Vaccine

The t-cell portion of the equation. Remember y'all when some (not necessarily here on the forum) were calling t-cells conspiracy theories? Ahh 2020 we miss you already.


OK, this is what I was trying to wade back to. Thanks for digging that up. T cell conspiracy theories? Weird.

This is one of a group of recent reports showing that the T cell repertoire that gets locked down in immune memory by vaccination responds robustly to omicron. Its good news and completely consistent with earlier characterization of robust immune memory afforded by vaccines.

The question I had was a bit different-does omicron, with it's milder symptoms, evoke a strong immune response, ie does it actually stimulate Ab production and proliferation of quiescent immune memory cells populations. It might not, for example, if there wasn't really the clean up on aisle 5 associated with more virulent strains-omicron infection seems to kind of linger like a stubborn cold. To gauge the nature of the immune response you need to look at omicron convalescents. And its a bit early to be getting that data, although I did find one preprint linked below. The message from a detailed characterization of the immune response of two omicron convalescents is encouraging, albeit at this point a very small sample. Despite relatively mild symptoms there was a strong adaptive immune response both in terms of elevating circulating antibodies and in stimulating anti-S directed cytotoxic and helper T cell populations. Notably the antibodies produced now reacted with high affinity to omicron S, and additionally cross-reacted with S from earlier variants, including delta. So that's also a good news story.


If it holds up that most people who gets omicron mount a reasonably robust immune response, that may in turn shape the selective pressure on the virus on the backside of the wave. Back of the envelope say the absolutely mind blowing proliferative potential of omicron leads to a 10X increase in total cummulative case load around the globe in the first half of 2022. The planet goes from 300 million cases to 3 billion. If its true that most of those convalescents are reasonably resistant to re-infection for 6 months or so, there may be less advantage to being a fast replicator trying to out compete the rest of the swarm for immunologically accessible targets, which seems to have been the major selective pressure to date. As the global population gets increasingly exposed the main selective pressure may change to circumvention of the immune response. Whether the virus can generate combinations that meet that demand will be an interesting question.
 
I mean.....


GRIFT ON BROTHER!!!!!
The drama! Most UFC fighters don't make a ton of money. So yes, he makes more than some UFC fighters. The article is quite silly. UFC made Joe Rogan? Like he appeared out of nowhere?

Check out how much NFL broadcasters make.
 
Or teach it.

Unless you are a money bag at some big famous place beholden to sucking at the tit of think tanks, etc, most of those who can also have to teach. And teaching helps keeps it real. Here's my rule of thumb. You want to claim to be a working scientist, can you diagnose your own plumbing problems and are you willing to fix them yourself? Or have you become soft and lazy? Want to see what soft and lazy looks like? Watch the experts on the TV.
 
The drama! Most UFC fighters don't make a ton of money. So yes, he makes more than some UFC fighters. The article is quite silly. UFC made Joe Rogan? Like he appeared out of nowhere?

Check out how much NFL broadcasters make.

He's a grifter -- plain and simple. Just a guy trying to make a buck (a lot of them).

And yes, I've seen his standup and his stints on Fear Factor.

The left has grifters as well. Just calling a spade a spade.
 
I'm not a Joe Rogan apologist, I've probably listened to a handful of his podcasts. He is an entertainer and to his credit he gives a platform to people from both ends of the spectrum. Alex Jones to Bernie Sanders for example. This is unlike other traditional news or entertainment news programs that follow a strict narrative and when they do allow an opposing opinion to be voiced, the person voicing that opinion is usually outnumber 4 to 1 and their opinion basically gets quashed.

More power to him finding his own niche which is obviously appealing to many. Its funny that some people resent his success.

It seems the most threatening thing to many people these days is an opposing opinion.
 
He's a grifter -- plain and simple. Just a guy trying to make a buck (a lot of them).

And yes, I've seen his standup and his stints on Fear Factor.

The left has grifters as well. Just calling a spade a spade.
Call it what you want. He's not trying to make a buck, he's made a buck or two.

Funny that you use the term left, he's certainly a "leftie". I woudn't consider him a right wing conservative... Anyway, doesn't really matter I guess. He's making a pretty penny, just like all opinion people in the media. At least he's a legit black belt in jujitsu. Not too many "grifters" can make that claim.
 
