All things CoronaVirus

[old salt]

Some people seem to be of the mind that we have sacrificed enough and the virus is still here. Nothing seems to have worked so we should shelve mitigation efforts and get back to normal until science figures it out. We will be on the Zeta variant by then.

Science has figured it out. Natural resistance to COVID is real. Peer reviewed journal before you ask.

Analysis shows durable and broad immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection with persisting antibody responses and memory B and T cells.

https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medic ... edArticles

Go out and live life.

At least 4 Million people didn’t have a natural immunity….can you screen for it? Asking for a friend…..

“Assuming you’re healthy and not obese”. You might have missed that part, so I thought I’d repost.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-85813-2

The question remains, as it should have from the start, is how to effectively protect the vulnerable ?

Vaccines are now available to everyone in the US. Any vulnerable person in the US who has not taken the vaccine has decided to take their chances in beating the virus when they encounter it -- which they inevitably will, no matter how many restrictions are imposed.

We are still imposing pre-vaccination restrictive measures on a post-vaccination US society.

Get vaccinated, or (eventually) get infected. No matter how restrictive we are in the US, covid will continue to spread & mutate beyond our open borders & will find it's way here.

[seacoaster]

Biden is fine with spreading germs, as he gives a kid his mask. https://www.instagram.com/reel/CR1wjECF ... _copy_link

Valuable, the usual poke fun at Biden theme. Never gets old...wait a minute.

It seems a little ironic that the people who are most unhappy about new mask restrictions are the folks responsible for the new mask restrictions. Land of the free, home of the dumb, and dead.

[wgdsr]

TL/DR on the new mask guidance.

The unvaccinated refuse (a) to get vaccinated or (b) to wear masks.

So now everyone has to wear masks. Even the vaccinated people who don't need to.

Just like when you were in grade school. Teacher cancels recess for the whole class, even though just a couple of jerk kids were acting up.

it's more than a couple. uk has the kind of vaccine compliance we can dream of. they took infections on the chin pretty hard.

their turnaround, short lived or not, has been pretty remarkable, and we may know more after the wave wraps up for both sides. obviously, they are in tighter quarters. plusses and minuses.

[old salt]

CDC expected to recommend continued masking for the vaccinated.
Even if vaccinated, you'll still have dead covid cooties in your nostrils.
Okie Dokie. This is why we can't have nice things.
This is your punishment for not making others take the vaccine.

[wgdsr]

how about if i'm willing to submit to vaccine passports?

[old salt]

show your shot card, unmask, enjoy a drink, ...on the house.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Unreal. The paper is not anti-vaxx... that's your "take away". It's a peer-reviewed scientific paper which makes claims not presented before... in time, those claims may or may not be accurate. Although you and TLD only want to hear that more vaccines are being performed, science moves on and new evidence/ideas may be considered at the same time vaccines are being promoted. Narrow thinking...

Tech, I am pretty certain that I hear about the science of COVID more than you do….who said the paper was “anti-vaccination”? I live with a scientist, son. She was talking about COVID before you heard about it. I believe “Bart” was too. She was worried about variants over a year ago….she actually teaches an infectious disease course but what does she know about viruses.

So what "son"? Scientists can be biased too (whether they realize it or not). Or is that another fact you choose to ignore? Are you also best buddies with Fauci? Would not be surprised if you made that claim as well.

Every now and then I drop something….champ, sport, ace…I hadn’t rotated son through yet. The way a virus works is the way a virus works….it ain’t biased, sailor.

Whatever.

Re variants... you probably already know this (since you're a Renaissance Man) but try looking into (or ask your wife) the hypothesis that the vaccines themselves are helping to create variants. It goes something this... because the vaccines were developed during the pandemic and not before, they are too narrowly focused on stopping the original specific form of the virus. The virus has learned workarounds (variants) in the meantime. No one's fault... there was no time to waste in development as it were.

