Coronavirus COVID-19

Political discussions
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 »

SeattleGriz wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 9:25 am
kalm wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:58 am

Roughly 10% in WA from what I’ve read. Plus…less hospital strain. Plus less variant development.
Where are you getting the "less variant development" from? While it is true variants will develop in those unvaccinated, you have specific pressure from the vaccines that are driving the specific escape variants of concern.

Think of it like antibiotics. What is left over if you don't take all your antibiotics? A bacteria that can now evade. Same principle with the vaccines that aren't sterilizing.
Rogan had one of the Weinstein bros on his show recently. They talked about how a doctor/scientist predicted the vax could speed up the emergence of variants and that this would become a "pandemic of variants" which is where we are now. I'll see if I can find the clip, but it was pretty interesting.
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 »

Ibanez wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 10:08 am
SeattleGriz wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 9:25 am

Where are you getting the "less variant development" from? While it is true variants will develop in those unvaccinated, you have specific pressure from the vaccines that are driving the specific escape variants of concern.

Think of it like antibiotics. What is left over if you don't take all your antibiotics? A bacteria that can now evade. Same principle with the vaccines that aren't sterilizing.
That doesn't jibe with my Epidemiology degree from Facebook Tech.
Interesting you should say that. You can see if you do a search before the pandemic, you gets lots of hits on the topic, but as of recently, not so much. Check out Marek's disease.

Here is one of my favorites from NPR on the subject. Their two hopes were later dashed. One being that vaccinated people wouldn't get infected AND would not pass it if infected. That is why I keep mentioning sterilizing - stopping spread in it's tracks.

This falls in line with my previous discussion on asymptomatic spread not really being a common term. It's used to death now, but wasn't in the past. Much like how they are now trying to deny the evolutionary pressure of the vaccines and foist 100% on the unvaccinated, which is not the traditional thinking. Notice you would have to violate evolutionary rules to exclude this thinking.

I don't think they can determine who spreads what, but to say it is the unvaccinated, is being disingenuous. There is definitely a narrative in play here.


HARRIS: And this evolutionary pressure is present for any vaccine that doesn't completely block infection. So it's not just an issue for people who are between their initial shot and a booster. Many vaccines, apparently, including the COVID vaccines, do not completely prevent a virus from multiplying inside someone even though these vaccines do prevent serious illness.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60482
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by Ibanez »

SDHornet wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 10:54 am
SeattleGriz wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 9:25 am

Where are you getting the "less variant development" from? While it is true variants will develop in those unvaccinated, you have specific pressure from the vaccines that are driving the specific escape variants of concern.

Think of it like antibiotics. What is left over if you don't take all your antibiotics? A bacteria that can now evade. Same principle with the vaccines that aren't sterilizing.
Rogan had one of the Weinstein bros on his show recently. They talked about how a doctor/scientist predicted the vax could speed up the emergence of variants and that this would become a "pandemic of variants" which is where we are now. I'll see if I can find the clip, but it was pretty interesting.
Are the Weinstein bros like the Bollinger Bros?
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
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 »

GannonFan wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 10:11 am
kalm wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:58 am

Roughly 10% in WA from what I’ve read. Plus…less hospital strain. Plus less variant development.
Yeah, I think you just threw that last one (less variant development) in there even though there's nothing to back that up. Hey, I'm all pro-vaccine, I'm even pro-mandating it for all schools and pro having businesses decide to mandate it. But I don't necessarily think there's less variant development because of the vaccines - doesn't seem to be a decrease in transmittal, just a decrease in severity if you do get it.
“The more transmission, the more opportunity you have for variants to evolve,” says Steven Zeichner, MD, PhD, an infectious disease expert and pediatrics professor at the University of Virginia (UVA) School of Medicine in Charlottesville. “From a U.S. perspective, getting everyone around the world vaccinated is not an altruistic thing. It protects us here in the U.S. The side effect is that it helps everyone else in the world.”
https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/vacc ... g-pandemic
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Gil Dobie
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 30939
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 7:45 pm
I am a fan of: Norse Dakota State
Location: Historic Leduc Estate

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by Gil Dobie »

kalm wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 12:13 pm
GannonFan wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 10:11 am

