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 Apr 27, 2022 4:46 pm
GannonFan wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 1:42 pm

We knew by about late April of 2020 (so about 1-2 months after this all started) that we had to 1) isolate old people (i.e. over 60) as best as possible since they were far and away the most at risk 2) wear masks in indoor settings and 3) not gather indoors in huge numbers (shoulder to shoulder) for large periods of time. That's it, that's all we had to do to handle COVID.
Not true. There is something to the part about understanding that outdoor gatherings were not as much of a risk. But that came more than 1 or 2 months after this started. The idea of trying to isolate people over 60 has been debunked man times. It smacks of the debunked "Great Barrington Declaration" thing that has also been thoroughly debunked.
Without a doubt, the public health response to this pandemic was a disaster,


The disaster was political interference with public health response. The public health response will always be to err on the side of public health. And that's how it should be. So, for instance, if you don't know that being outdoors lower the risk you assume it does not. That's the way it is supposed to work.

The disaster, again, is that it became political. If this thing had been just left to public health agencies like CDC, FDA, and various State public health agencies without having politicians jump in it would've gone much better.
If this had been left to public health agencies we’d STILL be in lockdown and wearing masks, FFS. Those motherfuckers are more power hungry than politicians.
"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 »

Victory lap. Brought the exact same topic up back on October 15th. Damn I'm good and still deliverin' :nod:

Directly below is my Oct 15th post and below that, is my post from the previous page with the link to the study that had NIH and Moderna scientists in the study.
SeattleGriz wrote: Fri Oct 15, 2021 11:19 pm Oof. New UK data is out and it's even worse on breakthrough cases.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... eek-41.pdf

While it is true the vaccine currently reduces hospitalizations and deaths, I have questions about slide 21. This slide shows the seroprevalence in blood donors. Put another way, it shows the type of antibodies a person has against COVID.

On this particular slide, you have a showing of how many people have S protein antibodies, which the vaccine gives you in spades, and then you have the Nucleocapsid antibodies. The nucleocapsid is an inner "shell" that encases the genetic information,. (Please Google for a better description).

My point, is that if you had a breakthrough case, you should see nucleocapsid antibodies developed...right? Didn't you defeat the whole thing?

If you caught COVID, you should show N antibodies. Then why has the slope barely moved on N antibodies (red plots), especially in light of all the breakthrough cases? Has the vaccine "trained" the body to only worry about the S protein?

That would mean incomplete protection. What happens if the S protein mutates enough the S antibodies don't work anymore? The nucleocapsid is a very conserved portion of the virus, meaning it doesn't mutate much.
SeattleGriz wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 4:11 pm Why do some people catch covid again and again? New study talks about an item I brought up a LONG time ago looking at Public Health England data, but in this study, they use Moderna clinical trial data.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 22271936v1

Essentially the vaccines imprinted too hard on the immune system and they only seroconvert for S-Protein. The issue with that, is that we all know how much the S protein mutates and thus evades immunity. If you remember, I said I would rather have N-protein antibodies because the Nucleocapsid doesn't mutate very much, for it it did, the virus would mutate it's way out of existence. Those nucleocapsid genetic sequences are what is known as conserved.

By analyzing the Moderna trial data, they show that only 40% of the vaccinated seroconverted to N-protein antibodies when they caught Covid, while the unvaccinated seroconverted 93% of the time. Now realize the immune system is a little more complex that I am presenting, but when that is all we hear about is antibodies, don't you think this is important and we should have heard of this result. The FDA and Moderna knew this before granting the EUA.

Image
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 Apr 27, 2022 4:46 pm
GannonFan wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 1:42 pm

We knew by about late April of 2020 (so about 1-2 months after this all started) that we had to 1) isolate old people (i.e. over 60) as best as possible since they were far and away the most at risk 2) wear masks in indoor settings and 3) not gather indoors in huge numbers (shoulder to shoulder) for large periods of time. That's it, that's all we had to do to handle COVID.
Not true. There is something to the part about understanding that outdoor gatherings were not as much of a risk. But that came more than 1 or 2 months after this started. The idea of trying to isolate people over 60 has been debunked man times. It smacks of the debunked "Great Barrington Declaration" thing that has also been thoroughly debunked.
Without a doubt, the public health response to this pandemic was a disaster,


The disaster was political interference with public health response. The public health response will always be to err on the side of public health. And that's how it should be. So, for instance, if you don't know that being outdoors lower the risk you assume it does not. That's the way it is supposed to work.

