Coronavirus COVID-19

Political discussions
User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59959
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by AZGrizFan »

JohnStOnge wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:09 pm
AZGrizFan wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:03 pm

Is there any subject that you are not a self-proclaimed expert on?
Sure. But I am an expert on data analysis, study design, etc. I actually teach courses on those things. Probably shouldn't say it because I don't like to get into what I do on line. But it is what it is. The data CLEARLY show that the vaccines are safe and very effective. The idea that it's been shown that we can't vaccinate our way out of this when we only have a 60% vaccination rate is absurd. So on and so forth.

It has really gotten to the point of being ridiculous. At this point the evidence suggesting that there's a good chance that we COULD vaccinate our way out of this IF we could just get everybody who does not have a specific contraindication vaccinated is overwhelming. But we continue to have people doing crap like SG is doing.
You’ve proven multiple times on this board that you can read a graph, but you have zero idea how to INTERPRET the data. At least when it comes to economics.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59305
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by kalm »

AZGrizFan wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 11:23 pm
JohnStOnge wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:09 pm

Sure. But I am an expert on data analysis, study design, etc. I actually teach courses on those things. Probably shouldn't say it because I don't like to get into what I do on line. But it is what it is. The data CLEARLY show that the vaccines are safe and very effective. The idea that it's been shown that we can't vaccinate our way out of this when we only have a 60% vaccination rate is absurd. So on and so forth.

It has really gotten to the point of being ridiculous. At this point the evidence suggesting that there's a good chance that we COULD vaccinate our way out of this IF we could just get everybody who does not have a specific contraindication vaccinated is overwhelming. But we continue to have people doing crap like SG is doing.
You’ve proven multiple times on this board that you can read a graph, but you have zero idea how to INTERPRET the data. At least when it comes to economics.
I can’t read a graph or interpret the data but even I can see that JSO is rational when it comes to things like economics.
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 27897
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by BDKJMU »

JohnStOnge wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:09 pm
AZGrizFan wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:03 pm

Is there any subject that you are not a self-proclaimed expert on?
Sure. But I am an expert on data analysis, study design, etc. I actually teach courses on those things. Probably shouldn't say it because I don't like to get into what I do on line. But it is what it is. The data CLEARLY show that the vaccines are safe and very effective. The idea that it's been shown that we can't vaccinate our way out of this when we only have a 60% vaccination rate is absurd. So on and so forth.

It has really gotten to the point of being ridiculous. At this point the evidence suggesting that there's a good chance that we COULD vaccinate our way out of this IF we could just get everybody who does not have a specific contraindication vaccinated is overwhelming. But we continue to have people doing crap like SG is doing.
Apparently not. And you didn‘t say ‘fully‘
70% of US population is vaccinated.
82% of adults are vaccinated.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracke ... rate-total
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
..But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions.
User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59959
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by AZGrizFan »

kalm wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 7:13 am
AZGrizFan wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 11:23 pm

You’ve proven multiple times on this board that you can read a graph, but you have zero idea how to INTERPRET the data. At least when it comes to economics.
I can’t read a graph or interpret the data but even I can see that JSO is rational when it comes to things like economics.
:lol: :lol: :lol: OK.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image
User avatar
SeattleGriz
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 16534
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
I am a fan of: Montana
A.K.A.: PhxGriz

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by SeattleGriz »

JohnStOnge wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:09 pm
AZGrizFan wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:03 pm

Is there any subject that you are not a self-proclaimed expert on?
Sure. But I am an expert on data analysis, study design, etc. I actually teach courses on those things. Probably shouldn't say it because I don't like to get into what I do on line. But it is what it is. The data CLEARLY show that the vaccines are safe and very effective. The idea that it's been shown that we can't vaccinate our way out of this when we only have a 60% vaccination rate is absurd. So on and so forth.

It has really gotten to the point of being ridiculous. At this point the evidence suggesting that there's a good chance that we COULD vaccinate our way out of this IF we could just get everybody who does not have a specific contraindication vaccinated is overwhelming. But we continue to have people doing crap like SG is doing.
If you teach this shit, then why can't you articulate why a person can't look at overall deaths and cases to see the vaccine eventually wanes and everyone is eventually going to catch Covid in one form or another?

Let's say we vaccinate everyone in one day and they have their 14 day adjustment. Will we ever see COVID again? It's gone?

When it supposedly came from animals at a market, I'm thinking no. Not to mention they are seeing it work it's way through the deer population.

