Kentucky may be a red state, but Louisville is a liberal area. One of two liberal counties in KYCobretti said:Louisville, Kentucky is returning a mask mandate for its kids in schools. Absolute insanity. Even red state residents arenโt safe from anti-science blue city insanity. https://t.co/geGS8RY2ev
— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) July 23, 2022
Masks are Never Coming Off
198,193 Views |
2981 Replies |
Last: 4 mo ago by Wangchung
Facts are vicious to the feckless. pic.twitter.com/rrk8mf4Xnw
— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) July 23, 2022
They're struggling to pivot from the original approach. And something doesn't need to be a total failure to have failed in its intended purpose. Each piece of data that mounts over time is part of the broader evaluation of the vaccine and approach. We intentionally went at "warp speed" to get the vaccine to market, but most if not all medications take years of evaluation before going to market. We are a gigantic live human trial, so these "factoids" are important in the evaluations.Sam Lowry said:They're doing the work they need to do as far as improving the vaccines and exploring other strategies. Normally this would be uncontroversial. The limitations of the current vaccines aren't shocking to anyone who's followed the science. But anti-vaxxers reliably seize on every new factoid and misrepresent it as proof the vaccines are a total failure. This is what prolongs the debate and leads to the necessary rebuttals that you may perceive as cheer-leading.ATL Bear said:
The vaccine type is/was a problem. That's what is playing out. There is a lost perspective from the expectations, and some are trying to defend something that will continue to disappoint.
When you design a vaccine based upon recognition of a small component of a virus versus the actual virus (or at least more genetic detail), it's going to be less effective against variants and mutations. I think that's proven to be a strategic mistake and has hindered vaccine effectiveness.
It was already near impossible to have an effective vaccine against coronaviruses, primarily because of the upper respiratory nature of them. A vaccine built around a lab created antigen of a piece of the spike protein meant our immune system was looking for something very specific to fight. One alteration to an amino acid, which is a simple not complex variation, and the immune system loses its vaccine induced advantage.
This even plays out with our flu vaccines because we use lab created inactivated viral pieces versus live attenuated. Chosen for safety and production expediency primarily. While it contains many more antigen identifiers than the COVID vaccine, mutations trick it regularly and why it sits around 50% effectiveness. Influenza is much more genetically complex than COVID.
With the mRNA vaccine they took a small sliver of the spike protein of one variant and used that as the antigen. Sure our immune system responded well to primary variants, but the highly infectious coronavirus moved way faster, and since our immune system wasn't given the full story on the virus, it doesn't recognize many of the latest. Again, safety and expediency has played a large role in this outcome. That's the overhanging politics/bureaucracy that's there.
What happened with boosters isn't that the vaccine was any better, but the immune system was "hyped" up thanks to a vaccine and was ready to respond faster. As it settled in over time the immune system did too and couldn't respond as fast, especially for those most vulnerable and in need of having their immune system primed. But continuing to falsely "hype" immune systems has a negative impact as many studies have shown.
The problem I have with this "all hail the vax" mentality is it is creating a complacency toward new answers in both therapeutics and vaccines by trying to convince everyone how great it works, when at a macro level it is fading out exactly as this progression would expect. Farther and farther away from advised and expected performance, especially when you consider COVID has mutated to weaker and weaker strains (thankfully).
At least in terms of the Polio vaccine ....the federal government and drug industry did the same thing.ATL Bear said:They're struggling to pivot from the original approach. And something doesn't need to be a total failure to have failed in its intended purpose. Each piece of data that mounts over time is part of the broader evaluation of the vaccine and approach. We intentionally went at "warp speed" to get the vaccine to market, but most if not all medications take years of evaluation before going to market. We are a gigantic live human trial, so these "factoids" are important in the evaluations.Sam Lowry said:They're doing the work they need to do as far as improving the vaccines and exploring other strategies. Normally this would be uncontroversial. The limitations of the current vaccines aren't shocking to anyone who's followed the science. But anti-vaxxers reliably seize on every new factoid and misrepresent it as proof the vaccines are a total failure. This is what prolongs the debate and leads to the necessary rebuttals that you may perceive as cheer-leading.ATL Bear said:
The vaccine type is/was a problem. That's what is playing out. There is a lost perspective from the expectations, and some are trying to defend something that will continue to disappoint.
When you design a vaccine based upon recognition of a small component of a virus versus the actual virus (or at least more genetic detail), it's going to be less effective against variants and mutations. I think that's proven to be a strategic mistake and has hindered vaccine effectiveness.