He's a grifter -- plain and simple. Just a guy trying to make a buck (a lot of them).

And yes, I've seen his standup and his stints on Fear Factor.

The left has grifters as well. Just calling a spade a spade.
Why do you resent his success? What makes him a grifter?

Are you implying he is right wing?

 
Why do you resent his success? What makes him a grifter?

Are you implying he is right wing?


I only made the "left" comment to emphasize grifting happens across the spectrum.

I don't resent his success. Good on him for making a buck. But it's a grift. People are buying what he's selling....and he knows what sells. Not unlike Howard Stern and all the other podcast/radio hosts.
 
Call it what you want. He's not trying to make a buck, he's made a buck or two.

Funny that you use the term left, he's certainly a "leftie". I woudn't consider him a right wing conservative... Anyway, doesn't really matter I guess. He's making a pretty penny, just like all opinion people in the media. At least he's a legit black belt in jujitsu. Not too many "grifters" can make that claim.

Wonder if Dana White would pay him more than $12k to get into the cage.
 
Funny how politics and reality changes ones perspective.

For 2 yrs the NY Times has been peddling fear. Many articles about risks to kids without acknowledging that have no risk.

Better late than never...but they should still be held accountable for the fear they spread.


For the past two years, large parts of American society have decided harming children was an unavoidable side effect of Covid-19. And that was probably true in the spring of 2020, when nearly all of society shut down to slow the spread of a deadly and mysterious virus.

But the approach has been less defensible for the past year and a half, as we have learned more about both Covid and the extent of children's suffering from pandemic restrictions.

Data now suggest that many changes to school routines are of questionable value in controlling the virus's spread. Some researchers are skeptical that school closures reduce Covid cases in most instances. Other interventions, like forcing students to sit apart from their friends at lunch, may also have little benefit.

One reason: Severe versions of Covid, including long Covid, are extremely rare in children. For them, the virus resembles a typical flu. Children face more risk from car rides than Covid.

The widespread availability of vaccines since last spring also raises an ethical question: Should children suffer to protect unvaccinated adults -- who are voluntarily accepting Covid risk for themselves and increasing everybody else's risk, too? Right now, the United States is effectively saying yes.

To be clear, there are some hard decisions and unavoidable trade-offs. Covid can lead to hospitalization or worse for a small percentage of vaccinated adults, especially those who are elderly or immunocompromised, and allowing children to resume normal life could create additional risk. The Omicron surge may well heighten that risk, leaving schools with no attractive options.

For the past two years, however, many communities in the U.S. have not really grappled with the trade-off. They have tried to minimize the spread of Covid -- a worthy goal absent other factors -- rather than minimizing the damage that Covid does to society. They have accepted more harm to children in exchange for less harm to adults, often without acknowledging the dilemma or assessing which decisions lead to less overall harm.

Given the choices that the country has made, it should not be surprising that children are suffering so much.


 
Funny how politics and reality changes ones perspective.

For 2 yrs the NY Times has been peddling fear. Many articles about risks to kids without acknowledging that have no risk.

Better late than never...but they should still be held accountable for the fear they spread.


For the past two years, large parts of American society have decided harming children was an unavoidable side effect of Covid-19. And that was probably true in the spring of 2020, when nearly all of society shut down to slow the spread of a deadly and mysterious virus.

But the approach has been less defensible for the past year and a half, as we have learned more about both Covid and the extent of children's suffering from pandemic restrictions.

Data now suggest that many changes to school routines are of questionable value in controlling the virus's spread. Some researchers are skeptical that school closures reduce Covid cases in most instances. Other interventions, like forcing students to sit apart from their friends at lunch, may also have little benefit.

One reason: Severe versions of Covid, including long Covid, are extremely rare in children. For them, the virus resembles a typical flu. Children face more risk from car rides than Covid.

The widespread availability of vaccines since last spring also raises an ethical question: Should children suffer to protect unvaccinated adults -- who are voluntarily accepting Covid risk for themselves and increasing everybody else's risk, too? Right now, the United States is effectively saying yes.