What then, when the virus comes back, our vaccine has waned? I'll tell you. Everyone has to catch it in one form or another to develop layers of lasting immunity.

Recently the Fauci of Germany, Something Drosten, said that as a Virologist, his goal was to see people vaccinated and THEN catch the disease, again, and again. His point was that we needed to catch it, in a manageable form, over and over to build a broad base of defenses not only personally, but as a community.
Last edited by SeattleGriz on Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:08 am, edited 2 times in total.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
User avatar
SeattleGriz
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 16534
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
I am a fan of: Montana
A.K.A.: PhxGriz

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by SeattleGriz »

JohnStOnge wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 7:34 pm

I don't know what you are talking about. For instance: I never said evolution was false. But, beyond that, nothing in all that stuff you posted actually contradicted anything I wrote.

Probably the most important thing among the stuff in the article I linked was the clinical trials investigator saying that Ivermectin cannot act as a protease inhibitor at concentrations that are achievable in the human body. Do you think anything you posted contradicted what he said?
You contradicted Evolution when you said the vaccine doesnt put selective pressure on the virus. You even spent a couple pages trying to prove your point, but couldn't.

I provided a REAL world example and a study to back up my point. In fairness, I said you didn't need to provide one when you said, "I'll look for one", but now looking at how don't remember, I'd like you to prove your point.

To recap:
I provided a real world example (Marek's disease) and a peer reviewed study from PLOS, of how the vaccinated are driving variants of escape.
You provided:
Only your opinion so far

So let's see your study and real world example that says the unvaccinated are driving all the variants to more dangerous variants. Are you up to the challenge or are you going to keep denying evolution?
Last edited by SeattleGriz on Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 20313
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by JohnStOnge »

SeattleGriz wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:02 am
JohnStOnge wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 7:34 pm

I don't know what you are talking about. For instance: I never said evolution was false. But, beyond that, nothing in all that stuff you posted actually contradicted anything I wrote.

Probably the most important thing among the stuff in the article I linked was the clinical trials investigator saying that Ivermectin cannot act as a protease inhibitor at concentrations that are achievable in the human body. Do you think anything you posted contradicted what he said?
You contradicted Evolution when you said the vaccine doesnt put selective pressure on the virus. You even spent a couple pages trying to prove your point, but couldn't.

I provided a REAL world example and a study to back up my point. In fairness, I said you didn't need to provide one when you said, "I'll look for one", but now looking at how you're Mr Bigshot in the science world, I would like you to school me on the subject.

To recap:
I provided a real world example and a peer reviewed study of how the vaccinated are driving variants of escape.
You provided:
Only your opinion

So let's see your study and real world example that says the unvaccinated are driving all the variants to more dangerous variants. Are you up to the challenge?
My recollection is that I provided an article by a scientist saying that the paradigm you were going by was something that came into vogue in something like the 17th or 18th century and is no longer in vogue.

I just did a quick Google to try to find the specific article again and didn't immediately see it but I found one that I think is by the same guy. It is at https://www.science.org/content/blog-po ... e-variants . There's a lot in it. But I think the following language kind of captures the argument against the idea that vaccines, on balance, will worsen the situation with respect to evolution of new and potentially more dangerous variants:
The more chances you give the coronavirus to reproduce, the more mutations it will explore. Its proofreading system for reproduction is pretty good but not perfect, and that's where the mutations come from. It's a numbers game all the way. The virus is not thinking about how to evade vaccine-induced immunity; it's throwing stuff randomly against every available wall in every available direction, and whatever sticks gets a chance to go on throwing some more. Remember, an unvaccinated person is still mounting an antibody defense against the virus - they're just having to do it from scratch, rather than having a pre-primed leg up like someone who's been vaccinated. The longer these infections go on inside human bodies, the more bets the virus gets to put down on the table. The good news is that so far, there is not much evidence that the virus is doing much evasion inside a given person during the course of normal infection.

So one key way to cut down on the odds of a nasty mutant popping up is to just keep the virus from reproducing so much. Cut down on the number of people it infects. When it does infect people, cut down on the amount of time it spends reproducing inside the body. These countermeasures are exactly what a mass vaccination program does. Fewer people get infected in the first place, and when they do get infected, their disease course tends in the great majority of cases to be shorter and milder. A nasty variant is almost certainly going to come up by accident, so let's not have so many accidents going on constantly around the clock, around the world.
I'll see if I can find the other article where the same guy (I think) wrote that the outlook you have adopted is something that was in vogue during the 17th or 18th century or something like that but has fallen out of favor. Maybe it was the 19th century.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
User avatar
SeattleGriz
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 16534
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
I am a fan of: Montana
A.K.A.: PhxGriz

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by SeattleGriz »

JohnStOnge wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:16 am
SeattleGriz wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:02 am

You contradicted Evolution when you said the vaccine doesnt put selective pressure on the virus. You even spent a couple pages trying to prove your point, but couldn't.