Yeah, I think you just threw that last one (less variant development) in there even though there's nothing to back that up. Hey, I'm all pro-vaccine, I'm even pro-mandating it for all schools and pro having businesses decide to mandate it. But I don't necessarily think there's less variant development because of the vaccines - doesn't seem to be a decrease in transmittal, just a decrease in severity if you do get it.
“The more transmission, the more opportunity you have for variants to evolve,” says Steven Zeichner, MD, PhD, an infectious disease expert and pediatrics professor at the University of Virginia (UVA) School of Medicine in Charlottesville. “From a U.S. perspective, getting everyone around the world vaccinated is not an altruistic thing. It protects us here in the U.S. The side effect is that it helps everyone else in the world.”
https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/vacc ... g-pandemic
The best way will be to insert the vaccine in some animal or normal over-the-counter medication, and tell the Trumpers that is cures Covid. And let the Karens tell them how dumb of an idea that is.
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 »

Why can't we get this information from our CDC? Delta doesn't look any more infectious.

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: Tue Sep 21, 2021 9:25 am While it is true variants will develop in those unvaccinated, you have specific pressure from the vaccines that are driving the specific escape variants of concern.
Do you have a reference to support your claim that vaccines are driving the specific escape variants of concern? Everything I've seen suggests otherwise. It looks to me like the overwhelming majority of people who are qualified to say think low vaccination rates are what introduces the most risk of new variants. Here is an example of argument in that vaccines are not driving evolution of new variants: https://www.science.org/content/blog-po ... e-variants .
To address a key point that comes up right at the start: no, we have not actually been seeing more dangerous variants occurring since vaccination became more common. It's easy to see the rise of the Delta variant this year and jump to the "after, therefore because" fallacy. But it wasn't even "after" to start with: the Delta variant was first detected in India back in October of last year. This is before anyone was getting vaccinated. The Delta variant is by far the dominant one in the world, crowding out all the others, and it did not come as a result of vaccination.
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: Tue Sep 21, 2021 5:44 am Seems to be the trend in the highly vaccinated areas.

First of all, 67% is not a high vaccination rate. It's RELATIVELY high. But my understanding is that, with something as contagious as the Delta variant is, it would take something like a 90% vaccination rate to see the effect we want.

Secondly, that is just one observation. Earlier this summer I went through the trouble of doing a correlation between State vaccination rate and State case rate. I got a highly significant negative correlation such that higher vaccination rate was associated with lower case rate. I guess I can do that again. But you know what's going to happen. I'm going to get the same result.

That does not mean one can't find a few examples of jurisdictions with high vaccination rates and high case rates. But the overall trend is higher vaccination rate is associated with lower case rate.

You know...in fact I think you ought to remember when I did that because I THINK that's when you said something about the data I used and I said it was from Worldometers.

Another thing is that we need to see what percentage of those Bermuda cases are among the unvaccinated. About one third of the population is not vaccinated. If it turned out that something like 80 or 90% of those cases are among the unvaccinated the data are not going to support the point you're trying to make.
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 »

Ok I did another quick and dirty correlation analysis. Same result. I used yesterday's daily case numbers at Worldometers and the State vaccination rate rankings at https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/p ... ch-15.html. I used Spearman's correlation to save time so I wouldn't have to type or copy and paste specific numbers in. Just the ranks. In this case a positive correlation means that there is an association such that higher vaccination rate means lower case rates (the highest vaccination rate is ranked 1 while the lowest case rate is also ranked 1).

Spearman's rho = 0.31908. That's significant at 97% confidence. Once again, a highly significant correlation such that higher vaccination rates are associated with lower case rates. BTW, I do think it likely that I would get a higher correlation is I were to do something like look at cases over a week instead of cases in just one day. I would very likely cut variation by doing that. But it would take more time than I am willing to invest just to make this point.

Higher jurisdiction vaccination rate means lower jurisdiction case rate. Absolutely no reasonable doubt about it.

BTW I saw a meme on Facebook where Buck Sexton was making the argument that vaccinations must not work because cases are higher now than they were at this time last year even though we have vaccination now. The problem with his argument is that the overwhelming majority of the cases he's talking about are among the unvaccinated. The vaccines work. But there are other factors. We are dealing with a more contagious variant now. We are also dealing with a situation in which people are largely disregarding all of the other recommendations for slowing spread. I witnessed that during my trip to South Dakota. Hardly anybody is wearing a mask. Hardly anybody is social distancing.

