somehow for instance if people didn't get a bad reaction from the first round somehow got a bad reaction from the booster and I don't see anyone really saying that and seeing it.

If they don't make things worse for hardly anyone and they do make things a bit better, marginally or even negligibly for some and perhaps providing a big difference for the elderly, then why not boost?

I had seen one objection earlier on that nobody seems to be mentioning anymore which was that the booster shots could be used instead in countries that have few to no shots for their people so what could provide small if any benefit to us could make a big difference to them, and to us by extension of course by helping to end the pandemic sooner. This story didn't even mention that angle.

But I did like the observation about Biden and his administration only paying lip service to "the science."

I had meant to write a post about "the science" before but the reason I put it in quotes is that when this administration, and probably people in general nowadays, talk about "the science" what they really mean is whatever part of whatever "science" they can find that justifies their position, exactly the same way people use religious to justify whatever it is they want to do by cherry picking whatever verses they need out of whatever book will provide them.

[msquared]

I mean we get boosters for other vaccines. DTAP, tetanus, flu. So what is the issue, over all, with the idea of a booster for Covid?  I will probably get the booster eventually, but having had Covid and both shots, I am probably in a good place for now.  I  would much rather shots go abroad to help other countries reduce their infection rate so that variants do not show up as fast.

[Mynnion]

My wife and I both had boosters with no side effects beyond being a little tired.  I personally wish the politicians would shut up and let the scientists do the work.  Of course, they are then damned for not doing enough.  Damned if you do/Damned if you don't.

[NobleHunter]

When I saw someone do the math, getting more people vaccinated was more likely to limit spread than getting people boosters. Roughly speaking, it's better to get a new person up 80% protected than to boost an already vaccinated person back up to 90%.

It's more important to get the rest of the world vaccinated than to refresh our own vaccinated people. Though boosters might still be appropriate for high risk people, especially those likely to be superspreaders.

[Fenring]

It's more important to get the rest of the world vaccinated than to refresh our own vaccinated people. Though boosters might still be appropriate for high risk people, especially those likely to be superspreaders.

That doesn't seem like equivalent arithmetic to me. Meaning, when weighing the relative safety for an American of 100,000 American people getting a booster, versus 100,000 Indian people getting a 1st vaccine, I would find it hard to believe the actual day-to-day safety is equivalent. It seems like almost a no-brainer that Americans getting a booster is better for Americans. The only question is whether Americans would be satisfied with a somewhat reduced safety margin in order to help other countries (and perhaps in the medium-term, the supply chains that they rely on).

[yossarian22c]

It's more important to get the rest of the world vaccinated than to refresh our own vaccinated people. Though boosters might still be appropriate for high risk people, especially those likely to be superspreaders.

That doesn't seem like equivalent arithmetic to me. Meaning, when weighing the relative safety for an American of 100,000 American people getting a booster, versus 100,000 Indian people getting a 1st vaccine, I would find it hard to believe the actual day-to-day safety is equivalent. It seems like almost a no-brainer that Americans getting a booster is better for Americans. The only question is whether Americans would be satisfied with a somewhat reduced safety margin in order to help other countries (and perhaps in the medium-term, the supply chains that they rely on).

Delta originated in India and caused chaos in America. So I think boosters of marginal efficacy vs vaccinating the world is probably relatively balanced in safety to Americans. While vaccinating the world clearly has the greater benefit to larger humanity. That doesn't mean we shouldn't study when vaccines need boosters. But the effectiveness of phizer and moderna indicate that vaccinated unvaccinated people in the US and the world is probably the most efficacious use of materials. There probably is a small group in the US that need boosters.

[NobleHunter]

That doesn't seem like equivalent arithmetic to me. Meaning, when weighing the relative safety for an American of 100,000 American people getting a booster, versus 100,000 Indian people getting a 1st vaccine, I would find it hard to believe the actual day-to-day safety is equivalent. It seems like almost a no-brainer that Americans getting a booster is better for Americans. The only question is whether Americans would be satisfied with a somewhat reduced safety margin in order to help other countries (and perhaps in the medium-term, the supply chains that they rely on).