I provided a REAL world example and a study to back up my point. In fairness, I said you didn't need to provide one when you said, "I'll look for one", but now looking at how you're Mr Bigshot in the science world, I would like you to school me on the subject.

To recap:
I provided a real world example and a peer reviewed study of how the vaccinated are driving variants of escape.
You provided:
Only your opinion

So let's see your study and real world example that says the unvaccinated are driving all the variants to more dangerous variants. Are you up to the challenge?
My recollection is that I provided an article by a scientist saying that the paradigm you were going by was something that came into vogue in something like the 17th or 18th century and is no longer in vogue.

I just did a quick Google to try to find the specific article again and didn't immediately see it but I found one that I think is by the same guy. It is at https://www.science.org/content/blog-po ... e-variants . There's a lot in it. But I think the following language kind of captures the argument against the idea that vaccines, on balance, will worsen the situation with respect to evolution of new and potentially more dangerous variants:
The more chances you give the coronavirus to reproduce, the more mutations it will explore. Its proofreading system for reproduction is pretty good but not perfect, and that's where the mutations come from. It's a numbers game all the way. The virus is not thinking about how to evade vaccine-induced immunity; it's throwing stuff randomly against every available wall in every available direction, and whatever sticks gets a chance to go on throwing some more. Remember, an unvaccinated person is still mounting an antibody defense against the virus - they're just having to do it from scratch, rather than having a pre-primed leg up like someone who's been vaccinated. The longer these infections go on inside human bodies, the more bets the virus gets to put down on the table. The good news is that so far, there is not much evidence that the virus is doing much evasion inside a given person during the course of normal infection.

So one key way to cut down on the odds of a nasty mutant popping up is to just keep the virus from reproducing so much. Cut down on the number of people it infects. When it does infect people, cut down on the amount of time it spends reproducing inside the body. These countermeasures are exactly what a mass vaccination program does. Fewer people get infected in the first place, and when they do get infected, their disease course tends in the great majority of cases to be shorter and milder. A nasty variant is almost certainly going to come up by accident, so let's not have so many accidents going on constantly around the clock, around the world.
I'll see if I can find the other article where the same guy (I think) wrote that the outlook you have adopted is something that was in vogue during the 17th or 18th century or something like that but has fallen out of favor. Maybe it was the 19th century.
Dude. Marek's disease is a real problem in chickens. They have to cull herds when an outbreak happens. It's all documented and accepted. You can't Google your way out of this.

The peer reviewed study in PLOS shows it's real. I don't think we can put a mathematical formula and predict how or how bad it will happen, but it happens.

How the fuck are people in the 17th century going to know about vaccination and the selective pressure it puts on variants? Darwin didn't publish his book until 1859.

You remind me of that meme that shows the guy at his computer and he yells to his wife, "Honey! In two hours I've debunked the experts".
Last edited by SeattleGriz on Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:03 am, edited 3 times in total.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 20313
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by JohnStOnge »

SeattleGriz wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:02 am
JohnStOnge wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 7:34 pm

I don't know what you are talking about. For instance: I never said evolution was false. But, beyond that, nothing in all that stuff you posted actually contradicted anything I wrote.

Probably the most important thing among the stuff in the article I linked was the clinical trials investigator saying that Ivermectin cannot act as a protease inhibitor at concentrations that are achievable in the human body. Do you think anything you posted contradicted what he said?
You contradicted Evolution when you said the vaccine doesnt put selective pressure on the virus. You even spent a couple pages trying to prove your point, but couldn't.

I provided a REAL world example and a study to back up my point. In fairness, I said you didn't need to provide one when you said, "I'll look for one", but now looking at how don't remember, I'd like you to prove your point.