What people SHOULD be seeing in the case spikes...in addition to recognizing that we have a more contagious variant...is that dropping the caution does have a negative impact. To say it means the vaccines must not work when the overwhelming majority of the cases are among the unvaccinated is pretty ridiculous.
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: Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:16 pm Why can't we get this information from our CDC? Delta doesn't look any more infectious.

What you SHOULD be doing is ignoring stuff from sources like that and just looking at what the CDC says. You're looking at flipping tweets by people who say things you are inclined to want to believe and taking them to the bank.
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: Tue Sep 21, 2021 6:06 pm
SeattleGriz wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:16 pm Why can't we get this information from our CDC? Delta doesn't look any more infectious.

What you SHOULD be doing is ignoring stuff from sources like that and just looking at what the CDC says. You're looking at flipping tweets by people who say things you are inclined to want to believe and taking them to the bank.
I've been to the UK site to verify his chart. He took the numbers from the UK report table and graphed them.

Go to the first report after the link. CDC isn't putting out anything close to this.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... n-20201201
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: Tue Sep 21, 2021 11:00 am
Ibanez wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 10:08 am
That doesn't jibe with my Epidemiology degree from Facebook Tech.
Interesting you should say that. You can see if you do a search before the pandemic, you gets lots of hits on the topic, but as of recently, not so much. Check out Marek's disease.

Here is one of my favorites from NPR on the subject. Their two hopes were later dashed. One being that vaccinated people wouldn't get infected AND would not pass it if infected. That is why I keep mentioning sterilizing - stopping spread in it's tracks.

This falls in line with my previous discussion on asymptomatic spread not really being a common term. It's used to death now, but wasn't in the past. Much like how they are now trying to deny the evolutionary pressure of the vaccines and foist 100% on the unvaccinated, which is not the traditional thinking. Notice you would have to violate evolutionary rules to exclude this thinking.

I don't think they can determine who spreads what, but to say it is the unvaccinated, is being disingenuous. There is definitely a narrative in play here.


HARRIS: And this evolutionary pressure is present for any vaccine that doesn't completely block infection. So it's not just an issue for people who are between their initial shot and a booster. Many vaccines, apparently, including the COVID vaccines, do not completely prevent a virus from multiplying inside someone even though these vaccines do prevent serious illness.
I don't think the NPR piece you linked supports your point of view at all. I just invite others to listen to 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
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 Sep 21, 2021 4:51 pm
SeattleGriz wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 9:25 am While it is true variants will develop in those unvaccinated, you have specific pressure from the vaccines that are driving the specific escape variants of concern.
Do you have a reference to support your claim that vaccines are driving the specific escape variants of concern? Everything I've seen suggests otherwise. It looks to me like the overwhelming majority of people who are qualified to say think low vaccination rates are what introduces the most risk of new variants. Here is an example of argument in that vaccines are not driving evolution of new variants: https://www.science.org/content/blog-po ... e-variants .
To address a key point that comes up right at the start: no, we have not actually been seeing more dangerous variants occurring since vaccination became more common. It's easy to see the rise of the Delta variant this year and jump to the "after, therefore because" fallacy. But it wasn't even "after" to start with: the Delta variant was first detected in India back in October of last year. This is before anyone was getting vaccinated. The Delta variant is by far the dominant one in the world, crowding out all the others, and it did not come as a result of vaccination.
Your article wasn't saying anything other than they feel vaccinations aren't driving variants and then goes on to say there really hasn't been that many, so no big deal.

Reference link below. Now let's see yours.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-vacc ... -20180510/
Vaccines Are Pushing Pathogens to Evolve
The team found that, over the course of their lives, the unvaccinated birds shed far more of the least virulent strains into the environment, whereas the vaccinated birds shed far more of the most virulent strains. The findings suggest that the Marek’s vaccine encourages more dangerous viruses to proliferate. This increased virulence might then give the viruses the means to overcome birds’ vaccine-primed immune responses and sicken vaccinated flocks.
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/a ... io.1002198
Imperfect Vaccination Can Enhance the Transmission of Highly Virulent Pathogens
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: Tue Sep 21, 2021 6:36 pm
JohnStOnge wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 6:06 pm

What you SHOULD be doing is ignoring stuff from sources like that and just looking at what the CDC says. You're looking at flipping tweets by people who say things you are inclined to want to believe and taking them to the bank.
I've been to the UK site to verify his chart. He took the numbers from the UK report table and graphed them.

