Jump to content
Gordo

Just curious, anyone have a plan, or preps for global pandemic?

Covid-19 Vaccine Survey  

26 members have voted

  1. 1. Your Vaccine Status is:

    • Fully vaccinated
      21
    • Partially vaccinated
      0
    • Not Vaccinated
      5
  2. 2. If not (fully) vaccinated, your reason(s) for your decision (check all that apply):

    • Not Applicable - I'm vaccinated
      20
    • The rapid vaccine development process makes me distrust them
      3
    • I'm worried about vaccine side effects
      4
    • I don't think I'm at much risk of getting a covid infection
      3
    • I don't believe a covid infection is a serious risk for someone like me
      4
    • I'm waiting until the vaccines receive final approval
      0
    • Fear of needles
      0
    • A medical condition prevents me from getting vaccines
      0
    • Bad reaction to the first dose of the covid vaccine
      0
    • I already had COVID-19 and don't think I need the vaccine for protection
      2
    • Vaccine not available where I live
      0
  3. 3. Are you OK with having your CR forum name included on a list of members who have/haven't chosen to be vaccinated?

    • Yes
      23
    • No
      3


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, mccoy said:

Alan, we should not mix up the infection and the consequences of the infection

Vaccines prevent COVID infections, i.e. fewer people get disease when infected and those not occurring are prevented, and when infections are identified by testing, the tested people generally have disease to motivate the test as confirmation.  The minority of people who are asymptomatic and fortuitously identified can be viewed as diseased, since the virus is infectin and killing cells when replicating, and can infect others with the virus.

Vaccines do not sterilize people.  They provide the body with the ability to counter infections, should they occur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mccoy said:

The booster dose is apparently able to prevent infection or sterilize the vaccinated individual for a brief period of time, due to the high concentration of antibodies it causes.

I'd be surprised if this is true.  The antibodies produced by injected vaccines are humoral with minimal expression in the mucosa of the upper respiratory tract.  Thus one can develop a superficial infection of the mucosa while protected from systemic infection.  This is why there is ongoing effort to produce inhaled vaccines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AlanPater said:

Vaccines prevent COVID infections...

Alan,   SARS-CoV-2 is a virus while COVID-19 is the disease it can cause.  People get infected with the virus, not with the disease.   Referring to "COVID infections"  is therefore inappropriate.     

Virus:   severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2  (SARS-CoV-2)

Disease: coronavirus disease (COVID-19)

Quote

Why do the virus and the disease have different names? 

Viruses, and the diseases they cause, often have different names.  For example, HIV is the virus that causes AIDS.  People often know the name of a disease, but not the name of the virus that causes it.  There are different processes, and purposes, for naming viruses and diseases.

Viruses are named based on their genetic structure to facilitate the development of diagnostic tests, vaccines and medicines. Virologists and the wider scientific community do this work, so viruses are named by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV).  

Diseases are named to enable discussion on disease prevention, spread, transmissibility, severity and treatment. Human disease preparedness and response is WHO’s role, so diseases are officially named by WHO in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD).

ICTV announced “severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)” as the name of the new virus on 11 February 2020.  This name was chosen because the virus is genetically related to the coronavirus responsible for the SARS outbreak of 2003.  While related, the two viruses are different.   

WHO announced “COVID-19” as the name of this new disease on 11 February 2020, following guidelines previously developed with the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

 

Keeping the virus/disease distinction in mind,  it's not clear where you disagree with McCoy when he states:

Quote

As far as I've grasped from the hours of listening to the Columbia University professors of virology, the only vaccine able to avoid infection, that is to sterilize a possible host, that is to prevent any replication of the virus in the body is the Human Papillomavirus vaccine (HPV vaccine).

The SARSCOV2 vaccine does not prevent infection, rather prevents, with a degree of probability, the consequences of infection (COVID or Coronavirus disease). 

The booster dose is apparently able to prevent infection or sterilize the vaccinated individual for a brief period of time, due to the high concentration of antibodies it causes. Of course, no infection, no specific disease. This prevention of infection has the drawback of being short-lived though.