To recap:
I provided a real world example (Marek's disease) and a peer reviewed study from PLOS, of how the vaccinated are driving variants of escape.
You provided:
Only your opinion so far

So let's see your study and real world example that says the unvaccinated are driving all the variants to more dangerous variants. Are you up to the challenge or are you going to keep denying evolution?
Here's more of the argument at https://www.science.org/content/blog-po ... e-variants:
But back to the earlier discussion: what if the vaccines are still putting direct pressure on the virus? Aren't we selecting for exactly the things we fear the most? The answer to that is counterintuitive. Take a look, for example, at this preprint from July. The authors looked over 1.8 million coronavirus genomes from infections around the world, and compared that background data set to specific breakthrough infection sequences in vaccinated patients. What they find is that the genomic sequences from the breakthrough infection patients are significantly less diverse than what's seen in the wild. The authors believe that this shows that "COVID-19 vaccines are fundamentally restricting the evolutionary and antigenic escape pathways accessible to SARS-CoV-2", and that's the flip side of the above argument. You are putting pressure on the virus to escape the immune attack, but at the same time you are cutting sharply back on the pathways it can use to get there.
I am just adopting what is, as far as I can tell, the consensus opinion among scientists in the field. As far as I can tell, they do not believe the risk you are concerned about is increased by vaccination campaigns. And their arguments for assuming the position they appear to have assumed seem reasonable. It's basically the idea that there is more risk created by allowing more circulation and replication than there is created by some kind of selective pressure from the vaccines. Now, I don't have a poll of scientists in the field so I suppose I could be wrong. But that's what it looks like to me.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59305
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by kalm »

SeattleGriz wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:21 am
JohnStOnge wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:16 am

My recollection is that I provided an article by a scientist saying that the paradigm you were going by was something that came into vogue in something like the 17th or 18th century and is no longer in vogue.

I just did a quick Google to try to find the specific article again and didn't immediately see it but I found one that I think is by the same guy. It is at https://www.science.org/content/blog-po ... e-variants . There's a lot in it. But I think the following language kind of captures the argument against the idea that vaccines, on balance, will worsen the situation with respect to evolution of new and potentially more dangerous variants:



I'll see if I can find the other article where the same guy (I think) wrote that the outlook you have adopted is something that was in vogue during the 17th or 18th century or something like that but has fallen out of favor. Maybe it was the 19th century.
Dude. Marek's disease is a real problem in chickens. They have to cull herds when an outbreak happens. It's all documented and accepted. You can't Google your way out of this.

The peer reviewed study in PLOS shows it's real.

How the fuck are people in the 17th century going to know about vaccination and the selective pressure it puts on variants?

You remind me of that meme that shows the guy at his computer and he yells to his wife, "Honey! In two hours I've debunked the experts".
Have you tried blood letting or leaches yet?
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
SeattleGriz
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 16534
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
I am a fan of: Montana
A.K.A.: PhxGriz

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by SeattleGriz »

kalm wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:25 am
SeattleGriz wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:21 am

Dude. Marek's disease is a real problem in chickens. They have to cull herds when an outbreak happens. It's all documented and accepted. You can't Google your way out of this.

The peer reviewed study in PLOS shows it's real.

How the fuck are people in the 17th century going to know about vaccination and the selective pressure it puts on variants?

You remind me of that meme that shows the guy at his computer and he yells to his wife, "Honey! In two hours I've debunked the experts".
Have you tried blood letting or leaches yet?
:lol:

If it helps with health, I'm up for it.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
User avatar
SeattleGriz
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 16534
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
I am a fan of: Montana
A.K.A.: PhxGriz

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by SeattleGriz »

JohnStOnge wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:24 am
SeattleGriz wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:02 am

You contradicted Evolution when you said the vaccine doesnt put selective pressure on the virus. You even spent a couple pages trying to prove your point, but couldn't.

I provided a REAL world example and a study to back up my point. In fairness, I said you didn't need to provide one when you said, "I'll look for one", but now looking at how don't remember, I'd like you to prove your point.

To recap:
I provided a real world example (Marek's disease) and a peer reviewed study from PLOS, of how the vaccinated are driving variants of escape.
You provided:
Only your opinion so far