Go to the first report after the link. CDC isn't putting out anything close to this.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... n-20201201
I looked at the report. He took one column of one table and implied a totally out of context conclusion. The authors would no doubt strongly disagree with his take.

If it comes down to believing what a guy like that tweets and listening to what CDC tells you, you really should listen to what CDC tells you. Or maybe if you won't listen to CDC alone listen to what the people at Yale have to say:

https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/5-thi ... 0he%20says.

What you have is a guy looking at reports and trying to find things he can cherry pick to present out of context to support his narrative. So some guy tweets that crap and you believe him. You should stop.
Last edited by JohnStOnge on Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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
∞∞∞
Level5
Level5
Posts: 12297
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 7:30 am

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by ∞∞∞ »

JohnStOnge wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 6:42 pm
SeattleGriz wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 11:00 am

Interesting you should say that. You can see if you do a search before the pandemic, you gets lots of hits on the topic, but as of recently, not so much. Check out Marek's disease.

Here is one of my favorites from NPR on the subject. Their two hopes were later dashed. One being that vaccinated people wouldn't get infected AND would not pass it if infected. That is why I keep mentioning sterilizing - stopping spread in it's tracks.

This falls in line with my previous discussion on asymptomatic spread not really being a common term. It's used to death now, but wasn't in the past. Much like how they are now trying to deny the evolutionary pressure of the vaccines and foist 100% on the unvaccinated, which is not the traditional thinking. Notice you would have to violate evolutionary rules to exclude this thinking.

I don't think they can determine who spreads what, but to say it is the unvaccinated, is being disingenuous. There is definitely a narrative in play here.



I don't think the NPR piece you linked supports your point of view at all. I just invite others to listen to it.
Yeah. I listened to this when it was published and just now.

Not at all what I got out of it.

Regardless, a mutation in an unvaccinated person has an easier path of spread. The unvaxxed also have a significantly larger chance of infection, giving viruses a better opportunity to mutate within its host: https://www.healthline.com/health-news/ ... -heres-how
User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 25460
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by CID1990 »

JohnStOnge wrote:
SeattleGriz wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 6:36 pm I've been to the UK site to verify his chart. He took the numbers from the UK report table and graphed them.

Go to the first report after the link. CDC isn't putting out anything close to this.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... n-20201201
I looked at the report. He took one column of one table and implied a totally out of context conclusion. The authors would no doubt strongly disagree with his take.

If it comes down to believing what a guy like that tweets and listening to what CDC tells you, you really should listen to what CDC tells you. Or maybe if you won't listen to CDC alone listen to what the people at Yale have to say:

https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/5-thi ... 0he%20says.

What you have is a guy looking at reports and trying to find things he can cherry pick to present out of context to support his narrative. So some guy tweets that crap and you believe him. You should stop.
I just read every single one of your boring, pedantic, awful posts... and you didn’t directly blame Trump once.

So, congratulations, and fuck you today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
User avatar
93henfan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 56357
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:03 pm
Location: Slower Delaware

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by 93henfan »

CID1990 wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:30 pm
I just read every single one of your boring, pedantic, awful posts... and you didn’t directly blame Trump once.

So, congratulations, and fuck you today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
:rofl:
Delaware Football: 1889-2012; 2022-
User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 25460
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by CID1990 »

93henfan wrote:
CID1990 wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:30 pm
I just read every single one of your boring, pedantic, awful posts... and you didn’t directly blame Trump once.

So, congratulations, and fuck you today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
:rofl:
What a wee cunt


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
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 Sep 21, 2021 6:42 pm
SeattleGriz wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 11:00 am

Interesting you should say that. You can see if you do a search before the pandemic, you gets lots of hits on the topic, but as of recently, not so much. Check out Marek's disease.

Here is one of my favorites from NPR on the subject. Their two hopes were later dashed. One being that vaccinated people wouldn't get infected AND would not pass it if infected. That is why I keep mentioning sterilizing - stopping spread in it's tracks.