It was already near impossible to have an effective vaccine against coronaviruses, primarily because of the upper respiratory nature of them. A vaccine built around a lab created antigen of a piece of the spike protein meant our immune system was looking for something very specific to fight. One alteration to an amino acid, which is a simple not complex variation, and the immune system loses its vaccine induced advantage.
This even plays out with our flu vaccines because we use lab created inactivated viral pieces versus live attenuated. Chosen for safety and production expediency primarily. While it contains many more antigen identifiers than the COVID vaccine, mutations trick it regularly and why it sits around 50% effectiveness. Influenza is much more genetically complex than COVID.
With the mRNA vaccine they took a small sliver of the spike protein of one variant and used that as the antigen. Sure our immune system responded well to primary variants, but the highly infectious coronavirus moved way faster, and since our immune system wasn't given the full story on the virus, it doesn't recognize many of the latest. Again, safety and expediency has played a large role in this outcome. That's the overhanging politics/bureaucracy that's there.
What happened with boosters isn't that the vaccine was any better, but the immune system was "hyped" up thanks to a vaccine and was ready to respond faster. As it settled in over time the immune system did too and couldn't respond as fast, especially for those most vulnerable and in need of having their immune system primed. But continuing to falsely "hype" immune systems has a negative impact as many studies have shown.
The problem I have with this "all hail the vax" mentality is it is creating a complacency toward new answers in both therapeutics and vaccines by trying to convince everyone how great it works, when at a macro level it is fading out exactly as this progression would expect. Farther and farther away from advised and expected performance, especially when you consider COVID has mutated to weaker and weaker strains (thankfully).
Resulting in thousands of otherwise healthy children getting polio from contaminated batches of vaccine .
Eventually the 'bugs' got eliminated.....but many such children never recovered.
They were sacrificed for the sake of 'warp speed' .
They succeeded in their intended purpose. A broad evaluation of the approach is important, but it's not really what clinical trials are for. It's sure to be ongoing as this and other drugs hit the market.ATL Bear said:They're struggling to pivot from the original approach. And something doesn't need to be a total failure to have failed in its intended purpose. Each piece of data that mounts over time is part of the broader evaluation of the vaccine and approach. We intentionally went at "warp speed" to get the vaccine to market, but most if not all medications take years of evaluation before going to market. We are a gigantic live human trial, so these "factoids" are important in the evaluations.Sam Lowry said:They're doing the work they need to do as far as improving the vaccines and exploring other strategies. Normally this would be uncontroversial. The limitations of the current vaccines aren't shocking to anyone who's followed the science. But anti-vaxxers reliably seize on every new factoid and misrepresent it as proof the vaccines are a total failure. This is what prolongs the debate and leads to the necessary rebuttals that you may perceive as cheer-leading.ATL Bear said:
The vaccine type is/was a problem. That's what is playing out. There is a lost perspective from the expectations, and some are trying to defend something that will continue to disappoint.
When you design a vaccine based upon recognition of a small component of a virus versus the actual virus (or at least more genetic detail), it's going to be less effective against variants and mutations. I think that's proven to be a strategic mistake and has hindered vaccine effectiveness.
It was already near impossible to have an effective vaccine against coronaviruses, primarily because of the upper respiratory nature of them. A vaccine built around a lab created antigen of a piece of the spike protein meant our immune system was looking for something very specific to fight. One alteration to an amino acid, which is a simple not complex variation, and the immune system loses its vaccine induced advantage.
This even plays out with our flu vaccines because we use lab created inactivated viral pieces versus live attenuated. Chosen for safety and production expediency primarily. While it contains many more antigen identifiers than the COVID vaccine, mutations trick it regularly and why it sits around 50% effectiveness. Influenza is much more genetically complex than COVID.
With the mRNA vaccine they took a small sliver of the spike protein of one variant and used that as the antigen. Sure our immune system responded well to primary variants, but the highly infectious coronavirus moved way faster, and since our immune system wasn't given the full story on the virus, it doesn't recognize many of the latest. Again, safety and expediency has played a large role in this outcome. That's the overhanging politics/bureaucracy that's there.
What happened with boosters isn't that the vaccine was any better, but the immune system was "hyped" up thanks to a vaccine and was ready to respond faster. As it settled in over time the immune system did too and couldn't respond as fast, especially for those most vulnerable and in need of having their immune system primed. But continuing to falsely "hype" immune systems has a negative impact as many studies have shown.
The problem I have with this "all hail the vax" mentality is it is creating a complacency toward new answers in both therapeutics and vaccines by trying to convince everyone how great it works, when at a macro level it is fading out exactly as this progression would expect. Farther and farther away from advised and expected performance, especially when you consider COVID has mutated to weaker and weaker strains (thankfully).