The disaster, again, is that it became political. If this thing had been just left to public health agencies like CDC, FDA, and various State public health agencies without having politicians jump in it would've gone much better.
Link to your debunking please. On a general level, how is it that isolating everyone indoors works, but then magically stops working when you only try to isolate the highest risk group out of the whole? You do realize that increasing the amount of people in a confined space (indoors) increases the rate of secondary attacks?

Also love your "listen to the experts", but then dismiss those same experts when you don't agree with them.
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: Tue Apr 26, 2022 3:59 pm Posting a Web MD article on a fairly recently published controlled experiment on the effect of Ivermectin:

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/2022033 ... tudy-finds

Here is the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869

Here is a quote from the Web MD article that I think well-summarizes the situation:
“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind,” Paul Sax, MD, an infectious disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital who has been watching the data on the drug throughout the pandemic, told the newspaper.

“But at some point, it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.
You didn't even notice the patient attrition bias of the placebo group? How does the placebo group start with 679 people and only 288 remain? The study left out people who failed to adhere to the placebo treatment.

624 of the 679 stayed in the ivermectin group.

You don't leave a study (protocol) because you're feeling well. Why didn't the Ivermectin group have almost 400 leave their arm of the study? Suppose they felt better and adhered to protocol?

You keep saying to trust the experts and that is what is being said about this study. It's biased and actually a terrible study.

Image
Last edited by SeattleGriz on Thu Apr 28, 2022 5:42 pm, edited 2 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: Wed Apr 27, 2022 4:11 pm Why do some people catch covid again and again? New study talks about an item I brought up a LONG time ago looking at Public Health England data, but in this study, they use Moderna clinical trial data.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 22271936v1

Essentially the vaccines imprinted too hard on the immune system and they only seroconvert for S-Protein. The issue with that, is that we all know how much the S protein mutates and thus evades immunity. If you remember, I said I would rather have N-protein antibodies because the Nucleocapsid doesn't mutate very much, for it it did, the virus would mutate it's way out of existence. Those nucleocapsid genetic sequences are what is known as conserved.

By analyzing the Moderna trial data, they show that only 40% of the vaccinated seroconverted to N-protein antibodies when they caught Covid, while the unvaccinated seroconverted 93% of the time. Now realize the immune system is a little more complex that I am presenting, but when that is all we hear about is antibodies, don't you think this is important and we should have heard of this result. The FDA and Moderna knew this before granting the EUA.

Image
It is not a "we all know" situation. Here are some bottom lines from the study you linked:
Conclusions and Relevance As a marker of recent infection, anti-N Abs may have lower sensitivity in mRNA-1273-vaccinated persons who become infected. Vaccination status should be considered when interpreting seroprevalence and seropositivity data based solely on anti-N Ab testing
Meaning Conclusions about the prevalence and incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in vaccinated persons based on anti-nucleocapsid antibody assays need to be weighed in the context of these results.
Once again, you are interpreting the results of a study to mean things not remotely suggested by what the authors of the study said about it.
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 Apr 28, 2022 5:04 pm
JohnStOnge wrote: Tue Apr 26, 2022 3:59 pm Posting a Web MD article on a fairly recently published controlled experiment on the effect of Ivermectin:

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/2022033 ... tudy-finds

Here is the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869

Here is a quote from the Web MD article that I think well-summarizes the situation:

You didn't even notice the patient attrition bias of the placebo group? How does the placebo group start with 679 people and only 288 remain?

624 of the 679 stayed in the ivermectin group.

Most likely, the placebo group got so sick they realized they needed other treatment. You don't leave a study (protocol) because you're feeling well. Why didn't the Ivermectin group have almost 400 leave their arm of the study? Suppose they felt better?

You keep saying to trust the experts and that is what is being said about this study. It's biased and actually a terrible study.

Image
Write a letter expressing your objections to the New England Journal of Medicine.
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 Apr 28, 2022 5:37 pm
SeattleGriz wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 4:11 pm Why do some people catch covid again and again? New study talks about an item I brought up a LONG time ago looking at Public Health England data, but in this study, they use Moderna clinical trial data.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 22271936v1

Essentially the vaccines imprinted too hard on the immune system and they only seroconvert for S-Protein. The issue with that, is that we all know how much the S protein mutates and thus evades immunity. If you remember, I said I would rather have N-protein antibodies because the Nucleocapsid doesn't mutate very much, for it it did, the virus would mutate it's way out of existence. Those nucleocapsid genetic sequences are what is known as conserved.

