EvilGoalie 21
GOLD
Let Darwin sort it out.
Bit of patience and we'll be there soon enough. And unless friends or family are directly affected may not necessarily even notice at all.
Let Darwin sort it out.
or the vaccine enters the blood cells and causes inflammation after being jabbed.Once the virus gains cell entry, all other viral protein surfaces are masked from the immune system.
Thanks for sharing your experience.Not sure about your analogy, but regardless I strongly disagree with your point. It touches on the expert arrogance that I've pointed out a number of times. A surgeon may have a much broader view and is entitled to question the conclusions of an epidemiologist. We're all entitled to question or take advice counter to an expert. We're entitled to our choice.
-We were against the doctor doing an amnio, he repeatedly assured us that it was safe. It wasn't it....it resulted in a crash c-section, my daughter to be resuscitated at birth, a scalpel cut across her head, 6 weeks premature
-My dad had been to just about every doctor including the Mayo clinic for a number of years. No diagnosis other than possible dehydration. I diagnosed it as Parkinson's, which was thereafter confirmed by a doctor
-The anecdote about my mom telling the doctor that my dad need to be hydrated
Sorry, I'm not going to delegate my medical decisions to an "expert". I will strongly consider their input, along with 2nd and likely 3rd opinions. I'm not going to get a vaccination just because an epidemiologist recommends it, and surely not because a politician requires it. I will, and did, consult with my doctor before making that decision.
You should get multiple medical opinions before making any serious decision. I think your an idiot if you don't, but hey its your choice. Let Darwin sort it out like Nova.Dad's examples likely point out.
or the vaccine enters the blood cells and causes inflammation after being jabbed.
Inflammation is a natural response to activating the immune system. ((True))Let me break it down for you Evil.
Why would you do that? Be honest too, no more lying.
I guess zombie life is next. No offense, everything you just wrote makes zero sense but you took it and I'm sure you will live with the consequences. Where I draw the line is when someone fires someone for saying, "NO!!!" or kid is blocked. It's great you know how to make a better bio weapon and all but this thing is one big mess. You and so many listened to Dr. F, a known liar. Bill was in on it with Jeffrey. You do understand that right? Does that make you feel a little nervous what these boys were up to? I forgot to ask. Is Jesus the Lord?Well, with infection against the initial variants my naturally acquired immunity would probably suffice just fine. like I posted earlier the whole "which is better" argument is really a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. Tough to measure the relevant variables, and there is going to be so much individual variation one way or another that it's kind of pointless to go round and round about it. The whole thing about a vaccine is not to have better immunity but so that you get immunity without infection. It's true I got vaxxed before delta, but with delta I really would not want to go any other way. Not that natural infection might provide the requisite immunity, but because with the vaxx I know I have a really good spectrum of memory T cells capable of producing neutralizing antibodies broadly covering the spike protein-delta interface. It's going to be hard for the virus to evolve away from that.
On the bioweapon thing. I know the issue of who and what to trust is central here. The main thing really. But if you wanted to build a bioweapon this virus is not the way to do it. First off, you'd want a capsid really smooth on the outside, sort of like rhinoviruses are. So difficult to have long term immunity and difficult to vaxx. Then you'd want a much higher IFR kill rate. And a more moderate R0 infectiousness. Then you could release it in high density urban cluster where you'd have lots of deaths and it would burn itself out fairly quickly. More controlled. So people would be left wondering where's it going to hit next, all the while knowing what is going to happen if it does.
No offense
I always get along with folks like you. I will say I am 100% on top of my game. It's starts with the inside first.None taken. You asked. I answered. That's me. You do you. Like I said, your ability to bring these issues rapidly to their metaphorical endpoints and to network them to other areas is valued. i find it refreshing actually.
Zero covid is not one of your choices. It’s neither the Gottlieb or uk approach. China australia and New Zealand are still clinging to the fantasy of zero covid and you can see how that’s going. Believing in zero covid given how the vaccine is performing is a fantasy
neither is the no further variant possibility because most of the world won’t be vaccinated until 2023.
further you forwarded nothing to support your assertion the virus is “destructive” among the vaccinated…and if so you would be saying the vaccine is at least a partial failure
I asked for your opinion as to the two approaches and you threw up two fantasies. Slightly disappointed as you struck me as thoughtful.