Lol send in your silly adjusted reasonings .. pic.twitter.com/jSGLSHDqAo
— Jodie Abacus (@JodieAbacus) July 23, 2022
I can't see how you can honestly say that. We're benefitting from a weaker mutated strain at this point more than a vaccine. Unfortunately places like New Zealand that quarantined their island early on in the pandemic are suffering greatly now that they've been exposed en masse to the virus.Sam Lowry said:They succeeded in their intended purpose. A broad evaluation of the approach is important, but it's not really what clinical trials are for. It's sure to be ongoing as this and other drugs hit the market.ATL Bear said:They're struggling to pivot from the original approach. And something doesn't need to be a total failure to have failed in its intended purpose. Each piece of data that mounts over time is part of the broader evaluation of the vaccine and approach. We intentionally went at "warp speed" to get the vaccine to market, but most if not all medications take years of evaluation before going to market. We are a gigantic live human trial, so these "factoids" are important in the evaluations.Sam Lowry said:They're doing the work they need to do as far as improving the vaccines and exploring other strategies. Normally this would be uncontroversial. The limitations of the current vaccines aren't shocking to anyone who's followed the science. But anti-vaxxers reliably seize on every new factoid and misrepresent it as proof the vaccines are a total failure. This is what prolongs the debate and leads to the necessary rebuttals that you may perceive as cheer-leading.ATL Bear said:
The vaccine type is/was a problem. That's what is playing out. There is a lost perspective from the expectations, and some are trying to defend something that will continue to disappoint.
When you design a vaccine based upon recognition of a small component of a virus versus the actual virus (or at least more genetic detail), it's going to be less effective against variants and mutations. I think that's proven to be a strategic mistake and has hindered vaccine effectiveness.
It was already near impossible to have an effective vaccine against coronaviruses, primarily because of the upper respiratory nature of them. A vaccine built around a lab created antigen of a piece of the spike protein meant our immune system was looking for something very specific to fight. One alteration to an amino acid, which is a simple not complex variation, and the immune system loses its vaccine induced advantage.
This even plays out with our flu vaccines because we use lab created inactivated viral pieces versus live attenuated. Chosen for safety and production expediency primarily. While it contains many more antigen identifiers than the COVID vaccine, mutations trick it regularly and why it sits around 50% effectiveness. Influenza is much more genetically complex than COVID.
With the mRNA vaccine they took a small sliver of the spike protein of one variant and used that as the antigen. Sure our immune system responded well to primary variants, but the highly infectious coronavirus moved way faster, and since our immune system wasn't given the full story on the virus, it doesn't recognize many of the latest. Again, safety and expediency has played a large role in this outcome. That's the overhanging politics/bureaucracy that's there.
What happened with boosters isn't that the vaccine was any better, but the immune system was "hyped" up thanks to a vaccine and was ready to respond faster. As it settled in over time the immune system did too and couldn't respond as fast, especially for those most vulnerable and in need of having their immune system primed. But continuing to falsely "hype" immune systems has a negative impact as many studies have shown.
The problem I have with this "all hail the vax" mentality is it is creating a complacency toward new answers in both therapeutics and vaccines by trying to convince everyone how great it works, when at a macro level it is fading out exactly as this progression would expect. Farther and farther away from advised and expected performance, especially when you consider COVID has mutated to weaker and weaker strains (thankfully).
Another ironic twist is your warped sense of clinical trials, which yes they are supposed to evaluate the vaccine approach and it's efficacy. Yet all you use is clinical testing data to support your positions on effectiveness that continue to be undermined the more data is captured across the globe.
Outside of the die from the vaccine part, I feel like we're living the satire of this conversation on the vaccine.
Part 2/2 pic.twitter.com/5XETUX7O9I
— Moe dโr koek (@MvEHAL) July 23, 2022
Agreed. I often wonder if this gaslighting and revisionist history is actually satire.ATL Bear said:I can't see how you can honestly say that. We're benefitting from a weaker mutated strain at this point more than a vaccine. Unfortunately places like New Zealand that quarantined their island early on in the pandemic are suffering greatly now that they've been exposed en masse to the virus.Sam Lowry said:They succeeded in their intended purpose. A broad evaluation of the approach is important, but it's not really what clinical trials are for. It's sure to be ongoing as this and other drugs hit the market.ATL Bear said:They're struggling to pivot from the original approach. And something doesn't need to be a total failure to have failed in its intended purpose. Each piece of data that mounts over time is part of the broader evaluation of the vaccine and approach. We intentionally went at "warp speed" to get the vaccine to market, but most if not all medications take years of evaluation before going to market. We are a gigantic live human trial, so these "factoids" are important in the evaluations.Sam Lowry said:They're doing the work they need to do as far as improving the vaccines and exploring other strategies. Normally this would be uncontroversial. The limitations of the current vaccines aren't shocking to anyone who's followed the science. But anti-vaxxers reliably seize on every new factoid and misrepresent it as proof the vaccines are a total failure. This is what prolongs the debate and leads to the necessary rebuttals that you may perceive as cheer-leading.ATL Bear said:
The vaccine type is/was a problem. That's what is playing out. There is a lost perspective from the expectations, and some are trying to defend something that will continue to disappoint.
