Coronavirus
- Thread starter Highlander
- Start date
Bullfrog
Active member
WhatIfGodWasALeaf said:
Pretty good explanation here:
https://www.immunology.org/coronavirus/connect-coronavirus-public-engagement-resources/covid-immunity-natural-infection-vaccine
From what I gather, immunity gained naturally through infection seems to vary, likely due to severity of infection. That is, if you got really sick, you probably have pretty good natural immunity now; but if you only got mildly sick, then your natural immunity is likely lower.
Proper vaccination seems to always produce high level of long-lasting immunity. Seems that the vaccines also provide better protection against variants.
WhatIfGodWasALeaf
Active member
Thanks for the graphic bullfrog, it does seem a little speculative though, I don't really see numbers or specifics of what is happening.
If you test your antibodies regularly and can show proof ala a vaccine passport, doesn't that essentially accomplish the same outcome broadly speaking?
The variant comment is interesting, I'd be curious to know what is it about the vaccine immunological response that makes it different/superior to natural immunological response, as to my knowledge the vaccine was developed specifically to combat the original strain and has since shown to be effective against other variants, especially if you're testing antibodies.
If you test your antibodies regularly and can show proof ala a vaccine passport, doesn't that essentially accomplish the same outcome broadly speaking?
The variant comment is interesting, I'd be curious to know what is it about the vaccine immunological response that makes it different/superior to natural immunological response, as to my knowledge the vaccine was developed specifically to combat the original strain and has since shown to be effective against other variants, especially if you're testing antibodies.
WhatIfGodWasALeaf said:
It looks like it is dumbed down for a broad audience to get specifics and details, one would likely have to investigate the medical literature but that?s tough to do if you don?t have a background in the right kind of biology/statistics, I imagine.
One talks about ?antibodies? but (and I?m definitely not a biologist) my understanding was that the immune response is coordinated by many different kinds of cells and likely by their concentrations. Just testing for presence/absence of a single cell type may not give one the best picture of one?s resilience ? or it might ? what do I know?
From a logistical perspective, it is simpler to ask everyone to do the same thing ? get a vaccine as opposed to setting up 2 systems, one for registering the vaccine and another for trying to monitor over time whether someone is getting tested regularly (if that were to be effective). And it doesn?t make sense to implement the 2nd when you have data suggesting that vaccination is the better option.
Arn
Active member
WhatIfGodWasALeaf said:
A lot of events in Ireland are accepting either proof of vaccine, proof of negative test or indeed proof of a positive test during the previous X days (sorry, I can?t recall the duration) for access.
Some countries are also accepting proof of prior infection to allow travel in.
Highlander
Active member
a message to me from a small company in Quebec about the state of affairs with their company, its in crisis:
It's a crisis and only making the supply problems worse. 20 of our employees won't come back to work and we are a small company. Many of our suppliers have reduced production due to lack of labor. Many factors, not just Cerb. School and daycare closures means that 1 parent has to stay at home. Some are scared to death of Covid .... More than you would think. Carpooling is all but gone, reduced public transport especially for night shifts, etc....
A company with strong sales until Covid, started in 1976 and a leader in its field, is failing. We need to mandate mass vaccinations or open our economy and risk the fallout. At this point the responsible are getting vaccinated and our economy is being held back by the ones who won't get vaccinated.
It's a crisis and only making the supply problems worse. 20 of our employees won't come back to work and we are a small company. Many of our suppliers have reduced production due to lack of labor. Many factors, not just Cerb. School and daycare closures means that 1 parent has to stay at home. Some are scared to death of Covid .... More than you would think. Carpooling is all but gone, reduced public transport especially for night shifts, etc....
A company with strong sales until Covid, started in 1976 and a leader in its field, is failing. We need to mandate mass vaccinations or open our economy and risk the fallout. At this point the responsible are getting vaccinated and our economy is being held back by the ones who won't get vaccinated.
Highlander said:
That's basically the long and short of it. Businesses were kept afloat with CERB and wage subsidy. Those are rolling back soon and the biggest problem is anti-vaxxers holding the rest of us back. Why should 15% of the population hold the remaining 85% hostage?