By analyzing the Moderna trial data, they show that only 40% of the vaccinated seroconverted to N-protein antibodies when they caught Covid, while the unvaccinated seroconverted 93% of the time. Now realize the immune system is a little more complex that I am presenting, but when that is all we hear about is antibodies, don't you think this is important and we should have heard of this result. The FDA and Moderna knew this before granting the EUA.

Image
It is not a "we all know" situation. Here are some bottom lines from the study you linked:
Conclusions and Relevance As a marker of recent infection, anti-N Abs may have lower sensitivity in mRNA-1273-vaccinated persons who become infected. Vaccination status should be considered when interpreting seroprevalence and seropositivity data based solely on anti-N Ab testing
Meaning Conclusions about the prevalence and incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in vaccinated persons based on anti-nucleocapsid antibody assays need to be weighed in the context of these results.
Once again, you are interpreting the results of a study to mean things not remotely suggested by what the authors of the study said about it.
:rofl: You're quoting the fact they were testing an assay, but skip over the results that 60% of those vaccinated and then infected did not develop N antibodies. Don't be angry you can't see the forest through the trees and can only parrot what you are told.
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 Apr 28, 2022 5:42 pm
SeattleGriz wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 5:04 pm

You didn't even notice the patient attrition bias of the placebo group? How does the placebo group start with 679 people and only 288 remain?

624 of the 679 stayed in the ivermectin group.

Most likely, the placebo group got so sick they realized they needed other treatment. You don't leave a study (protocol) because you're feeling well. Why didn't the Ivermectin group have almost 400 leave their arm of the study? Suppose they felt better?

You keep saying to trust the experts and that is what is being said about this study. It's biased and actually a terrible study.

Image
Write a letter expressing your objections to the New England Journal of Medicine.
Well I figured a study guy like you would be able to actually interpret a study, but apparently not.
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 Apr 28, 2022 5:04 pm
JohnStOnge wrote: Tue Apr 26, 2022 3:59 pm Posting a Web MD article on a fairly recently published controlled experiment on the effect of Ivermectin:

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/2022033 ... tudy-finds

Here is the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869

Here is a quote from the Web MD article that I think well-summarizes the situation:

You didn't even notice the patient attrition bias of the placebo group? How does the placebo group start with 679 people and only 288 remain? The study left out people who failed to adhere to the placebo treatment.

624 of the 679 stayed in the ivermectin group.

You don't leave a study (protocol) because you're feeling well. Why didn't the Ivermectin group have almost 400 leave their arm of the study? Suppose they felt better and adhered to protocol?

You keep saying to trust the experts and that is what is being said about this study. It's biased and actually a terrible study.

Image
Ok. I just read the notes and it looks like the reason for what you're talking about is this:
Only the results in the 3-day ivermectin group as compared with the concurrent placebo group are reported in this article. Participants in the placebo group received placebo for 1, 3, 10, or 14 days, comparable to the active-treatment groups in the trial. Although all the participants who had been assigned to receive any placebo were included in the intention-to-treat population, only those in the 3-day placebo groups were included in the per-protocol population.
In other words, they compared apples to apples. 3 days to 3 days. It wasn't something like what you hypothesized about where people left the study protocol because they weren't feeling well.
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 »

Now for why I came here. I hate to see this because poor Fauci is not a politician and for some reason people on the nut job political right have found it necessary to try to discredit him. But check out what he says in the article at https://www.npr.org/2022/04/27/10949976 ... e-covid-19:
But after Fauci's comments gained wide attention, he told NPR on Wednesday that he wanted to clarify what he called "some maybe understandable misinterpretation" of his remarks.

"What I'm referring to is that we are no longer in the acute fulminant accelerated phase of the outbreak," he said, referring to the terrible heights the pandemic previously reached in the U.S.

"We're in a somewhat of a transitional phase where the cases' numbers have decelerated — and hopefully we're getting to a phase of somewhat better control, where we can begin to start to resuming more easily normal activities," Fauci added.