Here is a Reuters article discussing just this: https://www.reuters.com/article/factche ... SL1N2OZ1PU

If you look at the recent emergence of Delta. It got is origin in India, I believe in December and prior to any mass vaccination in that country. This was prior to the WHO deciding it was a Virus or Concern.

Thanks Bart.

As mentioned, it is a hypothesis and may well be proven false over time. Even if variants already existed, the fact that the vaccines were developed narrowly/specifically for the original virus, it does seem plausible that they are/will be less effective against variant strains.

Also, anyone traveling to India from another country could have introduced the Delta variant there. Delta may or may not have originated in India prior to vaccines.

To me, unencumbered by data, the greatest chance for mutation is in populations with high viral replication. The greater the replication, the greater the chance the virus will mutate. IMO, vaccine do just the opposite.

You would vary well have a mutation in a virus in a break through infection but I would think that would be much rarer than in an unvaccinated population. It is just a numbers game. Unfortunately we will see...........it is playing out right in front of us.

Yes. Spreading the idea that vaccines may lead to more mutations is just foolishness, in my opinion. Having someone reconsider getting vaccinated because of that is just going to potentially contribute to the problem…..walked out for lunch, just saw a woman get vaccinated in a park under a tent.

Don't be afraid TLD, no one is "spreading" ideas. Isn't science about asking questions, seeking truth, looking for answers through observation and experimentation? You seem to want to shut that down unless of course it's only source is the medical establishment. Unfortunately, the medical establishment has shown itself to be politically corrupt (see Fauci for one).

To be clear, I never suggested the variants were being caused by the vaccines. Nope. If that's how it came off, apologies. The idea is that the variants will be strengthened because these novel vaccines were not developed broadly enough to completely protect against them. But who knew? I certainly hope the variant hypothesis is wrong but it should be considered plausible until it can be ruled out by scientific methods, not politics, short-sighted policies, or cancellation.

What does this mean? How does a variant strengthen because a "novel" vaccine is not developed broadly enough? Do you actually know what you are questioning? Do you have a link to the "variant hypothesis"? I would like to actually read it.

[old salt]

uk has the kind of vaccine compliance we can dream of. they took infections on the chin pretty hard.

their turnaround, short lived or not, has been pretty remarkable, and we may know more after the wave wraps up for both sides. obviously, they are in tighter quarters. plusses and minuses.

did the Brits close down the pubs again ?

[MDlaxfan76]

show your shot card, unmask, enjoy a drink, ...on the house.

As long as that's paired with a requirement that everyone must show their passport in order to enter the bar, this would work well.

All for it.

[Typical Lax Dad]

uk has the kind of vaccine compliance we can dream of. they took infections on the chin pretty hard.

their turnaround, short lived or not, has been pretty remarkable, and we may know more after the wave wraps up for both sides. obviously, they are in tighter quarters. plusses and minuses.

did the Brits close down the pubs again ?

Brits just opened, I believe, a week ago.

[MDlaxfan76]

Unreal. The paper is not anti-vaxx... that's your "take away". It's a peer-reviewed scientific paper which makes claims not presented before... in time, those claims may or may not be accurate. Although you and TLD only want to hear that more vaccines are being performed, science moves on and new evidence/ideas may be considered at the same time vaccines are being promoted. Narrow thinking...

Tech, I am pretty certain that I hear about the science of COVID more than you do….who said the paper was “anti-vaccination”? I live with a scientist, son. She was talking about COVID before you heard about it. I believe “Bart” was too. She was worried about variants over a year ago….she actually teaches an infectious disease course but what does she know about viruses.

So what "son"? Scientists can be biased too (whether they realize it or not). Or is that another fact you choose to ignore? Are you also best buddies with Fauci? Would not be surprised if you made that claim as well.

Every now and then I drop something….champ, sport, ace…I hadn’t rotated son through yet. The way a virus works is the way a virus works….it ain’t biased, sailor.

Whatever.

Re variants... you probably already know this (since you're a Renaissance Man) but try looking into (or ask your wife) the hypothesis that the vaccines themselves are helping to create variants. It goes something this... because the vaccines were developed during the pandemic and not before, they are too narrowly focused on stopping the original specific form of the virus. The virus has learned workarounds (variants) in the meantime. No one's fault... there was no time to waste in development as it were.