Kin
New member
Some of the science is over my head but this seems pretty comprehensive:
https://onepagericu.com/blog/debunking-ivermectin-a-complete-guide
https://onepagericu.com/blog/debunking-ivermectin-a-complete-guide
Bullfrog
Active member
Ya, that's pretty good. I can't speak to the science either, but the pro-ivermectin cause follows just about every typical pro-conspiracy tactic. The in-vitro/in-vivo (in a petri dish vs. in a person/animal) grift is a super common one. Realistically, cancer has been cured in-vitro. There are tonnes of things that'll kill cancer cells in a dish. They often fail to mention it'll also kill you in the process.
The meta-analysis tactic is another common one. A meta-analysis basically being a review/summary of the prevailing studies on a subject. They either don't use them or they misuse them (as explained in the article you posted.) You're going to get false results if you include junk trials in your meta-analysis. There could be 1000 studies proving raspberries are healthy, but if there's one (usually of dubious quality) mildly suggesting they're poisonous, guess which one they cite?
Pharmacokinetics: a generally basic concept that in order for something to be "medicine", it has to do its job and safely. Firstly, you have to prove it has affect in-vitro. That is, if ivermectin can be proven to stop COVID in a lab study, then it MIGHT be worthwhile to further study. Lots of studies conspiracy theorists cite are simply proof-of-concept studies. That is, in vitro, they show possible benefit. They then interpret that as "obviously this is the hidden cure." But after an in-vitro study is successful (and of a high quality), then they have to move on to other studies and most don't get past this. Real scientists then go "well, it looked promising but didn't pan out." Which, to whack-jobs, reads as "big pharma is hiding the cure!" For in-vivo studies (in animals/humans), it has to do a few things to be successful: 1. it has to get to the site: certain cells, organs, etc. 2. it has to have effect (it has to work). 3. it has to get to the site with sufficient quantity to do it's job. 4. it has to do all this while being safe and not causing harm. It's this 4th one where lots of potential treatments fail. Chugging gasoline will likely meet the 1st three for a GI virus, but it's obviously not going to meet the 4th.
I'm sure there are tonnes of effective cures for various diseases out there, but they can't meet that 4th requirement of being safe.
It's essentially the same in reverse. That is, things that the FDA, WHO, etc. deem as safe are often claimed to be poisonous, such as glyphosate (RoundUp) or aspartame (sweetener.) Some of these things can be dangerous in-vitro, but not in-vivo.
Animal studies are also often misused or interpreted (in both ways). 1. safe in animals therefore safe in people. 2. harmful to animals therefore harmful to people. I mean, this is so easily debunked. A component in chocolate is harmful in dogs yet I can consume buckets full.
Some good reading or Ivermectin from my favourite source: (Science-Based Medicine)
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/?s=ivermectin&category_name=&submit=Search
The meta-analysis tactic is another common one. A meta-analysis basically being a review/summary of the prevailing studies on a subject. They either don't use them or they misuse them (as explained in the article you posted.) You're going to get false results if you include junk trials in your meta-analysis. There could be 1000 studies proving raspberries are healthy, but if there's one (usually of dubious quality) mildly suggesting they're poisonous, guess which one they cite?
Pharmacokinetics: a generally basic concept that in order for something to be "medicine", it has to do its job and safely. Firstly, you have to prove it has affect in-vitro. That is, if ivermectin can be proven to stop COVID in a lab study, then it MIGHT be worthwhile to further study. Lots of studies conspiracy theorists cite are simply proof-of-concept studies. That is, in vitro, they show possible benefit. They then interpret that as "obviously this is the hidden cure." But after an in-vitro study is successful (and of a high quality), then they have to move on to other studies and most don't get past this. Real scientists then go "well, it looked promising but didn't pan out." Which, to whack-jobs, reads as "big pharma is hiding the cure!" For in-vivo studies (in animals/humans), it has to do a few things to be successful: 1. it has to get to the site: certain cells, organs, etc. 2. it has to have effect (it has to work). 3. it has to get to the site with sufficient quantity to do it's job. 4. it has to do all this while being safe and not causing harm. It's this 4th one where lots of potential treatments fail. Chugging gasoline will likely meet the 1st three for a GI virus, but it's obviously not going to meet the 4th.
I'm sure there are tonnes of effective cures for various diseases out there, but they can't meet that 4th requirement of being safe.
It's essentially the same in reverse. That is, things that the FDA, WHO, etc. deem as safe are often claimed to be poisonous, such as glyphosate (RoundUp) or aspartame (sweetener.) Some of these things can be dangerous in-vitro, but not in-vivo.