"The United States and the entire world is still experiencing a pandemic, but there are different phases of the pandemic," he said. "And what we are in right now is somewhat of a transitional phase, out of the accelerated component into hopefully a more controlled component."
Underline added for emphasis.

And here is the thing: If we are in the endemic phase, that is bad. "Endemic" doesn't mean things are good. It just means they have stabilized. Malaria is endemic to some parts of the world. And it's not a good situation. If things have stabilized in the United States with COVID-19, we are talking about expecting around 100,000 deaths per year from COVID-19 as a matter of course. I say that because, over the past week, we have averaged 300 deaths per day. 300 deaths per day is 109,500 deaths per year.

To put that into perspective, the 1969 Hong Kong flu pandemic is estimated to have resulted in 100,000 deaths. No, it's not nearly as bad as it has been at its worst during this COVID-19 thing. But it is still bad.
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 »

BTW there are still highly significant correlations (>99% confidence) such that States with higher fully vaccinated rates and booster rates tend to have lower cumulative case and death rates. I just did a quick analysis using the Worldometer stats and the vaccine rates available at https://usafacts.org/visualizations/cov ... er-states/.

For fun I controlled for % population >65 years old (available at https://www.prb.org/resources/which-us- ... he-oldest/. Turns out the vaccination rate for a state (fully vaccinated or boosted) is more important to predicting case and/or death rate than percent population > 65 is.

One of the most striking sets of things is that the correlation between percent population >65 and death rate is only 0.084. Not "significant." But the correlation between percent population fully vaccinated and death rate is -0.524 and that between percent population boosted and death rate is -0.543. Both significant at >99.99% confidence.

When I put both Fully Vaccinated rate and % older than 65 into a model to predict death rate Fully vaccinated is significant at >99.99% confidence while % > 65 is borderline at 90% confidence.

When I put Boosted and % older than 65 in a model the situation gets better for % older than 65. It's significant at 94.8% confidence. But Boosted is >99.99% significant and even more significant (based on the t value) than Fully Vaccinated was in the other model.

The bottom line is that, if you were wanting to predict death rates of States, doing so on the basis of percent population fully vaccinated or boosted would be a lot better than doing so on the basis of percent population >65 would be. To me that's pretty striking based on what we know about age as a risk factor.
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 Apr 28, 2022 5:46 pm
JohnStOnge wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 5:42 pm

Write a letter expressing your objections to the New England Journal of Medicine.
Well I figured a study guy like you would be able to actually interpret a study, but apparently not.
I have confidence in the New England Journal of Medicine. There are a lot of journals that might publish questionable things with obvious problems. But I do not think the New England Journal of Medicine is one of them. And, of course, when I actually looked at it I saw that what the authors did was reasonable.
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
SDHornet
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 19443
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:50 pm
I am a fan of: Sacramento State Hornets

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by SDHornet »

Same.

User avatar
UNI88
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 19949
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 »

JohnStOnge wrote:Now for why I came here. I hate to see this because poor Fauci is not a politician and for some reason people on the nut job political right have found it necessary to try to discredit him. But check out what he says in the article at https://www.npr.org/2022/04/27/10949976 ... e-covid-19:
But after Fauci's comments gained wide attention, he told NPR on Wednesday that he wanted to clarify what he called "some maybe understandable misinterpretation" of his remarks.

"What I'm referring to is that we are no longer in the acute fulminant accelerated phase of the outbreak," he said, referring to the terrible heights the pandemic previously reached in the U.S.

"We're in a somewhat of a transitional phase where the cases' numbers have decelerated — and hopefully we're getting to a phase of somewhat better control, where we can begin to start to resuming more easily normal activities," Fauci added.

"The United States and the entire world is still experiencing a pandemic, but there are different phases of the pandemic," he said. "And what we are in right now is somewhat of a transitional phase, out of the accelerated component into hopefully a more controlled component."
Underline added for emphasis.

And here is the thing: If we are in the endemic phase, that is bad. "Endemic" doesn't mean things are good. It just means they have stabilized. Malaria is endemic to some parts of the world. And it's not a good situation. If things have stabilized in the United States with COVID-19, we are talking about expecting around 100,000 deaths per year from COVID-19 as a matter of course. I say that because, over the past week, we have averaged 300 deaths per day. 300 deaths per day is 109,500 deaths per year.