 

Edited by Sibiriak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Todd Allen said:

'd be surprised if this is true.  The antibodies produced by injected vaccines are humoral with minimal expression in the mucosa of the upper respiratory tract.  Thus one can develop a superficial infection of the mucosa while protected from systemic infection.  This is why there is ongoing effort to produce inhaled vaccines.

Conceptually, the neutralizing antibodies are the agents which provide protection from infection/virus replication and a systemic spike may not imply a local spike, but I do not remember having heard quantitative data about systemic versus local concentrations of such neutralizing antibodies. I probably missed, it, I'm listening to podcasts while driving around my autistic son who likes to play a portable keyboard, listens to Latin music at the same time, and on top of it frequently makes various requests. I'm doing my best to focus my attention though, LOL

Edited by mccoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, AlanPater said:

Vaccines do not sterilize people.  They provide the body with the ability to counter infections, should they occur.

Yes, we are saying the same things

 

12 hours ago, AlanPater said:

The minority of people who are asymptomatic and fortuitously identified can be viewed as diseased, since the virus is infectin and killing cells when replicating, and can infect others with the virus.

I'm not so sure they are the a minority, since most asymptomatic people simply do not test. Also, I'm not sure they can be called diseased, since disease would be the manifestation of the viral infection. Of course they are viewed as infected and can infect others, although it is believed that vaccinated people, when infected, shed little virus around. 

I'm not against vaccines, I'm against the blatant exaggerations in the public health policies of most governments and I'm against the breach of freedom when vaccines are mandated, in one way or the other. Vaccinated people will enjoy a high degree of protection anyhow, so unvaccinated people will pose themselves at risk mostly, not the other, fully vaccinated, sometimes treble vaccinated, individuals. 

Edited by mccoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, mccoy said:

I'm against the breach of freedom when vaccines are mandated

I'm on the fence, but in the US there is actually pretty strong precedent for mandatory vaccination:

The Surprisingly Strong Supreme Court Precedent Supporting Vaccine Mandates

In 1905, the high court made a fateful ruling with eerie parallels to today: One person’s liberty can’t trump everyone else’s.

 
20 minutes ago, mccoy said:

unvaccinated people will pose themselves at risk mostly, not the other

You seem to believe a lot of misinformation popular among antivaxers.  For example they commonly believe the vaccine doesn't slow the spread, as evidence for this, you can clearly see that even after millions/billions have been vaccinated, the spread is higher than its ever been before.  Sadly, this is not sound logic.  Without vaccines, the spread would likely be far higher than it is.  Besides just preventing death/hospitalization,  vaccines also lower viral load, total infection times, and increase asymptomatic cases.  There is plenty of scientific evidence for this if you just do some searchers.  This article links to many published studies as one example: 

This is how vaccines help reduce the spread of COVID-19

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mapping the antigenic diversification of SARS-CoV-2

"The long antigenic distance between Omicron and the preceding variants in the antigenic map indicates that the current high rates of Omicron infections are at least partially associated with immune escape and that a vaccine update is required."

I’ll summarize with a couple of the illustrations:

image.png.772e275e2f2b4499cf75ce9bd5644fcd.png

image.png.7bb7063454e8978cf2e42b59f0dc7eed.png

 

Edited by corybroo
duplicate figure removed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a new CDC study with more evidence that covid increases diabetes incidence, this time in children under 18. Unlike flu or other "it's just the flu" diseases.

 

Summary

What is already known about this topic?

SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with worsening of diabetes symptoms, and persons with diabetes are at increased risk for severe COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 infection might also induce newly diagnosed diabetes.

What is added by this report?

Persons aged <18 years with COVID-19 were more likely to receive a new diabetes diagnosis >30 days after infection than were those without COVID-19 and those with prepandemic acute respiratory infections. Non–SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infection was not associated with an increased risk for diabetes.

What are the implications for public health practice?

The increased diabetes risk among persons aged <18 years following COVID-19 highlights the importance of COVID-19 prevention strategies in this age group, including vaccination for all eligible persons and chronic disease prevention and treatment.

 

Risk for Newly Diagnosed Diabetes >30 Days After SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Persons Aged <18 years — United States, March 1, 2020–June 28, 2021

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7102e2.htm?s_cid=mm7102e2_w

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@brian

A terrible study from the CDC for many reasons. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Gordo said:

For example they commonly believe the vaccine doesn't slow the spread,

No, they are probably wrong, the experts agree that vaccinated people shed less virus. And yes, the courts will agree with the governments, judges are no vaccinology or immunology experts and will only examine constitutional concepts.

