|
|
Post by acidohm on Jun 26, 2021 19:01:53 GMT
What seems to me to be daft, is not systematically measuring immunity (antibodies), whether acquired through exposure to the virus or through vaccination, and the effectiveness of such antibodies against virus mutations. In fairness, it seems that the UK has been doing a better job of that than the US. In February, Imperial College warned that only 44.6 per cent of the population would be protected by the original lockdown release day of June 21. But the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that eight in 10 people over the age of 16 now have antibodies to Covid.
news.yahoo.com/antibody-rates-more-50-per-135908268.htmlOne relatively large US study (~32000 if I remember correctly) found a small percentage of infections occurring in vaccinated people, but NO cases of re-infection in people that had antibodies acquired through having Covid. If such antibodies are long-lived (up to 10 months or so, so far), then Covid and its variants may be on their way out. Such results are politically problematic for those who prefer authoritarian measures. Just as a longer-term cooling climate may prove embarrasing to the CO2 mongers. I am not an anti-vaxer. But such programs should be entered into with the proper intelligence. The old deadlies such as smallpox were defeated with a milder form (cow pox) that provided nearly total immunity to its more deadly cousin. US has done poorly in genome analysis too. Antibody data in UK is now squewed by vax program I believe? |
|
|
|
Post by code on Jun 26, 2021 23:19:15 GMT
But its a numbers game, you can't not vax millions of people because a few have side effects to vax. Some people die of peanuts, how do they find out, should we ban peanuts? Actually....never let that concept circulate twitter 🤣 Yeah, I recall when my son's middle school banned food....I'm not kidding.
|
|
|
|
Post by gridley on Jun 27, 2021 15:46:15 GMT
In addition there's the psychological effect where people may generally be more considered in their behaviour, for example ordering food deliveries rather then visit shop, or work from home. If you reduce interactions, you reduce spread, I'm not sure anyone can disagree with that, it is after us who spread virus to each other.
Reducing interactions between people who have not been exposed to the disease does nothing to limit its spread.
Reducing interactions between people who already have the disease does nothing to limit its spread.
Reducing interactions between people in one way but increasing them in another does not automatically limit spread. If instead of sitting near each other inside the McDonalds everyone has a close encounter with the guy at the take out window you haven't necessarily reduced spread - you may have increased it, depending on the spread method. If you don't sit next to the other passenger inside the airport but do sit next to them on the plane you're really wasting your time. I won't even get into the proper actions on air travel during a pandemic.
So yes, I disagree.
A REAL quarantine is used on people who are sick, or who there is valid reason to believe have already been exposed and will become sick. A lockdown is a SECURITY measure, or a desperation measure when a highly virulent disease is widespread in a population. And at that, we never did a real lockdown anywhere in the US. "Social distancing" is a bad joke if you're dealing with an airborne or aerosol disease.
The Left has become experts at twisting words. "Quarantine" has a precise meaning. Using the word for something else does not make that thing a quarantine, but they've convinced a large part of the population that we're all in quarantine. Likewise "assault weapon" - you can call a Ruger 10/22 an "assault weapon" all day long (hello, WA!) but that does not make it one. You can call an injection of questionable effectiveness and serious side effects a "vaccine" but that does not make it one.
Trying to use psychology to fight a disease might work if the disease was intelligent. Of course an intelligent disease which saw our attempts to fight COVID-19 would be more likely to die laughing than be intimidated, but hey.
As for using the psychology on people... there is an ancient axiom: never give an order you know won't be obeyed. IF social distancing was going to work, it would have to be followed militantly. No standing next to each other in the subway (NYC), but being all alone on the beach would be fine. But people going to the beach were arrested and the subway cars stayed packed... and people elsewhere SAW that and many of them decided (correctly) that this social distancing thing wasn't worth it and started ignoring it.
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jun 27, 2021 21:24:32 GMT
COVID-19 Testing aimed at Public Policy Issues Could (Should) large random samples of the population using relatively cheap tests of the adaptive immune system be supported by the government for modifying efforts aimed at fighting Covid-19? This is NOT meant to sound like a Government Bureaucrat looking for money.  BACKGROUND There are at least two tests available for testing whether an individual has ever had Covid-19. They test different parts of the adaptive immune system as described below. "There are two key parts to your adaptive immune system: B-cells, which primarily produce antibodies; and T-cells, which have three really important functions. One is that they talk to B-cells, and they give them little cues to go ahead and produce more antibodies. Second, if one of your cells gets infected with coronavirus, they kind of hold up their hand and then the T-cell says, yep, that cell has been infected, and they help to basically eradicate that cell. The third thing that they do, and this is really important for the T-Detect test, is they stick around for some period of time — so-called memory T-cells — and those T-cells are there to jump into action, should you ever encounter that pathogen again."www.geekwire.com/2021/testing-new-covid-19-test-t-cells-beat-antibodies-detecting-past-infections/Because antibodies supposedly(?) fade over time, the first (and cheapest) test is less accurate than the second test, but 75% to 90% ain't bad. "In the studies that we’ve seen, antibodies were only picking up past disease anywhere from about 75% to 90% of the time". Whereas the second test can detect past infection 99.8% of the time. PUBLIC POLICY QUESTIONS Could large random samples of the population using the cheap test, followed by or coupled with smaller targeted sub-samples with the more expensive test, yield important data for directing public policy? The following are certainly not exclusive. IMMUNOLOGY QUESTIONS: 1. If someone does test positive in the T-Detect COVID test, does that mean they’re immune? 2. Does past exposure limit or exclude infection to new variants? 3. Why did some or many people show NO (or few) symptoms when infected by Covid-19? 4. Are non-symptomatic cases contageous? RELATED QUESTIONS: 5. How does diet affect infection or the devopment of symptoms? 6. What existing "drugs" effectively treat Covid-19 cases? The article only addresses question #1. "The short answer is, we don’t yet know. This is the million-dollar question, or the Holy Grail. There’s a number of things that protect us from future infection. And we’ve described a few of these: memory B-cells, just like memory T-cells, can kick into action, and then produce antibodies specific for coronavirus. You could still have antibodies that are floating around, getting ready to neutralize the virus. We also talked about T-cells, memory T-cells, for instance, that can hang around and jump into action. And it’s that orchestra of all these different components of the immune system that are going to help you thwart future infection. We call that combination a correlative protection. We’re beginning to invest in the research right now to be able to look and see, do T-cells help to serve as a correlative protection".www.labcorp.com/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/individuals/antibody-testfiles.labcorp.com/labcorp-d8/2020-08/Which-Covid-Test-Is-Right-For-You.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jun 28, 2021 18:36:19 GMT
Nautonnier, good luck in your battle against Glioblastoma. Duwayne.