To put that into perspective, the 1969 Hong Kong flu pandemic is estimated to have resulted in 100,000 deaths. No, it's not nearly as bad as it has been at its worst during this COVID-19 thing. But it is still bad.
"Poor" Fauci is a public figure by virtue of his government position and he has basked in that attention.

He has also made questionable comments and decisions that have opened him up to ridicule.

At this point he's more of an influencer wannabe than a doctor/scientist.

Not only do I not feel sorry for him, I think he's become a distraction and should be removed.

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 »

SeattleGriz wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 5:46 pm
JohnStOnge wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 5:42 pm

Write a letter expressing your objections to the New England Journal of Medicine.
Well I figured a study guy like you would be able to actually interpret a study, but apparently not.
OK. More time to look at it now. it turns out that they reported results for all three groups (intention to treat, modified intention to treat, per-protocol). They got similar results for each group (see image below).

I WILL say that the sample percentages for the Ivermectin group are consistently slightly smaller than those in the placebo group. That is the case both with the primary outcome table and the secondary outcomes table.

Also, the secondary outcomes table indicates that the overall placebo group had lower a lower "100% adherence to assigned regimen rate." The table entry on that entry is footnoted with the footnote indicating "The duration of placebo use was 1, 3, 10, or 14 days." I suspect what the authors are getting at there is that the Ivermectin group was all 3 days and that could make a difference in 100% adherence to assigned regimen. If some people are assigned to take a pill each cay for 10 or 14 straight days while others are assigned to take a pill each day for 3 straight days i think it's reasonable to expect a lower rate of complete adherence among those assigned to continue for 10 and 14 days. But i don't know if that is what they are getting at for sure.

in any case, it would be good if they had reported the 100% adherence rate among only those assigned to take the placebo for 3 days. Maybe they did report that somewhere and i just don't see it.

Image
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 Apr 28, 2022 5:45 pm
JohnStOnge wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 5:37 pm

It is not a "we all know" situation. Here are some bottom lines from the study you linked:





Once again, you are interpreting the results of a study to mean things not remotely suggested by what the authors of the study said about it.
:rofl: You're quoting the fact they were testing an assay, but skip over the results that 60% of those vaccinated and then infected did not develop N antibodies. Don't be angry you can't see the forest through the trees and can only parrot what you are told.
I do not normally get into trying to understand the dynamics of antibody response. i tend to like to look at outcome measures. What I've seen in that regard has strongly convinced me that we would be better off if we could get everybody vaccinated to the full extent of recommendations.

With respect to the N and S antibodies, I guess what you're saying is that N antibodies are "better." I don't know if that is the case. I tried Googling "Are N protein antibodies or S protein antibodies better?" Most of what i got did not appear (based on the titles) to address that question. Looks like most of the stuff is about interpreting antibody testing results.

The only thing i recognized as addressing the question is the article at https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 123826.htm.

I do not see anything remarkable about the results of the study you posted if I'm understanding what happened correctly. It looks like they looked at people who were in a vaccine efficacy trial. A lot fewer people in the vaccine group got infected COVID than people in the placebo group. Though I do not see it directly stated, it looks like people who did get infected tended to have lower viral loads than people who got infected in the placebo group. And a higher percentage of people in the placebo group got N antibodies.

If the argument is that one would be better off not being vaccinated with Moderna because if you do get infected you will not be as likely to develop N Protein antibodies I don't agree with that and I don't think the study really supports reaching that conclusion.
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 »

What the heck, since we are talking about natural infection immunity vs. vaccine immunity, here is one relatively recent research take on the subject that showed up in a Google search;

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-06629-2

Title;
mRNA vaccine-induced antibodies more effective than natural immunity in neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 and its high affinity variants
A couple of notable quotes i saw while scanning through:
In this study, we showed that mRNA vaccinated blood donors have a median of 17 times higher RBD antibody levels when compared with those who became seropositive due to prior COVID-19. Our results indicated an exceptional strong association between high RBD antibody levels in and the ability to biochemically neutralize RBD binding to the cellular ACE2 receptor.
We observed very strong correlation between RBD antibody levels and ability to biochemically neutralize RBD and ACE2 binding. Previous studies have shown the correlation between neutralizing antibody and protection
I am not going to pretend to know exactly what they are talking about and i don't know if i will ever attempt to read through the whole thing. But it's pretty clear they're making the argument that vaccine-induced immunity is more effective in neutralizing SARS-CoV-2.
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
Winterborn
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 8812
Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 2:33 pm
I am a fan of: Beer and Diesel Pickups
Location: Wherever I hang my hat

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by Winterborn »

Pokes head in here.