But, my conceptual reasoning is that, if enough people accepted vaccination willingly (In Italy most people are), what's the point in a mandatory campaign? Just to make people like me sympathize with no-vaxxers, even if not agreeing with them conceptually? Just to make people like me enroll the lines of the opposing parties?

Besides, I may agree on a mandatory basic vaccination, but boosting every 6 months or less (this is the mandate in Italy now everyone over 50) is something which goes beyond science and reason, takes us into the realm of plain overkill and absolute lack of respect to individual citizens. 

Again, Italy is following the wake of China but is doing worse than China, at least out there they have a more robust organization in their tyrannical impositions

Edited by mccoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mccoy said:

But, my conceptual reasoning is that, if enough people accepted vaccination willingly (In Italy most people are),

According to  https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations  in Italy, 74% fully vaccinated and 6.3% partially vaccinated.  Most estimates of the percentage needed for herd immunity range from 70 to 90%.  So, if only 70% is needed and 74% have been fully vaccinated (and that provides *long lasting* protection), then it theoretically may be enough people are protected.  Personally, a 4% margin of safety when peoples' lives and health are at stake, especially when as noted many times by many people, these numbers are absolutely accurate.

2 hours ago, mccoy said:

what's the point in a mandatory campaign?

In Why Your Uncle Isn’t Going to Get Vaccinated, the author writes that vaccine rejectors are unlikely to change their minds after some period of justifying to family and friends the decision to not be vaccinated. 

when the beliefs are more central, the solution is often to remain loyal to your beliefs and avoid those actions that would create dissonance. To suddenly get vaccinated now, without other provocation, would be difficult for vaccine rejectors to justify.

The mandate provides the impetus to get a vaccine for people who have publicly committed to delaying or not getting the vaccine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mccoy said:

I may agree on a mandatory basic vaccination, but boosting every 6 months or less (this is the mandate in Italy now everyone over 50) is something which goes beyond science and reason, takes us into the realm of plain overkill and absolute lack of respect to individual citizens. 

Wouldn't any mandatory boosting only be until pandemic => endemic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Todd S said:

Wouldn't any mandatory boosting only be until pandemic => endemic?

I would imagine that would be the case.  When Europeans first arrived in North America, diseases such as the cold and flu killed huge numbers of the indigenous people.  Now, not so much.  I think it would come to a point where COVID puts little pressure on the health care system and boosters for COVID become like the annual flu shot and voluntary, without mandates.  Let it be sooner than later.

Edited by AlanPater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Todd S said:

Wouldn't any mandatory boosting only be until pandemic => endemic?

I'm not so sure, because the initial game has been changed.

The starting game went like: take your two shots of vaccoine and we''ll reach herd immunity, the pandemic will be gone

Then the public health officials changed the tune. Let's have a booster, it will neutralize the virus, it will make us not infectious, anyone will be safe

Next time, what is it going to be?

Please note that the vaccine was not designed to neutralize the virus, rather to prevent serious disease. So the booster(s) are an aberration, a malpractice, if we want to be blunt. Using the vaccine to disinfect people, in the words of Dr. Amy Rosenfeld of Columbia University, it's like asking your car to fly.

So, I'm not trusting any longer public health officials. They lost credibility and give the impression they really don't know what they are doing. And governments are heeding their insane suggestions. The distopic world is not the pandemia, it's the response of supposedly competent experts and of the supposedly advanced, civilized western governments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, mccoy said:

the vaccine was not designed to neutralize the virus, rather to prevent serious disease.

Vaccines are developed and used to prevent diseases, not just serious disease.  And the COVID vaccines do reduce the incidence of infection.

 

20 hours ago, mccoy said:

Using the vaccine to disinfect people

Disinfecting implies the pathogen is there before the vaccine is administered.  Vaccines help the immune system fight the virus if and when it arrives.   Infection implies there is disease.  Vaccines are designed to prevent infection.