When it comes to mask mandates, social distancing, or any other pandemic restriction, what is the limiting principle? Or, putting it differently, under what conditions can we get back to normal? Based on the public health logic currently in vogue, I fear that the answer is never and that we are entering a new regime–the tyranny of tiny risks. --Ian FilmoreSurgeons are trained to think of masks as PPE. Make sure the patient does not infect the doctor. Make sure the doctor doesn’t place germs into the patient’s open wound. Important stuff. Just not relevant to the question of masks for going to the grocery store.
Asking a surgeon about epidemiology is no more helpful than asking an epidemiologist to remove your appendix. Each has their own area of expertise, and neither one knows how to do the other’s job.
Losers use kids as pawns.It sounds like we are talking about different issues. The first topic I was following was whether it would be better to get immunity via infection or vaccinations. If given the choice, I would pick developing immunity via vaccines. This should not be a fantasy anymore with the amazing development of efficacious vaccines. When SARS-CoV2 infects cells, it can directly kill them, and it can also fuse cells to their neighbors, like a bunch of smaller bubbles merging together. There's also potential for secondary damage. Either route of exposure can lead to immunity, but one way avoids the damage.
If an individual already has some immunity, then their immune system should be able to try to neutralize viruses that it can recognize when the individual is exposed. If they don't have a robust enough response relative to the virus, then the virus can cause damage. It partly becomes a numbers and timing problem when considering the battle between the virus and the immune system.
The vaccine allows one to develop immunity without damage from infection. That is the point, in addition to not allowing the host to effectively spread the virus. If the virus is limited in it's ability to replicate or spread, the probability of variants emerging that can evade the immune system or that can be more damaging will be lower. Coronaviruses are great at not just mutating but also recombining, and the history of viruses shows that they don't always become more benign over time.
Any public health policy should be well grounded in the current knowledge, but will be necessarily impacted by realities and needs on the ground in their location. For example, Vietnam did an amazing job for quite a while limiting covid in their country. But, they have a robust medical system, quarantine facilities, and a government system that is strict. They also dealt with sars-cov1, and the population readily complies with public health edicts. England will be very different. Policies will also be impacted by what is available. Some locations don't have good access to vaccines, for example, let alone boosters. Some places have very limited medical facilities or staff.
I am not really interested in coming up with a one size fits all solution, because that's not practical or sensible. Sorry to disappoint on that.
it can also fuse cells to their neighbors,
When it comes to mask mandates, social distancing, or any other pandemic restriction, what is the limiting principle? Or, putting it differently, under what conditions can we get back to normal? Based on the public health logic currently in vogue, I fear that the answer is never and that we are entering a new regime–the tyranny of tiny risks.--Ian FilmoreGrace, I was correcting the assumption you made about my reaction to the video. I'm not attacking any person, but I did criticize the video.
As to the question of what is the best policy for governments to pursue? I'm sure that depends on the situation in their particular area. It also depends on what the goals are of the government or other group setting the policy. It's complex, as many on here have discussed.
From the biology side, knowing just how destructive this virus can be once set loose in our bodies and the damage that an infection can lead to, if given a choice, I would not want anyone to get infected. There's also the risk that a variant with a high mortality rate could emerge. No one can know whether this will or won't happen. This, I would advise against choices where the virus is permitted to thrive.
As would I and I suspect would the vast majority of the population. No one wants to get sick, very sick possibly, just to have natural immunity.The first topic I was following was whether it would be better to get immunity via infection or vaccinations. If given the choice, I would pick developing immunity via vaccines.
I think that's where most of us are coming from. Unfortunately, those that make policy are trying to force implementation of a one size fits all approach, particularly when it comes to requiring vaccines to participate in certain normal activities. The public doesn't respond very well to "my way or the highway" approach.I am not really interested in coming up with a one size fits all solution, because that's not practical or sensible. Sorry to disappoint on that.
No they dont. This was the old way of running things in America. Not everyone treated people like shit and did whatever they could to make it to the top, including and not limited to cheating, buying a spot on the team, lying, lying, bribes, blackmail ((fang fang)) or worse. Them days are finally coming to an end. What your seeing right now are the small parts of the snake head squirming around.As would I and I suspect would the vast majority of the population. No one wants to get sick, very sick possibly, just to have natural immunity.
I think that's where most of us are coming from. Unfortunately, those that make policy are trying to force implementation of a one size fits all approach, particularly when it comes to requiring vaccines to participate in certain normal activities. The public doesn't respond very well to "my way or the highway" approach.