|
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jun 29, 2021 18:55:21 GMT
I’ve seen several references concerning an 18-year old boy who had a heart attack after receiving his second COVID shot. He was hospitalized and is now recovering at home. I wondered how unusual that might be?
An Australian publication indicates 0.13% of the heart attacks in Australia occur in the 15 to 25 age group.
Applying that number to the US would give an expected total of 80 to 90 heart attacks per month in the 15 to 25 year old age group.
About 40% of the youths in this age group are vaccinated so if my calculations are correct, 35 heart attacks per month among the 40 million people in this age group in the US might be “normal”. |
|
|
|
Post by ratty on Jun 29, 2021 23:35:42 GMT
I’ve seen several references concerning an 18-year old boy who had a heart attack after receiving his second COVID shot. He was hospitalized and is now recovering at home. I wondered how unusual that might be?
An Australian publication indicates 0.13% of the heart attacks in Australia occur in the 15 to 25 age group.
Applying that number to the US would give an expected total of 80 to 90 heart attacks per month in the 15 to 25 year old age group.
About 40% of the youths in this age group are vaccinated so if my calculations are correct, 35 heart attacks per month among the 40 million people in this age group in the US might be “normal”. Bloody statistics, eh? It's all OK till you are one of them .... |
|
|
|
Post by Sigurdur on Jun 30, 2021 5:05:40 GMT
I’ve seen several references concerning an 18-year old boy who had a heart attack after receiving his second COVID shot. He was hospitalized and is now recovering at home. I wondered how unusual that might be?
An Australian publication indicates 0.13% of the heart attacks in Australia occur in the 15 to 25 age group.
Applying that number to the US would give an expected total of 80 to 90 heart attacks per month in the 15 to 25 year old age group.
About 40% of the youths in this age group are vaccinated so if my calculations are correct, 35 heart attacks per month among the 40 million people in this age group in the US might be “normal”. Wouldn't be a big deal if it was just one child. Heart inflammation is higher than 25% of young boys. |
|
|
|
Post by gridley on Jun 30, 2021 11:29:36 GMT
I’ve seen several references concerning an 18-year old boy who had a heart attack after receiving his second COVID shot. He was hospitalized and is now recovering at home. I wondered how unusual that might be?
An Australian publication indicates 0.13% of the heart attacks in Australia occur in the 15 to 25 age group.
Applying that number to the US would give an expected total of 80 to 90 heart attacks per month in the 15 to 25 year old age group.
About 40% of the youths in this age group are vaccinated so if my calculations are correct, 35 heart attacks per month among the 40 million people in this age group in the US might be “normal”. Bloody statistics, eh? It's all OK till you are one of them ....
And if VAERS were actually getting reports of ALL incidents we'd be able to see what the post-vaccinated portion of the population was doing vs. the regular population. But, as noted before, the numbers in VAERS are far below what the expected death rate would be, are clearly being messed with, and if they represent a normal level of reporting indicate that people are dying at several times the rate they should.
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jun 30, 2021 14:20:02 GMT
I find it very troubling that the "tragedy" of someone that is 55 years old, 100 lbs. overweight, who hasn't eaten a home cooked meal in 15 years dying of Covid complications garners media attention and is presented as the reason all, regardless of risk category, should submit to the experimental "vaccine" while a 13 year old with little to zero risk dying from the "vaccine" is ignored. My Body My Choice My Business Perhaps we will have better luck than the French.  |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jun 30, 2021 19:06:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jun 30, 2021 20:18:03 GMT
I’ve seen several references concerning an 18-year old boy who had a heart attack after receiving his second COVID shot. He was hospitalized and is now recovering at home. I wondered how unusual that might be?
An Australian publication indicates 0.13% of the heart attacks in Australia occur in the 15 to 25 age group.
Applying that number to the US would give an expected total of 80 to 90 heart attacks per month in the 15 to 25 year old age group.
About 40% of the youths in this age group are vaccinated so if my calculations are correct, 35 heart attacks per month among the 40 million people in this age group in the US might be “normal”. Wouldn't be a big deal if it was just one child. Heart inflammation is higher than 25% of young boys. Sigurdur, where did the "higher than 25%" come from? |
|
|
|
Post by Sigurdur on Jun 30, 2021 23:35:30 GMT
Wouldn't be a big deal if it was just one child. Heart inflammation is higher than 25% of young boys. Sigurdur, where did the "higher than 25%" come from? It was a number I read prior to the meeting where CDC, or some committee recommended vaccines be stopped for 16 and under. |
|
|
|
Post by Sigurdur on Jul 1, 2021 1:43:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Sigurdur on Jul 1, 2021 1:45:03 GMT
|
|