This falls in line with my previous discussion on asymptomatic spread not really being a common term. It's used to death now, but wasn't in the past. Much like how they are now trying to deny the evolutionary pressure of the vaccines and foist 100% on the unvaccinated, which is not the traditional thinking. Notice you would have to violate evolutionary rules to exclude this thinking.

I don't think they can determine who spreads what, but to say it is the unvaccinated, is being disingenuous. There is definitely a narrative in play here.



I don't think the NPR piece you linked supports your point of view at all. I just invite others to listen to it.
I never said it supports my point if view. I said it supports the narrative shift we are seeing. The article was written early and the person even talks about the vaccines driving mutants, but two things better not happen and they did. But do we see more honest discussion, no, we see the false narrative shift that the unvaccinated are driving the variants.

The study I published in the other post demonstrates a real world experiment to test the hypothesis. Can you refer me to your study showing the unvaccinated are driving the variants?
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 Sep 21, 2021 7:04 pm
SeattleGriz wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 6:36 pm

I've been to the UK site to verify his chart. He took the numbers from the UK report table and graphed them.

Go to the first report after the link. CDC isn't putting out anything close to this.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... n-20201201
I looked at the report. He took one column of one table and implied a totally out of context conclusion. The authors would no doubt strongly disagree with his take.

If it comes down to believing what a guy like that tweets and listening to what CDC tells you, you really should listen to what CDC tells you. Or maybe if you won't listen to CDC alone listen to what the people at Yale have to say:

https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/5-thi ... 0he%20says.

What you have is a guy looking at reports and trying to find things he can cherry pick to present out of context to support his narrative. So some guy tweets that crap and you believe him. You should stop.
Really? That's what you reply with? I call bullshit on your looking at the report, because secondary attack rate is a standalone metric and doesn't need any context, unlike your article that had ZERO references to data in their statements.

The guy even took the last three reports to show the trend if the variants.

Fail!
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
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: Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:42 am
JohnStOnge wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:04 pm

I looked at the report. He took one column of one table and implied a totally out of context conclusion. The authors would no doubt strongly disagree with his take.

If it comes down to believing what a guy like that tweets and listening to what CDC tells you, you really should listen to what CDC tells you. Or maybe if you won't listen to CDC alone listen to what the people at Yale have to say:

https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/5-thi ... 0he%20says.

What you have is a guy looking at reports and trying to find things he can cherry pick to present out of context to support his narrative. So some guy tweets that crap and you believe him. You should stop.
Really? That's what you reply with? I call bullshit on your looking at the report, because secondary attack rate is a standalone metric and doesn't need any context, unlike your article that had ZERO references to data in their statements.

The guy even took the last three reports to show the trend if the variants.

Fail!
You’re proving his point. :lol:
Image
Image
Image
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60482
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by Ibanez »

CID1990 wrote: Tue Sep 21, 2021 7:30 pm
JohnStOnge wrote:
I looked at the report. He took one column of one table and implied a totally out of context conclusion. The authors would no doubt strongly disagree with his take.

If it comes down to believing what a guy like that tweets and listening to what CDC tells you, you really should listen to what CDC tells you. Or maybe if you won't listen to CDC alone listen to what the people at Yale have to say:

https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/5-thi ... 0he%20says.

What you have is a guy looking at reports and trying to find things he can cherry pick to present out of context to support his narrative. So some guy tweets that crap and you believe him. You should stop.
I just read every single one of your boring, pedantic, awful posts... and you didn’t directly blame Trump once.

So, congratulations, and fuck you today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
∞∞∞
Level5
Level5
Posts: 12297
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 7:30 am

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by ∞∞∞ »

I'm just confused because you say you studied microbiology or whatever, but just take a step back and get back to fundamentals:

10 viral molecules enter the body of 1 unvaccinated person and 1 vaccinated person.

Unvaccinated Day 1
-10 molecules replicate, become 20 molecules (replication is when a random error (aka. mutation) can occur, 10 chances of random mutation).
-Body doesn't recognize virus yet.
Unvaccinated Day 2
-20 molecule replicated, become 40 molecules (20 chances of random mutation)
-Body doesn't recognize virus yet.
Unvaccinated Day 3
-40 molecules replicate, become 80 molecules (40 chances of random mutation)
-Body recognizes molecules as foreign, produces 60 antibodies.
Unvaccinated Day 4
-40 of 60 antibodies find/kill molecules, body produces 80 antibodies this time.
-40 molecules replicate, become 80 molecules (40 chances of random mutation)
Unvaccinated Day 5
-70 of 100 antibodies find/kill molecules, body produces 100 antibodies this time.
-10 molecules replicate, become 20 molecules (10 chances of random mutation)
Unvaccinated Day 6
-20 of 130 antibodies find/kill molecules. Person is healed.