When you design a vaccine based upon recognition of a small component of a virus versus the actual virus (or at least more genetic detail), it's going to be less effective against variants and mutations. I think that's proven to be a strategic mistake and has hindered vaccine effectiveness.
It was already near impossible to have an effective vaccine against coronaviruses, primarily because of the upper respiratory nature of them. A vaccine built around a lab created antigen of a piece of the spike protein meant our immune system was looking for something very specific to fight. One alteration to an amino acid, which is a simple not complex variation, and the immune system loses its vaccine induced advantage.
This even plays out with our flu vaccines because we use lab created inactivated viral pieces versus live attenuated. Chosen for safety and production expediency primarily. While it contains many more antigen identifiers than the COVID vaccine, mutations trick it regularly and why it sits around 50% effectiveness. Influenza is much more genetically complex than COVID.
With the mRNA vaccine they took a small sliver of the spike protein of one variant and used that as the antigen. Sure our immune system responded well to primary variants, but the highly infectious coronavirus moved way faster, and since our immune system wasn't given the full story on the virus, it doesn't recognize many of the latest. Again, safety and expediency has played a large role in this outcome. That's the overhanging politics/bureaucracy that's there.
What happened with boosters isn't that the vaccine was any better, but the immune system was "hyped" up thanks to a vaccine and was ready to respond faster. As it settled in over time the immune system did too and couldn't respond as fast, especially for those most vulnerable and in need of having their immune system primed. But continuing to falsely "hype" immune systems has a negative impact as many studies have shown.
The problem I have with this "all hail the vax" mentality is it is creating a complacency toward new answers in both therapeutics and vaccines by trying to convince everyone how great it works, when at a macro level it is fading out exactly as this progression would expect. Farther and farther away from advised and expected performance, especially when you consider COVID has mutated to weaker and weaker strains (thankfully).
Another ironic twist is your warped sense of clinical trials, which yes they are supposed to evaluate the vaccine approach and it's efficacy. Yet all you use is clinical testing data to support your positions on effectiveness that continue to be undermined the more data is captured across the globe.
Outside of the die from the vaccine part, I feel like we're living the satire of this conversation on the vaccine.Part 2/2 pic.twitter.com/5XETUX7O9I
— Moe dโr koek (@MvEHAL) July 23, 2022
We're benefiting from both, and the two are related. It's more than likely that the vaccine contributed to the emergence of the weaker variant. And vaccinated people are still getting sick, getting hospitalized, and dying at much lower rates. The virus was going to hit New Zealand eventually. They are far, far better off now than they would have been otherwise. Even now their cumulative death rate is about one-tenth of ours.ATL Bear said:I can't see how you can honestly say that. We're benefitting from a weaker mutated strain at this point more than a vaccine. Unfortunately places like New Zealand that quarantined their island early on in the pandemic are suffering greatly now that they've been exposed en masse to the virus.Sam Lowry said:They succeeded in their intended purpose. A broad evaluation of the approach is important, but it's not really what clinical trials are for. It's sure to be ongoing as this and other drugs hit the market.ATL Bear said:They're struggling to pivot from the original approach. And something doesn't need to be a total failure to have failed in its intended purpose. Each piece of data that mounts over time is part of the broader evaluation of the vaccine and approach. We intentionally went at "warp speed" to get the vaccine to market, but most if not all medications take years of evaluation before going to market. We are a gigantic live human trial, so these "factoids" are important in the evaluations.Sam Lowry said:They're doing the work they need to do as far as improving the vaccines and exploring other strategies. Normally this would be uncontroversial. The limitations of the current vaccines aren't shocking to anyone who's followed the science. But anti-vaxxers reliably seize on every new factoid and misrepresent it as proof the vaccines are a total failure. This is what prolongs the debate and leads to the necessary rebuttals that you may perceive as cheer-leading.ATL Bear said:
The vaccine type is/was a problem. That's what is playing out. There is a lost perspective from the expectations, and some are trying to defend something that will continue to disappoint.
When you design a vaccine based upon recognition of a small component of a virus versus the actual virus (or at least more genetic detail), it's going to be less effective against variants and mutations. I think that's proven to be a strategic mistake and has hindered vaccine effectiveness.