To be clear, there are some hard decisions and unavoidable trade-offs. Covid can lead to hospitalization or worse for a small percentage of vaccinated adults, especially those who are elderly or immunocompromised, and allowing children to resume normal life could create additional risk. The Omicron surge may well heighten that risk, leaving schools with no attractive options.

For the past two years, however, many communities in the U.S. have not really grappled with the trade-off. They have tried to minimize the spread of Covid -- a worthy goal absent other factors -- rather than minimizing the damage that Covid does to society. They have accepted more harm to children in exchange for less harm to adults, often without acknowledging the dilemma or assessing which decisions lead to less overall harm.

Given the choices that the country has made, it should not be surprising that children are suffering so much.


I can't give this a "better late than never". This has been obvious since at least a year and half ago.
 
I only made the "left" comment to emphasize grifting happens across the spectrum.

I don't resent his success. Good on him for making a buck. But it's a grift. People are buying what he's selling....and he knows what sells. Not unlike Howard Stern and all the other podcast/radio hosts.
One thing I appreciate from these entertainment interviewers like Rogan and Stern is there ability to ask more probing and diverse questions of their guests. I often find those interviews more informative than a traditional news interview where the questions are scripted to support a particular narrative and the guest is less likely to let their guard down. I often watch a news interview and the interviewer doesn't ask the next obvious question because it doesn't fit the narrative or they can't adjust and ask off script questions, even though the question begs to be asked.
 
Funny how politics and reality changes ones perspective.

For 2 yrs the NY Times has been peddling fear. Many articles about risks to kids without acknowledging that have no risk.

Better late than never...but they should still be held accountable for the fear they spread.


For the past two years, large parts of American society have decided harming children was an unavoidable side effect of Covid-19. And that was probably true in the spring of 2020, when nearly all of society shut down to slow the spread of a deadly and mysterious virus.

But the approach has been less defensible for the past year and a half, as we have learned more about both Covid and the extent of children's suffering from pandemic restrictions.

Data now suggest that many changes to school routines are of questionable value in controlling the virus's spread. Some researchers are skeptical that school closures reduce Covid cases in most instances. Other interventions, like forcing students to sit apart from their friends at lunch, may also have little benefit.

One reason: Severe versions of Covid, including long Covid, are extremely rare in children. For them, the virus resembles a typical flu. Children face more risk from car rides than Covid.

The widespread availability of vaccines since last spring also raises an ethical question: Should children suffer to protect unvaccinated adults -- who are voluntarily accepting Covid risk for themselves and increasing everybody else's risk, too? Right now, the United States is effectively saying yes.

To be clear, there are some hard decisions and unavoidable trade-offs. Covid can lead to hospitalization or worse for a small percentage of vaccinated adults, especially those who are elderly or immunocompromised, and allowing children to resume normal life could create additional risk. The Omicron surge may well heighten that risk, leaving schools with no attractive options.

For the past two years, however, many communities in the U.S. have not really grappled with the trade-off. They have tried to minimize the spread of Covid -- a worthy goal absent other factors -- rather than minimizing the damage that Covid does to society. They have accepted more harm to children in exchange for less harm to adults, often without acknowledging the dilemma or assessing which decisions lead to less overall harm.

Given the choices that the country has made, it should not be surprising that children are suffering so much.


They must be wrong because @espola said that these restrictions are not affecting kids.
 
Unless you are a money bag at some big famous place beholden to sucking at the tit of think tanks, etc, most of those who can also have to teach.
Yes in some cases those that can still teach, but based on my professional experience most that teach, can't do. But my perspective is more from the business end of things and not the hard sciences.
 
The drama! Most UFC fighters don't make a ton of money. So yes, he makes more than some UFC fighters. The article is quite silly. UFC made Joe Rogan? Like he appeared out of nowhere?

Check out how much NFL broadcasters make.
I remember Joe on Fear Factor. Dude is killing FOX, CNN, MSNBC and all the rest combined. I haven't watched the news in over a year. Tel A Vision is not good for you. Look at Espola, The Husler, Dad and all those up in NoCal. They just can;t see the Light. It blows me away how easy it is for them to turn on a fellow American.

 
Back
Top