Here is a Reuters article discussing just this: https://www.reuters.com/article/factche ... SL1N2OZ1PU

If you look at the recent emergence of Delta. It got is origin in India, I believe in December and prior to any mass vaccination in that country. This was prior to the WHO deciding it was a Virus or Concern.

Thanks Bart.

As mentioned, it is a hypothesis and may well be proven false over time. Even if variants already existed, the fact that the vaccines were developed narrowly/specifically for the original virus, it does seem plausible that they are/will be less effective against variant strains.

Also, anyone traveling to India from another country could have introduced the Delta variant there. Delta may or may not have originated in India prior to vaccines.

To me, unencumbered by data, the greatest chance for mutation is in populations with high viral replication. The greater the replication, the greater the chance the virus will mutate. IMO, vaccine do just the opposite.

You would vary well have a mutation in a virus in a break through infection but I would think that would be much rarer than in an unvaccinated population. It is just a numbers game. Unfortunately we will see...........it is playing out right in front of us.

Yes. Spreading the idea that vaccines may lead to more mutations is just foolishness, in my opinion. Having someone reconsider getting vaccinated because of that is just going to potentially contribute to the problem…..walked out for lunch, just saw a woman get vaccinated in a park under a tent.

Don't be afraid TLD, no one is "spreading" ideas. Isn't science about asking questions, seeking truth, looking for answers through observation and experimentation? You seem to want to shut that down unless of course it's only source is the medical establishment. Unfortunately, the medical establishment has shown itself to be politically corrupt (see Fauci for one).

To be clear, I never suggested the variants were being caused by the vaccines. Nope. If that's how it came off, apologies. The idea is that the variants will be strengthened because these novel vaccines were not developed broadly enough to completely protect against them. But who knew? I certainly hope the variant hypothesis is wrong but it should be considered plausible until it can be ruled out by scientific methods, not politics, short-sighted policies, or cancellation.

What does this mean? How does a variant strengthen because a "novel" vaccine is not developed broadly enough? Do you actually know what you are questioning? Do you have a link to the "variant hypothesis"? I would like to actually read it.

It's nonsensical.
The variants result simply from the survival of a mutated virus and its passage to another person and another...they don't respond to the vaccine. Some mutations have no advantage in their survival or transmissibility, others have a chance at an advantage. Pure chance. However, with every incremental infection there's a chance of a mutation...with advantages.

One of those advantages may be that is able to be transmitted to and from vaccinated people.

But, sure, if a mutation survives and is still able to be spread amongst vaccinated people, then that virus will become the dominant strain as others are choked of...but the virus itself doesn't react.

The key, therefore, is to as quickly as possible choke off incremental infections. Reducing, therefore, the number of possible mutations. Any ongoing infections among unvaccinated people provide the possibility of a breakout strain.

Not really that complicated.

And, of course, this is why it matters to all of us who have been vaccinated that the rest of us are vaccinated as well...or as many as possible, as fast as possible. It's not simply a matter of "they made their decision to take their chances". No, they're gambling for all of us.

[old salt]

uk has the kind of vaccine compliance we can dream of. they took infections on the chin pretty hard.

their turnaround, short lived or not, has been pretty remarkable, and we may know more after the wave wraps up for both sides. obviously, they are in tighter quarters. plusses and minuses.

did the Brits close down the pubs again ?

Brits just opened, I believe, a week ago.

were the pubs closed before then ?

[Typical Lax Dad]

uk has the kind of vaccine compliance we can dream of. they took infections on the chin pretty hard.

their turnaround, short lived or not, has been pretty remarkable, and we may know more after the wave wraps up for both sides. obviously, they are in tighter quarters. plusses and minuses.

did the Brits close down the pubs again ?

Brits just opened, I believe, a week ago.

were the pubs closed before then ?

Not sure. I can ask….EDIT: Sent a note.