It was already near impossible to have an effective vaccine against coronaviruses, primarily because of the upper respiratory nature of them. A vaccine built around a lab created antigen of a piece of the spike protein meant our immune system was looking for something very specific to fight. One alteration to an amino acid, which is a simple not complex variation, and the immune system loses its vaccine induced advantage.
This even plays out with our flu vaccines because we use lab created inactivated viral pieces versus live attenuated. Chosen for safety and production expediency primarily. While it contains many more antigen identifiers than the COVID vaccine, mutations trick it regularly and why it sits around 50% effectiveness. Influenza is much more genetically complex than COVID.
With the mRNA vaccine they took a small sliver of the spike protein of one variant and used that as the antigen. Sure our immune system responded well to primary variants, but the highly infectious coronavirus moved way faster, and since our immune system wasn't given the full story on the virus, it doesn't recognize many of the latest. Again, safety and expediency has played a large role in this outcome. That's the overhanging politics/bureaucracy that's there.
What happened with boosters isn't that the vaccine was any better, but the immune system was "hyped" up thanks to a vaccine and was ready to respond faster. As it settled in over time the immune system did too and couldn't respond as fast, especially for those most vulnerable and in need of having their immune system primed. But continuing to falsely "hype" immune systems has a negative impact as many studies have shown.
The problem I have with this "all hail the vax" mentality is it is creating a complacency toward new answers in both therapeutics and vaccines by trying to convince everyone how great it works, when at a macro level it is fading out exactly as this progression would expect. Farther and farther away from advised and expected performance, especially when you consider COVID has mutated to weaker and weaker strains (thankfully).
Another ironic twist is your warped sense of clinical trials, which yes they are supposed to evaluate the vaccine approach and it's efficacy. Yet all you use is clinical testing data to support your positions on effectiveness that continue to be undermined the more data is captured across the globe.
Outside of the die from the vaccine part, I feel like we're living the satire of this conversation on the vaccine.
The video tweet has three falsehoods in the first 30 seconds and goes downhill from there. If I were as confused as that guy, I'd think the world had gone crazy too.
Those are great. Watch the video above with quotes from Biden, Fauci, etc right above these. Those clips aren't even satire.ATL Bear said:I can't see how you can honestly say that. We're benefitting from a weaker mutated strain at this point more than a vaccine. Unfortunately places like New Zealand that quarantined their island early on in the pandemic are suffering greatly now that they've been exposed en masse to the virus.Sam Lowry said:They succeeded in their intended purpose. A broad evaluation of the approach is important, but it's not really what clinical trials are for. It's sure to be ongoing as this and other drugs hit the market.ATL Bear said:They're struggling to pivot from the original approach. And something doesn't need to be a total failure to have failed in its intended purpose. Each piece of data that mounts over time is part of the broader evaluation of the vaccine and approach. We intentionally went at "warp speed" to get the vaccine to market, but most if not all medications take years of evaluation before going to market. We are a gigantic live human trial, so these "factoids" are important in the evaluations.Sam Lowry said:They're doing the work they need to do as far as improving the vaccines and exploring other strategies. Normally this would be uncontroversial. The limitations of the current vaccines aren't shocking to anyone who's followed the science. But anti-vaxxers reliably seize on every new factoid and misrepresent it as proof the vaccines are a total failure. This is what prolongs the debate and leads to the necessary rebuttals that you may perceive as cheer-leading.ATL Bear said:
The vaccine type is/was a problem. That's what is playing out. There is a lost perspective from the expectations, and some are trying to defend something that will continue to disappoint.
When you design a vaccine based upon recognition of a small component of a virus versus the actual virus (or at least more genetic detail), it's going to be less effective against variants and mutations. I think that's proven to be a strategic mistake and has hindered vaccine effectiveness.
It was already near impossible to have an effective vaccine against coronaviruses, primarily because of the upper respiratory nature of them. A vaccine built around a lab created antigen of a piece of the spike protein meant our immune system was looking for something very specific to fight. One alteration to an amino acid, which is a simple not complex variation, and the immune system loses its vaccine induced advantage.
This even plays out with our flu vaccines because we use lab created inactivated viral pieces versus live attenuated. Chosen for safety and production expediency primarily. While it contains many more antigen identifiers than the COVID vaccine, mutations trick it regularly and why it sits around 50% effectiveness. Influenza is much more genetically complex than COVID.
With the mRNA vaccine they took a small sliver of the spike protein of one variant and used that as the antigen. Sure our immune system responded well to primary variants, but the highly infectious coronavirus moved way faster, and since our immune system wasn't given the full story on the virus, it doesn't recognize many of the latest. Again, safety and expediency has played a large role in this outcome. That's the overhanging politics/bureaucracy that's there.
