All things CoronaVirus

[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.

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

Not sure. If I can’t find it, I will ask.

[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 ?

Not sure. If I can’t find it, I will ask.

I recall them closing earlier, but I don't recall full closures.

[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.

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

Semantics. The point is, the vaccines may not be effective for any other strain than they were specifically designed for. Get it?

[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.

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.

Semantics. The point is, the vaccines may not be effective for any other strain than they were specifically designed for. Get it?

Semantics! stop….you have opened your mouth and removed all doubt! Post the link to the “variant hypothesis”.

[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 ?

Not sure. If I can’t find it, I will ask.

I recall them closing earlier, but I don't recall full closures.

Found it -- full closure, 4 wk lockdown, Nov 2020.
Last night at the pub.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54763956

[wgdsr]

vs. present-day variants:
vaxx - 340
natural immunity - 250
variants + 150

vs. next-age variants:
vaxx + 190
natural immunity - 160
variants - 150
boosters - 300

[MDlaxfan76]

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 ?

Not sure. If I can’t find it, I will ask.

I recall them closing earlier, but I don't recall full closures.

I'm having a dinner with a buddy this evening who lives in London, visiting his family here. I'll ask.

Son of our football coach in HS. All-MD in football, wrestling and lax, my crease defenseman in lax. Enforcer. Played football and lax at Princeton, All-American in lax, all-Ivy in football, Goldman Sachs partner. Brother was an All American at UVA.

It'll be interesting to hear his current perspective. We'd had dinner and drinks at the Valley Inn with some of our buddies, just as Covid was hitting and he was pretty cocky at the time about the UK's initial reactions under Boris Johnson...which obviously changed...indeed, the whole world changed immediately after we'd had dinner...that was the last of any public socializing for quite a long time for any of us.

[Typical Lax Dad]

vs. present-day variants:
vaxx - 340
natural immunity - 250
variants + 150

vs. next-age variants:
vaxx + 190
natural immunity - 160
variants - 150
boosters - 300

How are we doing against the variant that was strengthened by the vaccine. Hope it wasn’t a gamma ray vaccine!

[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.

Semantics. The point is, the vaccines may not be effective for any other strain than they were specifically designed for. Get it?

Do I 'get it'???
Of course, that's the whole reason why it's so critical to reduce the amount of virus circulating...the fewer infections, the fewer chances of any of the mutations escaping blockage by the vaccines (plus boosters) and/or being even more transmissible (Delta) or more deadly per infection.

We need to choke off every possible infection we can, as fast as we can, to reduce these chances. Meanwhile, we need to be looking at whatever boosters or modifications may need to be made and get them in circulation as soon as practical, for the same reason.

However, it may be important to note that a critical component to why the virus is so much of a problem is how the spike protein works, which is what the vaccine addresses...so, if the variants continue to use this mechanism, which makes it so problematic, the vaccines should continue to have some efficacy.

But the virus does not react to the vaccine and 'strengthen'. Get it?

[youthathletics]

vs. present-day variants:
vaxx - 340
natural immunity - 250
variants + 150

vs. next-age variants:
vaxx + 190
natural immunity - 160
variants - 150
boosters - 300

Odds that HCQ comes in to save the day?

[wgdsr]

vs. present-day variants:
vaxx - 340
natural immunity - 250
variants + 150

vs. next-age variants:
vaxx + 190
natural immunity - 160
variants - 150
boosters - 300

How are we doing against the variant that was strengthened by the vaccine. Hope it wasn’t a gamma ray vaccine!

as long as we can admit here we're all a bunch of amateur, armchair epidemiologists, i'll throw this against the wall:

present-day dominant strain - phi
next-age dominant strain - omega

phi is more transmissable and just average for fatality. it's mostly neutralized by the vaxx.

omega is less transmissable and gnarly on fatality. but is pretty stealth in evading the vaxx.

now, under pre-vaxx circumstances, phi is all over the place. they just win. but not as deadly.

vaxx up everybody, and omega takes over.

one of a whole bunch of outcomes? sure. but it is one.

[wgdsr]

vs. present-day variants:
vaxx - 340
natural immunity - 250
variants + 150

vs. next-age variants:
vaxx + 190
natural immunity - 160
variants - 150
boosters - 300

Odds that HCQ comes in to save the day?

take it early.

[youthathletics]

Fauci keeping it real.....

https://twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status ... 68741?s=20

[youthathletics]

Interesting that NYC shuts down schools with 3% positive test rate: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/18/nyre ... covid.html

Illegal CV-19 Positive Rate: > 6% back in March, I believe it is up to 8% now. FEMA official says COVID-19 positivity rate among migrants is 6 percent

#CloseSchool #OpenTheBorder #Insanity

[MDlaxfan76]

Fauci keeping it real.....

https://twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status ... 68741?s=20

what an idiot Raheem is...

[MDlaxfan76]

Interesting that NYC shuts down schools with 3% positive test rate: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/18/nyre ... covid.html

Illegal CV-19 Positive Rate: > 6% back in March, I believe it is up to 8% now. FEMA official says COVID-19 positivity rate among migrants is 6 percent

#CloseSchool #OpenTheBorder #Insanity

boy, that's a nonsensical argument. You really don't see the difference?

[Peter Brown]

Fauci keeping it real.....

https://twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status ... 68741?s=20

what an idiot Raheem is...

Why is Raheem the idiot? He merely presents two minutes of Fauci saying the complete opposite of what he previously said. You can listen or not, but it’s certainly not the messenger who his the idiot here. It simply calls into question Fauci’s command of the facts.

[Peter Brown]

Interesting statistics out of Israel.

Nearly 40% of new COVID patients were vaccinated - compared to just 1% who had been infected previously. Wow.

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News ... spx/309762

According to a report by Channel 13, the disparity has confounded – and divided – Health Ministry experts, with some saying the data proves the higher level of immunity provided by natural infection versus vaccination, while others remained unconvinced.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Interesting that NYC shuts down schools with 3% positive test rate: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/18/nyre ... covid.html

Illegal CV-19 Positive Rate: > 6% back in March, I believe it is up to 8% now. FEMA official says COVID-19 positivity rate among migrants is 6 percent

#CloseSchool #OpenTheBorder #Insanity

[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.

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

Semantics. The point is, the vaccines may not be effective for any other strain than they were specifically designed for. Get it?

Semantics! stop….you have opened your mouth and removed all doubt! Post the link to the “variant hypothesis”.

Here you go joker. Hopefully your attention span can handle.

https://odysee.com/@BretWeinstein:f/dar ... t-vanden:b