No. As has been pointed out, even getting COVID isn't that dangerous to the average American as most people don't even need to be hospitalized and even those who are hospitalized aren't at too great a risk provided their are resources to care for them. The real danger of the ongoing epidemic is a variant that is substantially more lethal than vanilla COVID. The only way to prevent that would be sufficient vaccination to wipe out the disease entirely (which won't happen) but the risk can become manageable if enough people are vaccinated to prevent continuous and inevitable community transmission. Then variants can be kept to local outbreaks and not always spreading globally.

Not vaccinating as many people as we can as soon as we can, regardless of place of residence, is rolling the dice that COVID mutates into something that we can live with before it mutates into something that will kill us.

[Fenring]

Not vaccinating as many people as we can as soon as we can, regardless of place of residence, is rolling the dice that COVID mutates into something that we can live with before it mutates into something that will kill us.

I think you're making the same mistake here that some people have made (empirically) about covid-19 in America. Certain statements in the past have been made under the assumption that with correct procedures in place one could eventually reach herd immunity, and this was the overall goal. As has been observed, for a number of reasons, this reality is a pipe dream, and the only defense is a combination of personal vigilance and vaccination. One can't sit back and wait for herd immunity, or ever expect it will happen. And likewise, in the case of India, you could throw an extra 100,000 vaccines at them, and indeed perhaps it would be a real help to them, but overall it will not create anything near a herd immunity or general reduction in the overall virulence there. If a new delta-type variant is going to be created then it's going to happen whether or not slight mitigating factors are put into place. Now I would agree that a massive level effort, such as what areas of China are doing (cordoning off entire neighborhoods, bringing food into the area and handing it out; in short acting as a police state in the best sense) in combination with mass vaccinations, could change the circumstances over there. But as things stand India is going to be India, and declining to personally get a booster (even in the hypothetical, putting aside logistics) is not going to materially change that.

I'm not fond of all of this "feel guilty because more variants will be your fault" type mindset. If an entire society is not equipped (mentally, physically, socially) to take mass unified action, there is no point railing at 'them' who are responsible. It's like a stock market crash: blaming the individuals selling their stock during a crash is totally illogical, as if they individually could just unify with the collective and all take the best action (in that case, not liquidating everything). It's an inevitable, if irrational, result of a chaotically-built system. And that's a feature, not a bug. There's no sense in complaining about it when the system encounters a weakness that hits it hard, unless you're going to take on the system itself (which is how I look at things).

[NobleHunter]

We could eventually reach herd immunity, at least in the "West," if we didn't have politicians using resistance to the pandemic to bolster their political position. That opportunity is well and truly lost at this point but I think it's entirely reasonable to apportion blame for it.

And I don't know why you think I was suggestion sending a paltry 100,000 doses to India. We should, in fact, be pulling out the stops to get people vaccinated in the same way we did to create the vaccine. Sadly, that could cost corporations money and not just mere governments. So we're likely to see only token efforts to help poorer countries. I'm sure they'll get enough vaccines eventually and we'll just have to hope it's soon enough.

I would absolutely blame someone who voluntarily liquidates their portfolio following a crash so that people recognize that panic selling is a stupid thing to do. Systematic problems do not absolve individuals of responsibility for their actions. The reason our society isn't equipped to take unified action is because of individuals who reject that they're responsible for their choices.

[cherrypoptart]

"Sadly, that could cost corporations money and not just mere governments."

I'm wondering if that's the real problem the article didn't even want to allude to by mentioning vaccines going to countries that don't have them would be better for everyone including Americans in the long run than boosters for a population that for the vast majority don't need them and for a large number don't even want them.

The problem is if Americans don't want or need boosters, those vaccines won't be going abroad anyway because they won't be getting made because there won't be a market willing or able to pay for them so in that sense it's a false dilemma. The issue isn't boosters for Americans or vaccines for people abroad who need them more, it's boosters for Americans or since there's nobody to pay for the vaccines they won't even be produced.

If that's the problem then it starts getting political and it doesn't look good for Biden, depending on which side of the issue you're on but if you're on the side that thinks it's very cost beneficial for Americans to pay for Covid vaccines for the rest of the world (more usually called giving them "free" vaccines"), like I am, then you wonder why our administration isn't doing it. I'm sure they're giving a lot of "free" vaccines away, but not as many as we could if we really put our shoulders into it. The last I heard, Biden isn't even willing to make a play to let these poor countries have the production rights to the formulas to make the vaccines themselves because even that would cut into American profits. It seems like the news stories have to dance around the real issues in play here.