What happened with boosters isn't that the vaccine was any better, but the immune system was "hyped" up thanks to a vaccine and was ready to respond faster. As it settled in over time the immune system did too and couldn't respond as fast, especially for those most vulnerable and in need of having their immune system primed. But continuing to falsely "hype" immune systems has a negative impact as many studies have shown.
The problem I have with this "all hail the vax" mentality is it is creating a complacency toward new answers in both therapeutics and vaccines by trying to convince everyone how great it works, when at a macro level it is fading out exactly as this progression would expect. Farther and farther away from advised and expected performance, especially when you consider COVID has mutated to weaker and weaker strains (thankfully).
Another ironic twist is your warped sense of clinical trials, which yes they are supposed to evaluate the vaccine approach and it's efficacy. Yet all you use is clinical testing data to support your positions on effectiveness that continue to be undermined the more data is captured across the globe.
Outside of the die from the vaccine part, I feel like we're living the satire of this conversation on the vaccine.Part 2/2 pic.twitter.com/5XETUX7O9I
— Moe dโr koek (@MvEHAL) July 23, 2022
Thank you for that link. It's fascinating how much our understanding of outcomes have changed in the past year plus. You keep referencing articles Pre Omicron that aren't following the "science" given for the opinion. We are in a series of prevailing understanding that prior research becomes no longer relevant. Sort of like a vaccine that's efficacy wanes.Sam Lowry said:We're benefiting from both, and the two are related. It's more than likely that the vaccine contributed to the emergence of the weaker variant. And vaccinated people are still getting sick, getting hospitalized, and dying at much lower rates. The virus was going to hit New Zealand eventually. They are far, far better off now than they would have been otherwise. Even now their cumulative death rate is about one-tenth of ours.ATL Bear said:I can't see how you can honestly say that. We're benefitting from a weaker mutated strain at this point more than a vaccine. Unfortunately places like New Zealand that quarantined their island early on in the pandemic are suffering greatly now that they've been exposed en masse to the virus.Sam Lowry said:They succeeded in their intended purpose. A broad evaluation of the approach is important, but it's not really what clinical trials are for. It's sure to be ongoing as this and other drugs hit the market.ATL Bear said:They're struggling to pivot from the original approach. And something doesn't need to be a total failure to have failed in its intended purpose. Each piece of data that mounts over time is part of the broader evaluation of the vaccine and approach. We intentionally went at "warp speed" to get the vaccine to market, but most if not all medications take years of evaluation before going to market. We are a gigantic live human trial, so these "factoids" are important in the evaluations.Sam Lowry said:They're doing the work they need to do as far as improving the vaccines and exploring other strategies. Normally this would be uncontroversial. The limitations of the current vaccines aren't shocking to anyone who's followed the science. But anti-vaxxers reliably seize on every new factoid and misrepresent it as proof the vaccines are a total failure. This is what prolongs the debate and leads to the necessary rebuttals that you may perceive as cheer-leading.ATL Bear said:
The vaccine type is/was a problem. That's what is playing out. There is a lost perspective from the expectations, and some are trying to defend something that will continue to disappoint.
When you design a vaccine based upon recognition of a small component of a virus versus the actual virus (or at least more genetic detail), it's going to be less effective against variants and mutations. I think that's proven to be a strategic mistake and has hindered vaccine effectiveness.
It was already near impossible to have an effective vaccine against coronaviruses, primarily because of the upper respiratory nature of them. A vaccine built around a lab created antigen of a piece of the spike protein meant our immune system was looking for something very specific to fight. One alteration to an amino acid, which is a simple not complex variation, and the immune system loses its vaccine induced advantage.
This even plays out with our flu vaccines because we use lab created inactivated viral pieces versus live attenuated. Chosen for safety and production expediency primarily. While it contains many more antigen identifiers than the COVID vaccine, mutations trick it regularly and why it sits around 50% effectiveness. Influenza is much more genetically complex than COVID.
With the mRNA vaccine they took a small sliver of the spike protein of one variant and used that as the antigen. Sure our immune system responded well to primary variants, but the highly infectious coronavirus moved way faster, and since our immune system wasn't given the full story on the virus, it doesn't recognize many of the latest. Again, safety and expediency has played a large role in this outcome. That's the overhanging politics/bureaucracy that's there.
What happened with boosters isn't that the vaccine was any better, but the immune system was "hyped" up thanks to a vaccine and was ready to respond faster. As it settled in over time the immune system did too and couldn't respond as fast, especially for those most vulnerable and in need of having their immune system primed. But continuing to falsely "hype" immune systems has a negative impact as many studies have shown.