In the meantime….have not read it:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52977388

[tech37]

Unreal. The paper is not anti-vaxx... that's your "take away". It's a peer-reviewed scientific paper which makes claims not presented before... in time, those claims may or may not be accurate. Although you and TLD only want to hear that more vaccines are being performed, science moves on and new evidence/ideas may be considered at the same time vaccines are being promoted. Narrow thinking...

Tech, I am pretty certain that I hear about the science of COVID more than you do….who said the paper was “anti-vaccination”? I live with a scientist, son. She was talking about COVID before you heard about it. I believe “Bart” was too. She was worried about variants over a year ago….she actually teaches an infectious disease course but what does she know about viruses.

So what "son"? Scientists can be biased too (whether they realize it or not). Or is that another fact you choose to ignore? Are you also best buddies with Fauci? Would not be surprised if you made that claim as well.

Every now and then I drop something….champ, sport, ace…I hadn’t rotated son through yet. The way a virus works is the way a virus works….it ain’t biased, sailor.

Whatever.

Re variants... you probably already know this (since you're a Renaissance Man) but try looking into (or ask your wife) the hypothesis that the vaccines themselves are helping to create variants. It goes something this... because the vaccines were developed during the pandemic and not before, they are too narrowly focused on stopping the original specific form of the virus. The virus has learned workarounds (variants) in the meantime. No one's fault... there was no time to waste in development as it were.

Here is a Reuters article discussing just this: https://www.reuters.com/article/factche ... SL1N2OZ1PU

If you look at the recent emergence of Delta. It got is origin in India, I believe in December and prior to any mass vaccination in that country. This was prior to the WHO deciding it was a Virus or Concern.

Thanks Bart.

As mentioned, it is a hypothesis and may well be proven false over time. Even if variants already existed, the fact that the vaccines were developed narrowly/specifically for the original virus, it does seem plausible that they are/will be less effective against variant strains.

Also, anyone traveling to India from another country could have introduced the Delta variant there. Delta may or may not have originated in India prior to vaccines.

To me, unencumbered by data, the greatest chance for mutation is in populations with high viral replication. The greater the replication, the greater the chance the virus will mutate. IMO, vaccine do just the opposite.

You would vary well have a mutation in a virus in a break through infection but I would think that would be much rarer than in an unvaccinated population. It is just a numbers game. Unfortunately we will see...........it is playing out right in front of us.

Yes. Spreading the idea that vaccines may lead to more mutations is just foolishness, in my opinion. Having someone reconsider getting vaccinated because of that is just going to potentially contribute to the problem…..walked out for lunch, just saw a woman get vaccinated in a park under a tent.

Don't be afraid TLD, no one is "spreading" ideas. Isn't science about asking questions, seeking truth, looking for answers through observation and experimentation? You seem to want to shut that down unless of course it's only source is the medical establishment. Unfortunately, the medical establishment has shown itself to be politically corrupt (see Fauci for one).

To be clear, I never suggested the variants were being caused by the vaccines. Nope. If that's how it came off, apologies. The idea is that the variants will be strengthened because these novel vaccines were not developed broadly enough to completely protect against them. But who knew? I certainly hope the variant hypothesis is wrong but it should be considered plausible until it can be ruled out by scientific methods, not politics, short-sighted policies, or cancellation.

What does this mean? How does a variant strengthen because a "novel" vaccine is not developed broadly enough? Do you actually know what you are questioning? Do you have a link to the "variant hypothesis"? I would like to actually read it.

It's nonsensical.
The variants result simply from the survival of a mutated virus and its passage to another person and another...they don't respond to the vaccine. Some mutations have no advantage in their survival or transmissibility, others have a chance at an advantage. Pure chance. However, with every incremental infection there's a chance of a mutation...with advantages.

One of those advantages may be that is able to be transmitted to and from vaccinated people.

You say "nonsensical" and then say this (below). Make up your mind but thanks for making the point. The current vaccines, no matter how mass-distributed, may not be effective against variants. I hope that's wrong.