Vaccinated Day 1
-10 molecules replicated, become 20 molecules (10 chances of random mutation)
-Body recognize molecules as foreign, produce 60 antibodies.
Vaccinated Day 2
-20 of 60 antibodies find/kill molecules. Person is healed.

Obviously all numbers are made up, but it gives you a gist of how it works at a fundamental level. In the scenario above, the virus had 120 opportunities for a random error when it replicated itself. A virus in a vaccinated person had 10 opportunities.

This isn't some Covid-specific scenario either. It's just how all virus/vaccine interactions work.

And FWIW, viruses can't recognize if someone is vaccinated or unvaccinated. It's all just random copy/paste errors and the more errors there are, the more likely a random mutation can occur to avoid a vaccine.

Basically...get vaccinated.
User avatar
Gil Dobie
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 30939
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 7:45 pm
I am a fan of: Norse Dakota State
Location: Historic Leduc Estate

Re: Coronavirus COVID-19

Post by Gil Dobie »

If you have an hour or more, this pretty much covers everything without the BS.

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 »

∞∞∞ wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:49 am I'm just confused because you say you studied microbiology or whatever, but just take a step back and get back to fundamentals:

10 viral molecules enter the body of 1 unvaccinated person and 1 vaccinated person.

Unvaccinated Day 1
-10 molecules replicate, become 20 molecules (replication is when a random error (aka. mutation) can occur, 10 chances of random mutation).
-Body doesn't recognize virus yet.
Unvaccinated Day 2
-20 molecule replicated, become 40 molecules (20 chances of random mutation)
-Body doesn't recognize virus yet.
Unvaccinated Day 3
-40 molecules replicate, become 80 molecules (40 chances of random mutation)
-Body recognizes molecules as foreign, produces 60 antibodies.
Unvaccinated Day 4
-40 of 60 antibodies find/kill molecules, body produces 80 antibodies this time.
-40 molecules replicate, become 80 molecules (40 chances of random mutation)
Unvaccinated Day 5
-70 of 100 antibodies find/kill molecules, body produces 100 antibodies this time.
-10 molecules replicate, become 20 molecules (10 chances of random mutation)
Unvaccinated Day 6
-20 of 130 antibodies find/kill molecules. Person is healed.

Vaccinated Day 1
-10 molecules replicated, become 20 molecules (10 chances of random mutation)
-Body recognize molecules as foreign, produce 60 antibodies.
Vaccinated Day 2
-20 of 60 antibodies find/kill molecules. Person is healed.

Obviously all numbers are made up, but it gives you a gist of how it works at a fundamental level. In the scenario above, the virus had 120 opportunities for a random error when it replicated itself. A virus in a vaccinated person had 10 opportunities.

This isn't some Covid-specific scenario either. It's just how all virus/vaccine interactions work.

And FWIW, viruses can't recognize if someone is vaccinated or unvaccinated. It's all just random copy/paste errors and the more errors there are, the more likely a random mutation can occur to avoid a vaccine.

Basically...get vaccinated.
I have never said to not get vaccinated, in fact I've recommended for those at high risk.

In regards to who produces the variants, I even stated in a previous post that I have no idea how they can quantify who is spreading variants. But to say it is only the unvaccinated that are driving the variants is absurd.

I've also given the basis for the reasoning. Evolutionary (selective) pressure. If you've ever taken an evolution class, it's a major topic. The vaccines narrow Ab profile provides just such targeted pressure for the spike protein to mutate. Of course it can happen with the unvaccinated, but when you target something, you definitely increase chances something will happen.

You're telling me that antibiotics don't cause resistance? You telling me that not eradicating cancer completely does NOT result in cancer that comes back and doesn't respond to the chemo anymore?

Lastly, I provided a real world experiment showing there is validity to the claim.

Can you produce any scientific papers showing the unvaccinated are driving the variants?
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
Post Reply