So let's see your study and real world example that says the unvaccinated are driving all the variants to more dangerous variants. Are you up to the challenge or are you going to keep denying evolution?
Here's more of the argument at https://www.science.org/content/blog-po ... e-variants:
But back to the earlier discussion: what if the vaccines are still putting direct pressure on the virus? Aren't we selecting for exactly the things we fear the most? The answer to that is counterintuitive. Take a look, for example, at this preprint from July. The authors looked over 1.8 million coronavirus genomes from infections around the world, and compared that background data set to specific breakthrough infection sequences in vaccinated patients. What they find is that the genomic sequences from the breakthrough infection patients are significantly less diverse than what's seen in the wild. The authors believe that this shows that "COVID-19 vaccines are fundamentally restricting the evolutionary and antigenic escape pathways accessible to SARS-CoV-2", and that's the flip side of the above argument. You are putting pressure on the virus to escape the immune attack, but at the same time you are cutting sharply back on the pathways it can use to get there.
I am just adopting what is, as far as I can tell, the consensus opinion among scientists in the field. As far as I can tell, they do not believe the risk you are concerned about is increased by vaccination campaigns. And their arguments for assuming the position they appear to have assumed seem reasonable. It's basically the idea that there is more risk created by allowing more circulation and replication than there is created by some kind of selective pressure from the vaccines. Now, I don't have a poll of scientists in the field so I suppose I could be wrong. But that's what it looks like to me.
The Title of your article:
Vaccines Will Not Produce Worse Variants

The author's summary at the end of the article:
There is, then, every reason at both the population and individual level to expect that vaccination will strongly decrease the chances of a more dangerous coronavirus strain taking hold.

So which is it? The vaccines won't produce worse variants or they will reduce the chances?

His article was filled with many "ifs" and "maybe's", but it was factually accurate. This guy can't quantify, but is building his case and his case makes sense. I've still provided a real world example and peer reviewed study showing it happens.

Show me your study proving it is only the unvaccinated driving the variants and more specifically, the ones that mutate at the S Protein.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 20313
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by JohnStOnge »

SeattleGriz wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:57 am
JohnStOnge wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:24 am

Here's more of the argument at https://www.science.org/content/blog-po ... e-variants:



I am just adopting what is, as far as I can tell, the consensus opinion among scientists in the field. As far as I can tell, they do not believe the risk you are concerned about is increased by vaccination campaigns. And their arguments for assuming the position they appear to have assumed seem reasonable. It's basically the idea that there is more risk created by allowing more circulation and replication than there is created by some kind of selective pressure from the vaccines. Now, I don't have a poll of scientists in the field so I suppose I could be wrong. But that's what it looks like to me.
The Title of your article:
Vaccines Will Not Produce Worse Variants

The author's summary at the end of the article:
There is, then, every reason at both the population and individual level to expect that vaccination will strongly decrease the chances of a more dangerous coronavirus strain taking hold.

So which is it? The vaccines won't produce worse variants or they will reduce the chances?
I don't see the two statements as contradictory. One can say that vaccines will not produce worse variants and say at the same time that they will decrease the chances of worse variants arising. Another way to say it might be something like, "Vaccines won't cause more dangerous variants to arise but will, instead, actually decrease the chances that more dangerous variants will develop.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59959
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by AZGrizFan »

JohnStOnge wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:08 am
SeattleGriz wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:57 am

The Title of your article:
Vaccines Will Not Produce Worse Variants

The author's summary at the end of the article:
There is, then, every reason at both the population and individual level to expect that vaccination will strongly decrease the chances of a more dangerous coronavirus strain taking hold.

So which is it? The vaccines won't produce worse variants or they will reduce the chances?
I don't see the two statements as contradictory. One can say that vaccines will not produce worse variants and say at the same time that they will decrease the chances of worse variants arising. Another way to say it might be something like, "Vaccines won't cause more dangerous variants to arise but will, instead, actually decrease the chances that more dangerous variants will develop.
You don’t see the contradiction in one statement being declaratory and one being a gigantic waffling?
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 20313
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by JohnStOnge »

SeattleGriz wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:57 am
Show me your study proving it is only the unvaccinated driving the variants and more specifically, the ones that mutate at the S Protein.
I have absolutely no recollection of you providing a link to a study and me saying I would look for one. But it's not unusual for me to forget things. Provide the link to the study you cited again. I probably am not going to try to get into stuff about mutating proteins. I focus on stuff that is in my wheelhouse. That's stuff like the statistical study design and attention to what the authors are actually saying.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 20313
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by JohnStOnge »

In the interest of balance, I am linking an article that argues for the "vaccines might cause more dangerous pathogens to evolve" position:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-vacc ... -20180510/

It is dated 2018 so it pre-dates the current situation.

