tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 10:10 am
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.
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.
Now THIS is nonsensical. It's very complicated actually.
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.
Yep. We can only hope the current vaccines are effective re variants, at least effective enough until something better is developed.
The fundamental logic is not complicated.
The mechanisms that make that possible are much more so, of course.
You wrote something pretty dumb, not that hard to just say oops I was wrong, misstated what I meant.
We all make errors from time to time.
tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 10:10 am
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.
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.
Now THIS is nonsensical. It's very complicated actually.
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.
Yep. We can only hope the current vaccines are effective re variants, at least effective enough until something better is developed.
The fundamental logic is not complicated.
The mechanisms that make that possible are much more so, of course.
You wrote something pretty dumb, not that hard to just say oops I was wrong, misstated what I meant.
We all make errors from time to time.
Totally agree with your final thought.
I stated in an earlier post that I was speaking from a non-scientist, layman perspective. Based on that context, "strengthened" was again, simply semantics. Sorry, "wrong" does not apply here.
You might want to take your own advise re misstatements sometime.
tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 10:10 am
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.
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.
Now THIS is nonsensical. It's very complicated actually.
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.
Yep. We can only hope the current vaccines are effective re variants, at least effective enough until something better is developed.
The fundamental logic is not complicated.
The mechanisms that make that possible are much more so, of course.
You wrote something pretty dumb, not that hard to just say oops I was wrong, misstated what I meant.
We all make errors from time to time.
Totally agree with your final thought.
I stated in an earlier post that I was speaking from a non-scientist, layman perspective. Based on that context, "strengthened" was again, simply semantics. Sorry, "wrong" does not apply here.
You might want to take your own advise re misstatements sometime.
yup, and I don't have a problem with saying I was mistaken, wrong, misstated. Happens.
Semantics doesn't cut it...you were arguing a specific point, the notion that the vaccine causes the virus to mutate, that's flat wrong.
Last edited by MDlaxfan76 on Wed Jul 28, 2021 10:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 10:10 am
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.
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.
Now THIS is nonsensical. It's very complicated actually.
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.
Yep. We can only hope the current vaccines are effective re variants, at least effective enough until something better is developed.
The fundamental logic is not complicated.
The mechanisms that make that possible are much more so, of course.
You wrote something pretty dumb, not that hard to just say oops I was wrong, misstated what I meant.
We all make errors from time to time.
Totally agree with your final thought.
I stated in an earlier post that I was speaking from a non-scientist, layman perspective. Based on that context, "strengthened" was again, simply semantics. Sorry, "wrong" does not apply here.
You might want to take your own advise re misstatements sometime.
yup, and I don't have a problem with saying I was mistaken, wrong, misstated. Happens.
Semantics doesn't cut it...you were arguing a specific point, the notion that the vaccine causes the virus to mutate, that's flat wrong.
Don't lie mdlax. That is not what I was discussing and you know it. Coming off as a jerk so often must be tiresome for you.
tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 10:10 am
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.
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.
Now THIS is nonsensical. It's very complicated actually.
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.
Yep. We can only hope the current vaccines are effective re variants, at least effective enough until something better is developed.
The fundamental logic is not complicated.
The mechanisms that make that possible are much more so, of course.
You wrote something pretty dumb, not that hard to just say oops I was wrong, misstated what I meant.
We all make errors from time to time.
Totally agree with your final thought.
I stated in an earlier post that I was speaking from a non-scientist, layman perspective. Based on that context, "strengthened" was again, simply semantics. Sorry, "wrong" does not apply here.
You might want to take your own advise re misstatements sometime.
yup, and I don't have a problem with saying I was mistaken, wrong, misstated. Happens.
Semantics doesn't cut it...you were arguing a specific point, the notion that the vaccine causes the virus to mutate, that's flat wrong.
Don't lie mdlax. That is not what I was discussing and you know it. Coming off as a jerk so often must be tiresome for you.
It's in all caps above. Your words, not mine.
You could have simply said, oops, that's not what I meant either.
"semantics" suggests it's the reader who is mistaken.
tech37 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 10:10 am
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.
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.
Now THIS is nonsensical. It's very complicated actually.
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.
Yep. We can only hope the current vaccines are effective re variants, at least effective enough until something better is developed.
The fundamental logic is not complicated.
The mechanisms that make that possible are much more so, of course.
You wrote something pretty dumb, not that hard to just say oops I was wrong, misstated what I meant.
We all make errors from time to time.
Totally agree with your final thought.
I stated in an earlier post that I was speaking from a non-scientist, layman perspective. Based on that context, "strengthened" was again, simply semantics. Sorry, "wrong" does not apply here.