Sees JSO still trying to drive through a muddy pasture in a Prius.

Image



For anybody that didn't play politics were we are now was/is pretty clear based on historical evidence. The rest is just a smoke screen to cover up playing politics.
“The best of all things is to learn. Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever.” – Louis L’Amour

“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.” - G. Michael Hopf

"I am neither especially clever nor especially gifted. I am only very, very curious.” – Albert Einstein
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 »

An example of how one can look at readily available data to confirm that public health officials are pointing you in the right direction. You can see COVID-19 case and death rates by State in the United States at https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/. You can see vaccination rates by State at https://usafacts.org/visual.../covid-va ... er-states/. You can see percent of population 65 and older by State at https://www.prb.org/resou.../which-us-s ... he-oldest/.

I used the cumulative COVID-19 case and death rates by State from yesterday since it is the most recent complete day. I constructed a correlation matrix using data from the three sources. I'm posting an image of it here.

Image

Yellow highlight means the correlation is significant at 95% confidence. The absolute value of the correlation coefficient is what counts for significance. In the matrix I constructed, any correlation coefficient (number) >=0.279 is significant at at least 95% confidence.
As you can see, the correlations between case rate (C Rate) as well as death rate (D Rate) and fully vaccinated rate (FV Rate) as well as boosted rate (B Rate) are all significant. They are all, in fact, significant at >99% confidence. This did not happen by chance. Because these are observational data they do not prove cause and effect. But there are highly significant associations such that States with higher vaccination rates tend to have lower case and death rates.

One more thing: We have all heard that being 65 or older is a risk factor. People >=65 are more likely to die from COVID. But the correlation between percent of population in a State >=65 in a State and death rate is very low. Close to zero absolute value. Not significant.
But if you "control" for the percent of the population vaccinated and boosted by putting both B Rate and % >=65 in a multiple regression, %.=65 becomes significant at >95% confidence.

Bottom line: Stop listening to right wing talk radio, social media, etc., and start listening to public health officials.
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 »

Winterborn wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 4:28 am Pokes head in here.

Sees JSO still trying to drive through a muddy pasture in a Prius.

Image



For anybody that didn't play politics were we are now was/is pretty clear based on historical evidence. The rest is just a smoke screen to cover up playing politics.
It's a shame that you can't see is that what I am doing is completely obliterating contrary arguments in a bulldozer.
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: Tue May 10, 2022 1:48 pm
Winterborn wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 4:28 am Pokes head in here.

Sees JSO still trying to drive through a muddy pasture in a Prius.

Image



For anybody that didn't play politics were we are now was/is pretty clear based on historical evidence. The rest is just a smoke screen to cover up playing politics.
It's a shame that you can't see is that what I am doing is completely obliterating contrary arguments in a bulldozer.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Delusion. The final state.
"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: Sun May 01, 2022 12:19 pm
SeattleGriz wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 5:45 pm

:rofl: You're quoting the fact they were testing an assay, but skip over the results that 60% of those vaccinated and then infected did not develop N antibodies. Don't be angry you can't see the forest through the trees and can only parrot what you are told.
I do not normally get into trying to understand the dynamics of antibody response. i tend to like to look at outcome measures. What I've seen in that regard has strongly convinced me that we would be better off if we could get everybody vaccinated to the full extent of recommendations.

With respect to the N and S antibodies, I guess what you're saying is that N antibodies are "better." I don't know if that is the case. I tried Googling "Are N protein antibodies or S protein antibodies better?" Most of what i got did not appear (based on the titles) to address that question. Looks like most of the stuff is about interpreting antibody testing results.

The only thing i recognized as addressing the question is the article at https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 123826.htm.

I do not see anything remarkable about the results of the study you posted if I'm understanding what happened correctly. It looks like they looked at people who were in a vaccine efficacy trial. A lot fewer people in the vaccine group got infected COVID than people in the placebo group. Though I do not see it directly stated, it looks like people who did get infected tended to have lower viral loads than people who got infected in the placebo group. And a higher percentage of people in the placebo group got N antibodies.