[Mynnion]

I believe India just passed the billion dose mark last week however I am not sure of the vaccine quality.  I believe politicization of the virus both in the US and internationally is the biggest hurdle.  Control is going to require both access and acceptance.  There are places in Africa where people are being told it will sterilize those who get it.  At this point it may require a much more severe variant to convince enough individuals that it is worth it.

Since I have been vaccinated and had the booster does that mean I now have three chips?

[cherrypoptart]

There may not be much to be done about people who don't want it but if we can get vaccines to everyone in the world who is willing to take them that would put us in a much better place relative to ending the pandemic sooner by reducing the chance of bad mutations.

I would think, or hope, that even anti-vaxx Americans wouldn't have a big problem with letting foreigners get as much of the vaccine as they want to handle. Whatever small chance of a problem they are worried about for themselves if they get the vaccine, they must see the overall good it's providing just in the statistics and getting that out to the world would be a good thing even if we had to pay for it in lost potential profits to the drug companies because they had to license out their formula. If we had to pay for it directly out of the treasury that would also be worth it because the economic costs of the pandemic are so much worse, not to mention the human costs.

[msquared]

Well it looks like 2 major law suits against the vaccine mandates have gone down in flames.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/federal-judge-tosses-southwest-airlines-213602580.html

And the NYC police lawsuit asking for a hold on the state mandate were turned down.

It is almost as if requiring vaccines is settled law.

[cherrypoptart]

We'll soon see if Biden's scorched Earth vaccine policy is going to do a lot of harm to public safety and the economy. I almost said more harm than good except that I don't doubt that the vaccines are saving lives, but there could still be some serious adverse consequences to come if hundreds of thousands or even millions of people vital to the functioning of our society get fired because they refuse to get vaccinated and testing and masks aren't permitted as backup options. I loved the news story I saw recently about the great resignation and how many times it was repeatedly emphasized in the story that it has absolutely nothing to do with vaccine mandates. People said they'd quit if they had to get vaccinated and the mandates were put into place and they quit and are staying out of the job market but that certainly, definitely, absolutely has nothing to do with it and it happened for every other reason you can think of besides Biden's vaccine mandate.

People may get their wish about a reduced police presence in their cities and communities soon enough. They may also get some reduced carbon emissions as other workers lose their jobs including in the transportation industry. It may not be good for the economy but it'll be great to stop climate change and get the police off the backs of poor inner city youths just trying to get by and enjoy their Kim Foxx approved coffee substitute for early morning alertness with an exciting round of gunslinging mutual combat; all the rush with none of the caffeine.

[TheDrake]

For the "I had covid, why do I need the jab crowd"

Or just see if you can win a Herman Cain Award

A new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) finds that vaccination provides better protection against hospitalization with COVID-19 than a previous infection with the virus. 

The analysis found people hospitalized with coronavirus-like symptoms were more than five times more likely to test positive for COVID-19 if they had had recent prior infection than if they were recently vaccinated. 

The study released Friday examined more than 7,000 people across nine states and 187 hospitals, comparing those who were unvaccinated and had previously had the coronavirus in the last three to six months and those who were vaccinated over the same time frame. 

[ScottF]

For the "I had covid, why do I need the jab crowd"

Or just see if you can win a Herman Cain Award

A new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) finds that vaccination provides better protection against hospitalization with COVID-19 than a previous infection with the virus.

The analysis found people hospitalized with coronavirus-like symptoms were more than five times more likely to test positive for COVID-19 if they had had recent prior infection than if they were recently vaccinated.

The study released Friday examined more than 7,000 people across nine states and 187 hospitals, comparing those who were unvaccinated and had previously had the coronavirus in the last three to six months and those who were vaccinated over the same time frame.

For the "vaccines are better than natural immunity crowd". I see your CDC study of 7K people and raise you an Isreal study of 32K people that says the opposite. Yay, studies are fun!