I don't know if mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna are "leaky" vaccines as such are described in the article. They appear to be pretty effective in reducing the rate of infection.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
User avatar
UNI88
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 19955
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
I am a fan of: UNI
Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by UNI88 »

kalm wrote:
AZGrizFan wrote: Wed Nov 24, 2021 11:23 pm You’ve proven multiple times on this board that you can read a graph, but you have zero idea how to INTERPRET the data. At least when it comes to economics.
I can’t read a graph or interpret the data but even I can see that JSO is rational when it comes to things like economics.
I studied economics, JSO can't tell the difference between his asshole and a hole in the ground when it comes to economics (and other social sciences)

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59305
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by kalm »

UNI88 wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:27 am
kalm wrote:
I can’t read a graph or interpret the data but even I can see that JSO is rational when it comes to things like economics.
I studied economics, JSO can't tell the difference between his asshole and a hole in the ground when it comes to economics (and other social sciences)

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk
Well neither can many who teach and study economics. :poke:
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
UNI88
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 19955
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
I am a fan of: UNI
Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by UNI88 »

kalm wrote:
UNI88 wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:27 am I studied economics, JSO can't tell the difference between his asshole and a hole in the ground when it comes to economics (and other social sciences)

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk
Well neither can many who teach and study economics. :poke:
Yep, all those dopes who think socialism will work the next time are a good example of that. ;)

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 20313
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by JohnStOnge »

UNI88 wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:27 am
kalm wrote:
I can’t read a graph or interpret the data but even I can see that JSO is rational when it comes to things like economics.
I studied economics, JSO can't tell the difference between his asshole and a hole in the ground when it comes to economics (and other social sciences)

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk
There are principles of statistics that transcend differences between fields. They apply to all.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
User avatar
SeattleGriz
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 16534
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
I am a fan of: Montana
A.K.A.: PhxGriz

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by SeattleGriz »

JohnStOnge wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:17 am In the interest of balance, I am linking an article that argues for the "vaccines might cause more dangerous pathogens to evolve" position:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-vacc ... -20180510/

It is dated 2018 so it pre-dates the current situation.

I don't know if mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna are "leaky" vaccines as such are described in the article. They appear to be pretty effective in reducing the rate of infection.
They are. Leaky simply means you can still catch the disease after vaccinated and spread it. Sterilizing means you get vaccinated and it prevents you from becoming sick and subsequently spreading.

To change the subject a little, your statement that you don't know if the vaccines are leaky, further proves you are wading into a topic you don't fully understand. How can you refute my statement that you cannot vaccinate your way out of a pandemic with a leaky vaccine, if you don't even know our current vaccines are leaky or that we will all eventually have to catch some version of Covid to truly start building a layered protection and push it further to being less harmful to people.
Last edited by SeattleGriz on Thu Nov 25, 2021 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 20313
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by JohnStOnge »

SeattleGriz wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 12:35 pm
JohnStOnge wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:17 am In the interest of balance, I am linking an article that argues for the "vaccines might cause more dangerous pathogens to evolve" position:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-vacc ... -20180510/

It is dated 2018 so it pre-dates the current situation.

I don't know if mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna are "leaky" vaccines as such are described in the article. They appear to be pretty effective in reducing the rate of infection.
They are. Leaky simply means you can still catch the disease after vaccinated. Sterilizing means you get vaccinated and it prevents you from becoming sick and subsequently spreading it to others.
That article I linked describes "leaky" vaccines this way:
To conquer these diseases, some researchers have been developing immunizations that prevent disease without actually preventing infections — what are called “leaky” vaccines.
The COVID-19 vaccines are not vaccines that prevent disease without preventing infections. All indications are that they prevent more than half of the infections that otherwise would have occurred in those vaccinated (and that's being conservative).

If the standard is that a vaccine must be 100% effective in preventing an infection or it is a "leaky" vaccine, the measles vaccine is a "leaky" vaccine. So was the smallpox vaccine that eliminated that disease. Same with polio vaccines.
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
User avatar
SeattleGriz
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 16534
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
I am a fan of: Montana
A.K.A.: PhxGriz

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by SeattleGriz »

JohnStOnge wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 12:58 pm
SeattleGriz wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 12:35 pm

They are. Leaky simply means you can still catch the disease after vaccinated. Sterilizing means you get vaccinated and it prevents you from becoming sick and subsequently spreading it to others.
That article I linked describes "leaky" vaccines this way:
To conquer these diseases, some researchers have been developing immunizations that prevent disease without actually preventing infections — what are called “leaky” vaccines.
The COVID-19 vaccines are not vaccines that prevent disease without preventing infections. All indications are that they prevent more than half of the infections that otherwise would have occurred in those vaccinated (and that's being conservative).