But, sure, if a mutation survives and is still able to be spread amongst vaccinated people, then that virus will become the dominant strain as others are choked of...but the virus itself doesn't react.

The key, therefore, is to as quickly as possible choke off incremental infections. Reducing, therefore, the number of possible mutations. Any ongoing infections among unvaccinated people provide the possibility of a breakout strain.

Not really that complicated.

And, of course, this is why it matters to all of us who have been vaccinated that the rest of us are vaccinated as well...or as many as possible, as fast as possible. It's not simply a matter of "they made their decision to take their chances". No, they're gambling for all of us.

[old salt]

uk has the kind of vaccine compliance we can dream of. they took infections on the chin pretty hard.

their turnaround, short lived or not, has been pretty remarkable, and we may know more after the wave wraps up for both sides. obviously, they are in tighter quarters. plusses and minuses.

did the Brits close down the pubs again ?

Brits just opened, I believe, a week ago.

were the pubs closed before then ?

Not sure. I can ask….EDIT: Sent a note.

In the meantime….have not read it:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52977388

found this :
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52977388

looks like they were not closed pre 7/19/21, just limited/restricted.

Given Brit lifestyle, I view pub policy as their leading indicator.

[youthathletics]

Biden is fine with spreading germs, as he gives a kid his mask. https://www.instagram.com/reel/CR1wjECF ... _copy_link

Valuable, the usual poke fun at Biden theme. Never gets old...wait a minute.

It seems a little ironic that the people who are most unhappy about new mask restrictions are the folks responsible for the new mask restrictions. Land of the free, home of the dumb, and dead.

Stupid kids and union teachers not getting vaccinated.

[Typical Lax Dad]

uk has the kind of vaccine compliance we can dream of. they took infections on the chin pretty hard.

their turnaround, short lived or not, has been pretty remarkable, and we may know more after the wave wraps up for both sides. obviously, they are in tighter quarters. plusses and minuses.

did the Brits close down the pubs again ?

Brits just opened, I believe, a week ago.

were the pubs closed before then ?

Not sure. I can ask….EDIT: Sent a note.

In the meantime….have not read it:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52977388

found this :
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52977388

looks like they were not closed pre 7/19/21, just limited/restricted.

Given Brit lifestyle, I view pub policy as their leading indicator.

I had just posted that link. Yes on pub policy.

[MDlaxfan76]

Unreal. The paper is not anti-vaxx... that's your "take away". It's a peer-reviewed scientific paper which makes claims not presented before... in time, those claims may or may not be accurate. Although you and TLD only want to hear that more vaccines are being performed, science moves on and new evidence/ideas may be considered at the same time vaccines are being promoted. Narrow thinking...

Tech, I am pretty certain that I hear about the science of COVID more than you do….who said the paper was “anti-vaccination”? I live with a scientist, son. She was talking about COVID before you heard about it. I believe “Bart” was too. She was worried about variants over a year ago….she actually teaches an infectious disease course but what does she know about viruses.

So what "son"? Scientists can be biased too (whether they realize it or not). Or is that another fact you choose to ignore? Are you also best buddies with Fauci? Would not be surprised if you made that claim as well.

Every now and then I drop something….champ, sport, ace…I hadn’t rotated son through yet. The way a virus works is the way a virus works….it ain’t biased, sailor.

Whatever.

Re variants... you probably already know this (since you're a Renaissance Man) but try looking into (or ask your wife) the hypothesis that the vaccines themselves are helping to create variants. It goes something this... because the vaccines were developed during the pandemic and not before, they are too narrowly focused on stopping the original specific form of the virus. The virus has learned workarounds (variants) in the meantime. No one's fault... there was no time to waste in development as it were.

Here is a Reuters article discussing just this: https://www.reuters.com/article/factche ... SL1N2OZ1PU

If you look at the recent emergence of Delta. It got is origin in India, I believe in December and prior to any mass vaccination in that country. This was prior to the WHO deciding it was a Virus or Concern.

Thanks Bart.