The problem I have with this "all hail the vax" mentality is it is creating a complacency toward new answers in both therapeutics and vaccines by trying to convince everyone how great it works, when at a macro level it is fading out exactly as this progression would expect. Farther and farther away from advised and expected performance, especially when you consider COVID has mutated to weaker and weaker strains (thankfully).
Another ironic twist is your warped sense of clinical trials, which yes they are supposed to evaluate the vaccine approach and it's efficacy. Yet all you use is clinical testing data to support your positions on effectiveness that continue to be undermined the more data is captured across the globe.
Outside of the die from the vaccine part, I feel like we're living the satire of this conversation on the vaccine.
The video tweet has three falsehoods in the first 30 seconds and goes downhill from there. If I were as confused as that guy, I'd think the world had gone crazy too.
However I did appreciate the technical explanation of how the vaccine and virus work in conjunction for the virus to defeat its protective measures. The problems of the mRNA spike protein approach are clear, and relate back to an earlier post of mine about not really supporting the T-cell immunity that truly stops viruses.
But the vaccine had nothing to do with weakening the strain anymore than it will likely strengthen it. Viruses mutate to survive, and the vast majority result in weaker versions. The problem is the type of vaccine we chose that is losing its priming capability for antibody resistance.
RE the satire, no real lies. Maybe exaggeration for effect, but touches on uncomfortable realities some aren't willing to acknowledge.
You're welcome. I don't quite understand your first paragraph, though. It was written before Omicron, predicting weaker strains, and that's what happened. How viruses evolve depends on their environment. The problem with Covid, as I pointed out a couple of years ago, is that it was under less pressure to attenuate because of its high transmissibility and the long course of the illness. The vaccines seem to have provided some of that pressure.ATL Bear said:Thank you for that link. It's fascinating how much our understanding of outcomes have changed in the past year plus. You keep referencing articles Pre Omicron that aren't following the "science" given for the opinion. We are in a series of prevailing understanding that prior research becomes no longer relevant. Sort of like a vaccine that's efficacy wanes.Sam Lowry said:We're benefiting from both, and the two are related. It's more than likely that the vaccine contributed to the emergence of the weaker variant. And vaccinated people are still getting sick, getting hospitalized, and dying at much lower rates. The virus was going to hit New Zealand eventually. They are far, far better off now than they would have been otherwise. Even now their cumulative death rate is about one-tenth of ours.ATL Bear said:I can't see how you can honestly say that. We're benefitting from a weaker mutated strain at this point more than a vaccine. Unfortunately places like New Zealand that quarantined their island early on in the pandemic are suffering greatly now that they've been exposed en masse to the virus.Sam Lowry said:They succeeded in their intended purpose. A broad evaluation of the approach is important, but it's not really what clinical trials are for. It's sure to be ongoing as this and other drugs hit the market.ATL Bear said:They're struggling to pivot from the original approach. And something doesn't need to be a total failure to have failed in its intended purpose. Each piece of data that mounts over time is part of the broader evaluation of the vaccine and approach. We intentionally went at "warp speed" to get the vaccine to market, but most if not all medications take years of evaluation before going to market. We are a gigantic live human trial, so these "factoids" are important in the evaluations.Sam Lowry said:They're doing the work they need to do as far as improving the vaccines and exploring other strategies. Normally this would be uncontroversial. The limitations of the current vaccines aren't shocking to anyone who's followed the science. But anti-vaxxers reliably seize on every new factoid and misrepresent it as proof the vaccines are a total failure. This is what prolongs the debate and leads to the necessary rebuttals that you may perceive as cheer-leading.ATL Bear said:
The vaccine type is/was a problem. That's what is playing out. There is a lost perspective from the expectations, and some are trying to defend something that will continue to disappoint.
When you design a vaccine based upon recognition of a small component of a virus versus the actual virus (or at least more genetic detail), it's going to be less effective against variants and mutations. I think that's proven to be a strategic mistake and has hindered vaccine effectiveness.
It was already near impossible to have an effective vaccine against coronaviruses, primarily because of the upper respiratory nature of them. A vaccine built around a lab created antigen of a piece of the spike protein meant our immune system was looking for something very specific to fight. One alteration to an amino acid, which is a simple not complex variation, and the immune system loses its vaccine induced advantage.
This even plays out with our flu vaccines because we use lab created inactivated viral pieces versus live attenuated. Chosen for safety and production expediency primarily. While it contains many more antigen identifiers than the COVID vaccine, mutations trick it regularly and why it sits around 50% effectiveness. Influenza is much more genetically complex than COVID.