And please clarify, is everybody equally eligible for the Herman Cain award? Or is it primarily for senior citizens who've recently battled stage 4 colon cancer?

https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital

[LetterRip]

For the "vaccines are better than natural immunity crowd". I see your CDC study of 7K people and raise you an Isreal study of 32K people that says the opposite. Yay, studies are fun!

And please clarify, is everybody equally eligible for the Herman Cain award? Or is it primarily for senior citizens who've recently battled stage 4 colon cancer?

https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital

They failed to account for survivorship bias (among other serious issues).  Dead people can't be reinfected - so the unvaccinated who died have to be matched with their vaccinated and survived counterparts - otherwise you are comparing a truncated vs non-truncated distribution.

[TheDrake]

They are addressing two totally different things, but I don't expect you to manage to comprehend it.

The Israeli study talks about the likelihood of getting infected
This study talks about the likelihood of being hospitalized if you do.

As for the Herman Cain award it applies to anyone who dismisses the risk of covid, rejects countermeasures, and announces anti Vax sentiments and then winds up dead.

Like this perfectly healthy 20 year old who ignored his mother's pleas to get vaccinated and dropped dead.

https://www.wbtv.com/2021/09/27/devastating-shock-uncw-student-brain-dead-due-covid-19-complications-mother-pleads-young-people-get-vaccinated/

[msquared]

Or the six or seven anti vax radio hosts who got Covid and died.

[TheDrake]

I'm worried about the dangers of vaccination, pass the horse dewormer.

[ScottF]

I'm worried about the dangers of vaccination, pass the horse dewormer.

I once had a persistent sinus issue and took a drug commonly used for infections in cows. I also sometimes take other drugs commonly used not only for horses but dogs, cats, even pigs. Oh, and I also eat horse food several times a week - but not as much as a horse would eat, my goodness that would be a lot!

One of the biggest tells of deep Branch Covidian faith is restricted critical thought and bad-faith statements. Initially this was to convince those outside the church, but now it's mostly to reaffirm their own beliefs and mitigate the risk of objective discussion.

[ScottF]

For the "vaccines are better than natural immunity crowd". I see your CDC study of 7K people and raise you an Isreal study of 32K people that says the opposite. Yay, studies are fun!

And please clarify, is everybody equally eligible for the Herman Cain award? Or is it primarily for senior citizens who've recently battled stage 4 colon cancer?

https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital

They failed to account for survivorship bias (among other serious issues).  Dead people can't be reinfected - so the unvaccinated who died have to be matched with their vaccinated and survived counterparts -

No. Simply put, there have been over 10k vaccine breakthrough Covid deaths in the US already, while Covid reinfection deaths are just vanishingly rare. The smaller cdc study is directly contradicted by the more comprehensive study in Israel.

The fact that natural immunization is far more preventive than the vaccine doesn’t mean people shouldn’t get vaccinated. We have to get to a point where we can argue data without the assumption of motive.

[TheDrake]

Simply put, you suggested those two studies were in conflict and added a shrug of the shoulders. When your error was pointed out, you took a sharp turn away from the subject. So you tell me what your motive was. Was it to suggest "actually natural immunity is pretty great, but so is immunization"?

You want to have an objective discussion? You've proved yourself incapable time and again. Every time you are presented with a fact you try to argue it out of existence, Scott.

So let's fact check you shall we? "over 10k" is it?

It's currently hard to answer that in the U.S. To date, 7,178 people are reported to have died from COVID-19 after being vaccinated and about 85% were 65 and older, according to the CDC, but these figures are meant to be a "snapshot" and are an undercount, an agency spokesperson told NPR. In that same time period, approximately 190 million have been fully vaccinated in the U.S.

Seven thousand is not greater than ten thousand.

Meanwhile, reinfection deaths are of course rare because if you managed to fight through it the first time, you are likely to fight through it again. Doesn't mean you didn't have a return trip to the hospital, though. In other words, your behavior should not be influenced by whether you have or have not previously had covid.

But we have people out there advocating that you shouldn't have to show proof of vaccination if you've already recovered from the disease once, which is just nonsense.

[LetterRip]

No. Simply put, there have been over 10k vaccine breakthrough Covid deaths in the US already, while Covid reinfection deaths are just vanishingly rare.