If the standard is that a vaccine must be 100% effective in preventing an infection or it is a "leaky" vaccine, the measles vaccine is a "leaky" vaccine. So was the smallpox vaccine that eliminated that disease. Same with polio vaccines.
Oh my Lord dude. You really need to quite mining the internet to try and find anything that will help your cause. You just got done saying you didn't know if our vaccines are leaky. I gave you a generalized definition and you try to come back and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about? :lol:

How about you just stick to real definitions and facts instead of finding some random guy on the internet and massaging their interpretation to fit your idea of truth?

How can you even think the vaccines aren't leaky with this profile on effectiveness?

Image

At the bottom is a link to the study (842k matched cohort pairs) and the picture can be found on slide 33. Notice the bolded part below in the quote box, "from day 211 and onwards no effectiveness could be detected". To me, it even looks to show negative effectiveness around day 240, or am I not supposed to make that assumption from the graph? That sure looks like it's telling a person that after you get no benefit, it actually dips into catching COVID at a higher rate than the unvaccinated.
Findings: Vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 against infection waned progressively from 92% (95% CI, 92-93, P<0·001) at day 15-30 to 47% (95% CI, 39-55, P<0·001) at day 121-180, and from day 211 and onwards no effectiveness could be detected (23%; 95% CI, -2-41, P=0·07). The effectiveness waned slightly slower for mRNA-1273, being estimated to 59% (95% CI, 18-79) from day 181 and onwards. In contrast, effectiveness of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 was generally lower and waned faster, with no effectiveness detected from day 121 and onwards (-19%, 95% CI, -97-28), whereas effectiveness from heterologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 / mRNA was maintained from 121 days and onwards (66%; 95% CI, 41-80). Overall, vaccine effectiveness was lower and waned faster among men and older individuals. For the outcome severe Covid-19, effectiveness waned from 89% (95% CI, 82-93, P<0·001) at day 15-30 to 42% (95% CI, -35-75, P=0·21) from day 181 and onwards, with sensitivity analyses showing notable waning among men, older frail individuals, and individuals with comorbidities.
A sterilizing vaccine wouldn't have that profile. It wouldn't wane like the COVID vaccines. Why can't you simply understand the vaccine is giving people decent protection for 6 months, helping to keep them out of the hospital and dying, but unfortunately won't prevent you forever from getting sick and spreading a respiratory illness?

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=3949410
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 20313
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by JohnStOnge »

SeattleGriz wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 12:35 pm
JohnStOnge wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:17 am In the interest of balance, I am linking an article that argues for the "vaccines might cause more dangerous pathogens to evolve" position:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-vacc ... -20180510/

It is dated 2018 so it pre-dates the current situation.

I don't know if mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna are "leaky" vaccines as such are described in the article. They appear to be pretty effective in reducing the rate of infection.
They are. Leaky simply means you can still catch the disease after vaccinated and spread it. Sterilizing means you get vaccinated and it prevents you from becoming sick and subsequently spreading.

To change the subject a little, your statement that you don't know if the vaccines are leaky, further proves you are wading into a topic you don't fully understand. How can you refute my statement that you cannot vaccinate your way out of a pandemic with a leaky vaccine, if you don't even know our current vaccines are leaky or that we will all eventually have to catch some version of Covid to truly start building a layered protection and push it further to being less harmful to people.
The problem with drawing a hard line between what is "leaky" and what is not by the way you define it is that few, if any vaccines are 100% effective in preventing infection (I don't think any are but I'm leaving open the possibility that I will find reference to one). If you get the measles vaccine, for instance, there is still a chance that you can get and transmit measles. I'm going to use some language in an article at https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... pandemic1/ to illustrate the problem with drawing a hard line.

Here is one quote from near the beginning of the article:
Although many vaccines widely used today (against measles, for example) produce very effective sterilizing immunity...
Now, understand again the the measles vaccine is not 100% effective. It is about 97% effective; which is great. But it is not a 100% guarantee that you won't become infected with measles and be capable of transmitting it to others. In that regard, check out this language from near the end of the same article:
But ample precedent points to vaccines driving successful containment of infectious diseases even when they do not provide perfectly sterilizing immunity. “Measles, diphtheria, pertussis, polio, hepatitis B—these are all epidemic-prone diseases,” Crowcroft says. “They show that we don’t need 100 percent effectiveness at reducing transmission, or 100 percent coverage or 100 percent effectiveness against disease to triumph over infectious diseases.”
That is saying that the measles vaccine does not provide "...perfectly sterilizing immunity." Does that make the measles vaccine a "leaky" vaccine? Or is it still considered "...very effective sterilizing immunity..." as stated earlier in the article?