 

20 hours ago, mccoy said:

booster(s) are an aberration, a malpractice,

Boosters are clearly shown to increase the immune response to the virus, to bring up the response that decreased some months after getting the second vaccination.

Exposure to a virus is not an infection.  We ingest and inhale many non-pathogenic viruses, such as animal viruses, without harm.

Edited by AlanPater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many people seem to be counting on data from other countries indicating that Omicron be much milder than previous strains.  This graph would say that we can not always count on the experience of other countries:

image.png.2261bf4f6d7ae83960852217d120d474.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2022 at 4:00 PM, AlanPater said:

Vaccines are designed to prevent infection.

OK to the former, but I beg to dissent again on this. Vaccines are designed to prevent not the infection but the outcome of infection (disease), and the COVID vaccines are no exception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2022 at 4:00 PM, AlanPater said:

Boosters are clearly shown to increase the immune response to the virus, to bring up the response that decreased some months after getting the second vaccination.

Vaccinology 101: one or two doses of vaccine stimulate the immune system such as to create a memory of the specific pathogen. The body doesn't need boosters for a response, since memory B-cells remember the specific viral proteins and should a successive infection occur, they'll send a signal to build up antibodies, which will neutralize the virus.

You are probably mixing up the concept of response with the concept of concentration of neutralizing antibodies.

The COVID booster is a malpractice which however has its use in the correction of former malpractice, that is administering the second dose shortly after the first. The second dose should be administered about 6 months later, to provide a broader immunologic response which may also result in cross-immunity for other variants. The procedure of administering a second dose after only 4 week has been accepted because the vaccine trials were made in a hurry and the second shot was given very soon, too soon actually.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BioNTech now has an AI-based system to study emerging variant sequences, to predict 2 months ahead of time which ones might likely become high-risk variants.

 

BioNTech and InstaDeep Developed and Successfully Tested Early Warning System to Detect Potential High-Risk SARS-CoV-2 Variants

https://investors-biontech-de.translate.goog/news-releases/news-release-details/biontech-and-instadeep-developed-and-successfully-tested-early/?_x_tr_sl=auto&amp;_x_tr_tl=en&amp;_x_tr_hl=en-US

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2022 at 4:00 PM, AlanPater said:

Exposure to a virus is not an infection.  We ingest and inhale many non-pathogenic viruses, such as animal viruses, without harm.

I agree, but the definition of infection entails exposure to a pathogenic virus which results in some reproductive cycle inside the host.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2022 at 6:34 AM, Matt said:

@brian

A terrible study from the CDC for many reasons. 

And unfortunately, that's not the only terrible study around...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mccoy said:

I beg to dissent again on this. Vaccines are designed to prevent not the infection but the outcome of infection (disease), and the COVID vaccines are no exception.

It is commonly understood that when someone says they were infected with the flu, that they were sick from flu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AlanPater said:

It is commonly understood that when someone says...

Alan, common language is often imprecise and confused.   Science strives to do better.   The scientific community makes a clear-cut distinction between the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the disease it can produce, COVID-19.

                    Virus:   severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2  (SARS-CoV-2)

                    Disease: coronavirus disease (COVID-19) 

(For details on the rationale for this distinction see the W.H.O. statement here.)

Just because this distinction is commonly ignored does not mean we should ignore it as well.   Even Bill Gates recognizes this distinction and its critical implications:

The vaccines we have prevent severe disease and death very well but they are missing two key things.
First they still allow infections ("breakthrough") and the duration appears to be limited.
We need vaccines that prevent re-infection and have many years of duration.#

— Bill Gates (@BillGates) January 11, 2022 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Sibiriak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sibiriak said:

The vaccines we have prevent severe disease and death very well but they are missing two key things.
First they still allow infections ("breakthrough") 

KK to the above

5 hours ago, Sibiriak said:

and the duration appears to be limited.

The duration of what? That's not very clear. The time in which the neutralizing antibodies keep high in concentration in the blood? But then that's not the purpose of a vaccine usually and it would need to be redesigned from scratch.

Or maybe the time in which the response of the adaptive immune system is ready? But the latter should last for many years and anyway there has not been enough time to determine it.

SARSCOV1 adapting immunity is lasting so far, so it's about 18 years of duration at least...

Edited by mccoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×