Animal studies are also often misused or interpreted (in both ways). 1. safe in animals therefore safe in people. 2. harmful to animals therefore harmful to people. I mean, this is so easily debunked. A component in chocolate is harmful in dogs yet I can consume buckets full.
Some good reading or Ivermectin from my favourite source: (Science-Based Medicine)
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/?s=ivermectin&category_name=&submit=Search
Oilers' Archibald diagnosed with heart condition after having COVID-19
https://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/2200646
We really don't need any more examples of how being young and healthy doesn't mean you should avoid getting vaccinated or that rates of myocarditis in vaccinated individuals is similar to that in unvaccinated individuals who go on to get covid. We already saw it in Marco Rossi. That's at least two in a group of probably less than 1000 total players in the NHL, and none that we know of who had the shot.
Rossi had no choice but these are preventable now.
https://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/2200646
We really don't need any more examples of how being young and healthy doesn't mean you should avoid getting vaccinated or that rates of myocarditis in vaccinated individuals is similar to that in unvaccinated individuals who go on to get covid. We already saw it in Marco Rossi. That's at least two in a group of probably less than 1000 total players in the NHL, and none that we know of who had the shot.
Rossi had no choice but these are preventable now.
Peter D.
Moderator
Indoor ball hockey league is back. Beauty. You have to show proof of vaccination to enter the building and play. Sure. So why is it, that being the case, we are not allowed to use the dressing rooms to change?! Instead we have to either get ready outside (okay on a balmy October night, not so much when December rolls around) or in a corner at the arena for everyone to see. We are all shoulder to shoulder on the bench, breathing on each other, amongst another group of players (the other team). So what's the issue? If we can't do that now -- when everyone is confirmed to be vaccinated -- then when are we ever going to get that back?
Yet on the flip side, banquet halls don't require proof of vaccination, so it was no issues for my in-laws to be at a wedding reception last night with a hundred people, whether vaccinated or not.
None of this makes sense to me, and hasn't for a long while.
Yet on the flip side, banquet halls don't require proof of vaccination, so it was no issues for my in-laws to be at a wedding reception last night with a hundred people, whether vaccinated or not.
None of this makes sense to me, and hasn't for a long while.
OldTimeHockey
Active member
Peter D. said:
I think this is the biggest reason the last 20% have so many issues with the vaccine. The lack of clear information.
On one hand, I understand why guidelines are constantly shifting and changing. Everyone is learning as they go here.
On the other, I think a good portion of the posturing was and is political and it's caused mass confusion for many.
I'm 100% in favour of the vaccine and the greater safety. I'm also tired of so many rules in place that don't make sense. I was at the dentist today. One person had to wear a hazmat suit. The other only needed gloves and a mask. The next one needed a full face visor. They're all in the same space? Which one is it?
In regards to dressing rooms at arenas. My daughter only lost dressing room use for a short period last summer. Since then, they have had full access to the rooms as long as they have the space to distance. But, a small training rink in town has not been allowed to use their rooms. They were told it had something to do with ventilation.
Kin
New member
OldTimeHockey said:
I think it's giving a lot of that last 20% too much credit to say their opinions are as coherent as "Public Health information has at times been inconsistent and later revised resulting in a chaotic jumble of rules, therefore I'm going to assume that despite the near universal medical recommendation for getting the vaccine also may be based on faulty or premature basis."
Even if that were a reasonable position to take, there's a pretty good number of them who think it's got Bill Gates' brain microchips in it.
And are there really ?tens of thousands? health care workers who would be at risk of losing their jobs over this mandate? Are there really that many who would refuse to vaccinate? Because if that?s true I have serious questions about the quality of people in our healthcare system.
I should give a side note here in that for the last year and a half I?ve been dealing with a serious health issue (I?m good now) and the doctors, nurses and support staff I?ve dealt with have been nothing short of exceptional. So that?s why I don?t understand where these crazy numbers are coming from.
I should give a side note here in that for the last year and a half I?ve been dealing with a serious health issue (I?m good now) and the doctors, nurses and support staff I?ve dealt with have been nothing short of exceptional. So that?s why I don?t understand where these crazy numbers are coming from.
Highlander
Active member
Interesting read;
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/11/what-americas-covid-goal-now/620572/?utm_source=pocket-newtab
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/11/what-americas-covid-goal-now/620572/?utm_source=pocket-newtab