As I have looked into this I have seen vaccines referenced as providing "sterilizing immunity." But, so far, none of them are indicated as being 100% effective in preventing infection. So far the HPV vaccine is the closest to that. I saw the smallpox vaccine referenced as providing sterilizing immunity. But I also saw that the smallpox vaccine is 95% effective. So, back when smallpox was still a problem, it was possible to get the smallpox vaccine and still be infected with smallpox.

So it is clearly the case that people will classify vaccines as providing sterilizing immunity when they are not 100% effective in preventing infection. So where is the line drawn for calling a vaccine "leaky?" 90% effective in preventing infection? 80%?

The Public Health England reports you look at a lot say that the Pfizer vaccine is 80% effective in preventing infection. Is that "leaky?"
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
User avatar
JohnStOnge
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
Posts: 20313
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:47 pm
I am a fan of: McNeese State
A.K.A.: JohnStOnge

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by JohnStOnge »

SeattleGriz wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:08 pm
JohnStOnge wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 12:58 pm

That article I linked describes "leaky" vaccines this way:



The COVID-19 vaccines are not vaccines that prevent disease without preventing infections. All indications are that they prevent more than half of the infections that otherwise would have occurred in those vaccinated (and that's being conservative).

If the standard is that a vaccine must be 100% effective in preventing an infection or it is a "leaky" vaccine, the measles vaccine is a "leaky" vaccine. So was the smallpox vaccine that eliminated that disease. Same with polio vaccines.
Oh my Lord dude. You really need to quite mining the internet to try and find anything that will help your cause. You just got done saying you didn't know if our vaccines are leaky. I gave you a generalized definition and you try to come back and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about? :lol:

How about you just stick to real definitions and facts instead of finding some random guy on the internet and massaging their interpretation to fit your idea of truth?

How can you even think the vaccines aren't leaky with this profile on effectiveness?

Image

At the bottom is a link to the study (842k matched cohort pairs) and the picture can be found on slide 33. Notice the bolded part below in the quote box, "from day 211 and onwards no effectiveness could be detected". To me, it even looks to show negative effectiveness around day 240, or am I not supposed to make that assumption from the graph? That sure looks like it's telling a person that after you get no benefit, it actually dips into catching COVID at a higher rate than the unvaccinated.
Findings: Vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 against infection waned progressively from 92% (95% CI, 92-93, P<0·001) at day 15-30 to 47% (95% CI, 39-55, P<0·001) at day 121-180, and from day 211 and onwards no effectiveness could be detected (23%; 95% CI, -2-41, P=0·07). The effectiveness waned slightly slower for mRNA-1273, being estimated to 59% (95% CI, 18-79) from day 181 and onwards. In contrast, effectiveness of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 was generally lower and waned faster, with no effectiveness detected from day 121 and onwards (-19%, 95% CI, -97-28), whereas effectiveness from heterologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 / mRNA was maintained from 121 days and onwards (66%; 95% CI, 41-80). Overall, vaccine effectiveness was lower and waned faster among men and older individuals. For the outcome severe Covid-19, effectiveness waned from 89% (95% CI, 82-93, P<0·001) at day 15-30 to 42% (95% CI, -35-75, P=0·21) from day 181 and onwards, with sensitivity analyses showing notable waning among men, older frail individuals, and individuals with comorbidities.
A sterilizing vaccine wouldn't have that profile. It wouldn't wane like the COVID vaccines. Why can't you simply understand the vaccine is giving people decent protection for 6 months, helping to keep them out of the hospital and dying, but unfortunately won't prevent you forever from getting sick and spreading a respiratory illness?

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=3949410
The point of the paper, should it get through peer review, is that we should have booster shots. I have no reason to believe it won't get through peer review as it is consistent with the one at https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanc ... 8/fulltext.

The question, again, is this: How effective does a vaccine have to be before it is not "leaky?" The COVID-19 vaccines approved for use in the United States are clearly preventing a large number of infections. All indications are that they can significantly reduce your odds of getting sick and spreading respiratory illness "forever" if you get booster shots. If the standard is that a vaccine has to prevent infections entirely...100% effectiveness...I don't think there is such a thing as a vaccine that is not "leaky."
Well, I believe that I must tell the truth
And say things as they really are
But if I told the truth and nothing but the truth
Could I ever be a star?

Deep Purple: No One Came
Image
Post Reply