If the argument is that one would be better off not being vaccinated with Moderna because if you do get infected you will not be as likely to develop N Protein antibodies I don't agree with that and I don't think the study really supports reaching that conclusion.
You're good looking at outcomes instead of antibody response. Looking at only antibodies is like saying my football team can beat yours because I have better wide receivers, but neglect all the other positions. Doesn't work that way. Need the whole team to determine which is best and outcomes show that better.

In regards to the Nucleocapsid antibodies, they target a portion that doesn't mutate much, so they should be much less susceptible to antibody evasion, which we are now seeing with Delta and Omicron.

With that being said, I honestly couldn't say N are better than S, but I do know it's better to have both versions as opposed to a very specific version of only the wild type S protein. It's a big reason I would have been fine with a whole attenuated virus vaccine. Your immunity gets the whole virus to study and come up with so many more ways to defeat Covid than the mRNA or DNA vaccines. Even better if you inhaled the vaccine up through your nose. Train that mucosa.

I've never said naive immunity is better than vaccination. What I HAVE been claiming is that immunity derived from catching COVID is better than that conferred from vaccination only. Once a vaccinated person catches COVID, they should be on equal terms as the unvaccinated person who caught Covid.

Lastly, it should be concerning if the vaccinated are not developing N antibodies after catching COVID. Like I said above, it takes the whole immunity team to be most effective. If this is truly happening, I do think the immune system will recalibrate and eventually start producing N antibodies as one's immunity is impressive and they get reinfected with COVID multiple times.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
User avatar
Winterborn
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 8812
Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 2:33 pm
I am a fan of: Beer and Diesel Pickups
Location: Wherever I hang my hat

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by Winterborn »

JohnStOnge wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 1:48 pm
Winterborn wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 4:28 am Pokes head in here.

Sees JSO still trying to drive through a muddy pasture in a Prius.

Image



For anybody that didn't play politics were we are now was/is pretty clear based on historical evidence. The rest is just a smoke screen to cover up playing politics.
It's a shame that you can't see is that what I am doing is completely obliterating contrary arguments in a bulldozer.
I can see perfectly what you are doing. And I find it more interesting in who you chose to carry water for, than this topic which in 5-8 years is going to look completely different than what was hysterically reported on by the CDC, media, and other "influential" people. Hint: It already is starting to look different as the political spotlight wanes and actual scientific principles (based on past research) are being applied without the magnifying lens of political "fame".

That said, carry on on with your slap fight with SG. :coffee:
“The best of all things is to learn. Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever.” – Louis L’Amour

“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.” - G. Michael Hopf

"I am neither especially clever nor especially gifted. I am only very, very curious.” – Albert Einstein
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 »

Winterborn wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 5:46 am
JohnStOnge wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 1:48 pm

It's a shame that you can't see is that what I am doing is completely obliterating contrary arguments in a bulldozer.
I can see perfectly what you are doing. And I find it more interesting in who you chose to carry water for, than this topic which in 5-8 years is going to look completely different than what was hysterically reported on by the CDC, media, and other "influential" people. Hint: It already is starting to look different as the political spotlight wanes and actual scientific principles (based on past research) are being applied without the magnifying lens of political "fame".

That said, carry on on with your slap fight with SG. :coffee:
Exactly. The telling part of this entire evolution from day one is who’s willing to carry who’s water. And JSO has become such a shill for the donks and authoritarianism it’s almost comical.
"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 »

Winterborn wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 5:46 am
JohnStOnge wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 1:48 pm

It's a shame that you can't see is that what I am doing is completely obliterating contrary arguments in a bulldozer.
I can see perfectly what you are doing. And I find it more interesting in who you chose to carry water for, than this topic which in 5-8 years is going to look completely different than what was hysterically reported on by the CDC, media, and other "influential" people. Hint: It already is starting to look different as the political spotlight wanes and actual scientific principles (based on past research) are being applied without the magnifying lens of political "fame".

That said, carry on on with your slap fight with SG. :coffee:
In the light of history this is going to be seen as one of the worst pandemics of the modern era. Maybe THE worst depending on how it ends up comparing to the Spanish Flu. And the anti vax, anti mask, anti public health controls stuff we are dealing with now is going to be seen in a negative light.

There is absolutely no question, none, that the smart thing would be to do what public health officials recommend that you do and that the situation would not be as bad or have been as bad if people had done that instead of listening to right wing nuts.
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