You might want to take your own advise re misstatements sometime.
yup, and I don't have a problem with saying I was mistaken, wrong, misstated. Happens.
Semantics doesn't cut it...you were arguing a specific point, the notion that the vaccine causes the virus to mutate, that's flat wrong.
Don't lie mdlax. That is not what I was discussing and you know it. Coming off as a jerk so often must be tiresome for you.
It's in all caps above. Your words, not mine.
You could have simply said, oops, that's not what I meant either.
"semantics" suggests it's the reader who is mistaken.
I have searched and have yet to come across “The Variant Hypothesis”…..a mutation that eventually escapes an effective vaccine has been widely acknowledged. I haven’t seen any papers on how a vaccine strengthens a virus.
You should be outraged at the people that haven’t been vaccinated and don’t wear a masks…..they have contributed to the problem….but Fauci is entertaining to make fun of. …liberate your state.
Did you you hear the words “possible”, “few” and “may be”…..she’s lying?
Well there is your answer…. Need a vaxx pass to vote! Two birds, 1 stone
That was my point.....there'd be no complaining by TLD and crew about a vaxx pass, but certainly one to vote.
When you make it harder to get vaccinated, I will complain. Want to mix with regular people and do regular things, go get vaccinated. Otherwise don’t complain when kids are at home instead of school.
Well there is your answer…. Need a vaxx pass to vote! Two birds, 1 stone
That was my point.....there'd be no complaining by TLD and crew about a vaxx pass, but certainly one to vote.
world is upside down.
personally would guess the admin doesn't want to go anywhere near a mandate/pass on the federal level for citizenry. doesn't mean they won't pull levers, but too little to gain, too much to lose.
sd and hand washing continues to get short shrift. smh.
Well there is your answer…. Need a vaxx pass to vote! Two birds, 1 stone
That was my point.....there'd be no complaining by TLD and crew about a vaxx pass, but certainly one to vote.
world is upside down.
personally would guess the admin doesn't want to go anywhere near a mandate/pass on the federal level for citizenry. doesn't mean they won't pull levers, but too little to gain, too much to lose.
sd and hand washing continues to get short shrift. smh.
We don’t want to social distance, remember? That is how we ended up with “masks”….. hubris and spoiled….we may snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory…..watch these “the government can’t tell me what to do” types complain when Megan is sitting at home instead of at school (Johnny is overused).
Well there is your answer…. Need a vaxx pass to vote! Two birds, 1 stone
That was my point.....there'd be no complaining by TLD and crew about a vaxx pass, but certainly one to vote.
world is upside down.
personally would guess the admin doesn't want to go anywhere near a mandate/pass on the federal level for citizenry. doesn't mean they won't pull levers, but too little to gain, too much to lose.
sd and hand washing continues to get short shrift. smh.
We don’t want to social distance, remember? That is how we ended up with “masks”….. hubris and spoiled….we may snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory…..watch these “the government can’t tell me what to do” types complain when Megan is sitting at home instead of at school (Johnny is overused).
Well there is your answer…. Need a vaxx pass to vote! Two birds, 1 stone
That was my point.....there'd be no complaining by TLD and crew about a vaxx pass, but certainly one to vote.
When you make it harder to get vaccinated, I will complain. Want to mix with regular people and do regular things, go get vaccinated. Otherwise don’t complain when kids are at home instead of school.
Well there is your answer…. Need a vaxx pass to vote! Two birds, 1 stone
That was my point.....there'd be no complaining by TLD and crew about a vaxx pass, but certainly one to vote.
When you make it harder to get vaccinated, I will complain. Want to mix with regular people and do regular things, go get vaccinated. Otherwise don’t complain when kids are at home instead of school.
Well there is your answer…. Need a vaxx pass to vote! Two birds, 1 stone
That was my point.....there'd be no complaining by TLD and crew about a vaxx pass, but certainly one to vote.
When you make it harder to get vaccinated, I will complain. Want to mix with regular people and do regular things, go get vaccinated. Otherwise don’t complain when kids are at home instead of school.
They ask for ID to get vaccinated.
Uh huh. You should be all for it.
I am. They also ask for you to register.
It was totally easy.
Well there is your answer…. Need a vaxx pass to vote! Two birds, 1 stone
That was my point.....there'd be no complaining by TLD and crew about a vaxx pass, but certainly one to vote.
When you make it harder to get vaccinated, I will complain. Want to mix with regular people and do regular things, go get vaccinated. Otherwise don’t complain when kids are at home instead of school.
Now THIS is nonsensical. It's very complicated actually.