Again, dead people can't be reinfected.  All of the 65+ who died because they didn't get vaccinated can't be reinfected - so the vaccinated have a truncated distribution.

Vaccine is 99% effective vs death, and we use the 11% death rate for 75+.
100,000 * .11 * .01 = 110 deaths for vaccinated
100,000 * .11 = 11,000 deaths for unvaccinated.

So those 10890 who died because they didn't get vaccinated can't be reinfected and die a second time.  However those people, if vaccinated - would be the ones prone to a breakthrough infection.  So you have to count the dead unvaccinated as 'breakthrough' equivalents to compare the groups.  (You can truncate the vaccinated group to make them equivalent (so case match a dead person with an age matched living person, then remove the living from the vaccinated group), you don't have to expand the distribution of the unvaccinated, but either way you do it - you can't just ignore the dead people).

[cherrypoptart]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-wearing-a-mask-covers-up-a-social-anxiety-problem-11635678000

"It’s a particular issue in Japan. Nearly two years into Covid-19, virtually everyone in public spaces is still wearing a mask all the time, although the country is recording only a few hundred new cases a day recently."

I couldn't help but stop reading right there for a bit to reflect on this sentiment, that since cases are declining and pretty rare, why would virtually everyone in public spaces still be wearing masks all the time?

Apparently, I'm one of the few Americans who sees the connection.

Now I go out and virtually everyone in public spaces is not wearing a mask.

The vaccination rate in Japan is still much lower than ours with less than 40% fully vaccinated compared to our 58%, and their country is much more densely populated, and yet they have only a few hundred cases per day while we have tens of thousands with hundreds to over a thousand deaths per day, and all the while our government is still pushing its vaccines only approach and to all appearances has virtually given up on masks. After all of that talk about masks early on and to suddenly have all the benefits just go by the wayside is just a needless tragedy and it's costing thousands of people their lives.

People in America see their super low numbers in Japan and wonder why if they are doing so great are they still wearing masks? Are they stupid? No, not at all. In fact it looks more like we are. Obviously they are doing so great precisely because they are still wearing masks. Their situation also answers a good question about delta and our own experience. When we were doing fantastic and Biden took off America's masks, is that what caused the massive spike in cases and deaths or would we have been hit hard anyway because of delta even if we'd kept the masks on? Well, the country of Japan just raised their hand and offered the answer that even with delta the masks would have made all the difference. The incompetence of our government cost us dearly.

It's also got to be having some effect on the job market and inflation. Maybe not the primary cause of problems but likely a contributor.

https://news.yahoo.com/why-rising-prices-are-really-about-humanity-versus-nature-093605627.html

"People want more money to come back to work. That and let’s not forget there are actually fewer Americans available. Of the 738,000 dead from COVID-19 in the U.S, some 175,000 of them were between the age of 18 and 64. That’s like losing all the nation’s dentists (173,000), or librarians (176,000), or dishwashers (184,000) or drywall installers (165,000.) So the very mortality rate part of COVID, it could be argued, is inflationary. (Fewer people to do the work, means they need to get paid more.)"

That's a lot of productive people, gone. And on the course we're still traveling, hundreds of thousands more to come.

[ScottF]

Simply put, you suggested those two studies were in conflict and added a shrug of the shoulders. When your error was pointed out, you took a sharp turn away from the subject.

My error, lol. I was citing a study showing that natural immunity appears to be more protective than vaccines. You claiming the study shows "only" that contracting covid is less likely via natural immunity and not hospitalization once infected isn't pointing out an "error".

What's bizarre to me is that you, like many people, seem to argue as if your opponent is opposed to vaccinations. The vast majority of people I know who are against mandates are actually pro-vaccine. The fact that causes dissonance in so many is telling.

So you tell me what your motive was. Was it to suggest "actually natural immunity is pretty great, but so is immunization"?

Yes.

You want to have an objective discussion? You've proved yourself incapable time and again. Every time you are presented with a fact you try to argue it out of existence, Scott.

So let's fact check you shall we? "over 10k" is it?