As mentioned, it is a hypothesis and may well be proven false over time. Even if variants already existed, the fact that the vaccines were developed narrowly/specifically for the original virus, it does seem plausible that they are/will be less effective against variant strains.

Also, anyone traveling to India from another country could have introduced the Delta variant there. Delta may or may not have originated in India prior to vaccines.

To me, unencumbered by data, the greatest chance for mutation is in populations with high viral replication. The greater the replication, the greater the chance the virus will mutate. IMO, vaccine do just the opposite.

You would vary well have a mutation in a virus in a break through infection but I would think that would be much rarer than in an unvaccinated population. It is just a numbers game. Unfortunately we will see...........it is playing out right in front of us.

Yes. Spreading the idea that vaccines may lead to more mutations is just foolishness, in my opinion. Having someone reconsider getting vaccinated because of that is just going to potentially contribute to the problem…..walked out for lunch, just saw a woman get vaccinated in a park under a tent.

Don't be afraid TLD, no one is "spreading" ideas. Isn't science about asking questions, seeking truth, looking for answers through observation and experimentation? You seem to want to shut that down unless of course it's only source is the medical establishment. Unfortunately, the medical establishment has shown itself to be politically corrupt (see Fauci for one).

To be clear, I never suggested the variants were being caused by the vaccines. Nope. If that's how it came off, apologies. The idea is that the variants will be strengthened because these novel vaccines were not developed broadly enough to completely protect against them. But who knew? I certainly hope the variant hypothesis is wrong but it should be considered plausible until it can be ruled out by scientific methods, not politics, short-sighted policies, or cancellation.

What does this mean? How does a variant strengthen because a "novel" vaccine is not developed broadly enough? Do you actually know what you are questioning? Do you have a link to the "variant hypothesis"? I would like to actually read it.

It's nonsensical.
The variants result simply from the survival of a mutated virus and its passage to another person and another...they don't respond to the vaccine. Some mutations have no advantage in their survival or transmissibility, others have a chance at an advantage. Pure chance. However, with every incremental infection there's a chance of a mutation...with advantages.

One of those advantages may be that is able to be transmitted to and from vaccinated people.

You say "nonsensical" and then say this (below). Make up your mind but thanks for making the point. The current vaccines, no matter how mass-distributed, may not be effective against variants. I hope that's wrong.

But, sure, if a mutation survives and is still able to be spread amongst vaccinated people, then that virus will become the dominant strain as others are choked of...but the virus itself doesn't react.

The key, therefore, is to as quickly as possible choke off incremental infections. Reducing, therefore, the number of possible mutations. Any ongoing infections among unvaccinated people provide the possibility of a breakout strain.

Not really that complicated.

And, of course, this is why it matters to all of us who have been vaccinated that the rest of us are vaccinated as well...or as many as possible, as fast as possible. It's not simply a matter of "they made their decision to take their chances". No, they're gambling for all of us.

The variants aren't "strengthened" tech, they simply survive.
It's not a reaction to the vaccine.

[old salt]

uk has the kind of vaccine compliance we can dream of. they took infections on the chin pretty hard.

their turnaround, short lived or not, has been pretty remarkable, and we may know more after the wave wraps up for both sides. obviously, they are in tighter quarters. plusses and minuses.

did the Brits close down the pubs again ?

Brits just opened, I believe, a week ago.

were the pubs closed before then ?

Not sure. I can ask….EDIT: Sent a note.

In the meantime….have not read it:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52977388

found this :
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52977388

looks like they were not closed pre 7/19/21, just limited/restricted.

Given Brit lifestyle, I view pub policy as their leading indicator.

I had just posted that link. Yes on pub policy.

When were the Brit pubs fully closed ? not open, with restrictions ? Ever ? not since the first wave ?

[Typical Lax Dad]

EUREKA!!

“You say "nonsensical" and then say this (below). Make up your mind but thanks for making the point. The current vaccines, no matter how mass-distributed, may not be effective against variants. I hope that's wrong.

All the more reason to get as many people vaccinated as quickly as possible!