It's currently hard to answer that in the U.S. To date, 7,178 people are reported to have died from COVID-19 after being vaccinated and about 85% were 65 and older, according to the CDC, but these figures are meant to be a "snapshot" and are an undercount, an agency spokesperson told NPR. In that same time period, approximately 190 million have been fully vaccinated in the U.S.

Seven thousand is not greater than ten thousand.

If you dropped the sanctimony from your "fact check" tone, it'd probably be much less embarrassing when you realize you're wrong.

"Between Oct. 11 and Oct. 18, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s cumulative count for breakthrough deaths jumped by 51% from 7,178 to 10,857. "

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html

But we have people out there advocating that you shouldn't have to show proof of vaccination if you've already recovered from the disease once, which is just nonsense.

Now do t-cells.

[cherrypoptart]

"But we have people out there advocating that you shouldn't have to show proof of vaccination if you've already recovered from the disease once, which is just nonsense."

One problem is similar to not having to wear a mask if you're vaccinated.

I'll assume that if you've had it then you're pretty well protected against serious illness and death, whether it's on par with, a bit below or a bit better than vaccination can be debated but your immune system has demonstrated its reliability.

But a couple of problems are how do you know for sure that you were infected with Covid and recovered and then maybe more importantly how do the people around you know that? In contrast to the immune system of the people who have fought off Covid, what we've seen from the degree of integrity of the American people who took advantage of Biden's gross and deadly negligence to prance around unmasked and unvaccinated indoors in crowds is a level of demonstrated unreliability one might expect from the worst and basest group of malcontents, liars, and stone cold psychopathic killers imaginable who are literally responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of their fellow Americans including the elderly, women, and children, and even knowing that right now still feel not the slightest twinge of shame or regret or remorse.

And of course the other problem with vaccination for certain and likely recovery as well is that it doesn't prevent you from spreading a breakthrough infection. A mask is the best tool for that.

[NobleHunter]

Republicans: mask and vaccination mandates are unconstitutional and unamerican.

Cherry: Why does Biden hate masking?

[TheDrake]

My mistake on the number, I wasn't careful about the date off the data.

There are two main reasons for vaccine mandates or advocacy. One is spread, the other is strain on facilities. Neither of those really have anything directly to do with deaths. So it isn't very interesting to me whether you're unlikely to die from a covid reinfection.

Boosters guard against variants. That's why people who have had influenza still get flu shots. Also natural immunity fades even against the original.

This started with me pointing out that hospitalization data indicates that natural immunity is worse with respect to #2, strain on resources. And that therefore nobody should get a pass on vaccine mandates because they already had covid.

[LetterRip]

Boosters guard against variants. That's why people who have had influenza still get flu shots. Also natural immunity fades even against the original.

Influenza shots are reformulated each year due to the way that Influenza mutates (it has a process analogous to sex, which allows dramatic variation when distant strains interact).  COVID-19 boosters aren't reformulated so their protection against variants actually depends on the antigens in the new variant remaining largely the same as in prior variants (which is mostly the case so far - the spike protein has mutated, but still reasonably good binding affinity) - what they do is

1) restore circulating antibody number - this fades about 10% per month - probably fades faster in immunocompromised and they have a lower 'peak'
2) improves antibody affinity for the antigens (the main benefit of a 2 seperated dose regimen for the initial dosing)
3) Increases T-cell and B-cell number


You do make a good point about hospital strain.

[cherrypoptart]

Like I said, masks were working even with largely Republican disdain for them, until Biden decided to take them off precisely because they were working so well. He's like the author of that article who looks at Japan, scratches his head in confusion, and wonders why if their infections and deaths are so low are they all still wearing masks? We had infections and deaths way, way down and instead of saying let's keep doing what we're doing that's obviously working, Biden screams mission accomplished while the virus screams back let's go Brandon!

Anti-mask Republicans get no pass. But they don't set the nationwide agenda. And even with their obnoxiousness we still had nationwide masking in virtually all of the major retail stores. That was turning the tide. Japan proves it works even against delta. And even worse, while it only took Israel 10 days to see their mistake, admit it publicly, and go back to the common sense pandemic mitigation measures that have been proven for over a hundred years to be effective, Biden still hasn't done that close to or over two-hundred thousand unnecessary deaths later.