With the mRNA vaccine they took a small sliver of the spike protein of one variant and used that as the antigen. Sure our immune system responded well to primary variants, but the highly infectious coronavirus moved way faster, and since our immune system wasn't given the full story on the virus, it doesn't recognize many of the latest. Again, safety and expediency has played a large role in this outcome. That's the overhanging politics/bureaucracy that's there.
What happened with boosters isn't that the vaccine was any better, but the immune system was "hyped" up thanks to a vaccine and was ready to respond faster. As it settled in over time the immune system did too and couldn't respond as fast, especially for those most vulnerable and in need of having their immune system primed. But continuing to falsely "hype" immune systems has a negative impact as many studies have shown.
The problem I have with this "all hail the vax" mentality is it is creating a complacency toward new answers in both therapeutics and vaccines by trying to convince everyone how great it works, when at a macro level it is fading out exactly as this progression would expect. Farther and farther away from advised and expected performance, especially when you consider COVID has mutated to weaker and weaker strains (thankfully).
Another ironic twist is your warped sense of clinical trials, which yes they are supposed to evaluate the vaccine approach and it's efficacy. Yet all you use is clinical testing data to support your positions on effectiveness that continue to be undermined the more data is captured across the globe.
Outside of the die from the vaccine part, I feel like we're living the satire of this conversation on the vaccine.
The video tweet has three falsehoods in the first 30 seconds and goes downhill from there. If I were as confused as that guy, I'd think the world had gone crazy too.
However I did appreciate the technical explanation of how the vaccine and virus work in conjunction for the virus to defeat its protective measures. The problems of the mRNA spike protein approach are clear, and relate back to an earlier post of mine about not really supporting the T-cell immunity that truly stops viruses.
But the vaccine had nothing to do with weakening the strain anymore than it will likely strengthen it. Viruses mutate to survive, and the vast majority result in weaker versions. The problem is the type of vaccine we chose that is losing its priming capability for antibody resistance.
RE the satire, no real lies. Maybe exaggeration for effect, but touches on uncomfortable realities some aren't willing to acknowledge.
They stopped the original mRNA experiments because the animals kept dying (lie). The Covid vaccine wasn't tested on animals (lie). Most vaccines take decades to test (lie). And so on...
Vaccines had nothing to do with that as the author says in the article. Basically concludes that you really can't predict how a virus will mutate. Which is correct. The only argument he was trying to make is that since viruses will always mutate toward avoiding antibody resistance, which vaccines induce, you can't assume it will mutate to a worse version.Sam Lowry said:You're welcome. I don't quite understand your first paragraph, though. It was written before Omicron, predicting weaker strains, and that's what happened. How viruses evolve depends on their environment. The problem with Covid, as I pointed out a couple of years ago, is that it was under less pressure to attenuate because of its high transmissibility and the long course of the illness. The vaccines seem to have provided some of that pressure.ATL Bear said:Thank you for that link. It's fascinating how much our understanding of outcomes have changed in the past year plus. You keep referencing articles Pre Omicron that aren't following the "science" given for the opinion. We are in a series of prevailing understanding that prior research becomes no longer relevant. Sort of like a vaccine that's efficacy wanes.Sam Lowry said:We're benefiting from both, and the two are related. It's more than likely that the vaccine contributed to the emergence of the weaker variant. And vaccinated people are still getting sick, getting hospitalized, and dying at much lower rates. The virus was going to hit New Zealand eventually. They are far, far better off now than they would have been otherwise. Even now their cumulative death rate is about one-tenth of ours.ATL Bear said:I can't see how you can honestly say that. We're benefitting from a weaker mutated strain at this point more than a vaccine. Unfortunately places like New Zealand that quarantined their island early on in the pandemic are suffering greatly now that they've been exposed en masse to the virus.Sam Lowry said:They succeeded in their intended purpose. A broad evaluation of the approach is important, but it's not really what clinical trials are for. It's sure to be ongoing as this and other drugs hit the market.ATL Bear said:They're struggling to pivot from the original approach. And something doesn't need to be a total failure to have failed in its intended purpose. Each piece of data that mounts over time is part of the broader evaluation of the vaccine and approach. We intentionally went at "warp speed" to get the vaccine to market, but most if not all medications take years of evaluation before going to market. We are a gigantic live human trial, so these "factoids" are important in the evaluations.Sam Lowry said:They're doing the work they need to do as far as improving the vaccines and exploring other strategies. Normally this would be uncontroversial. The limitations of the current vaccines aren't shocking to anyone who's followed the science. But anti-vaxxers reliably seize on every new factoid and misrepresent it as proof the vaccines are a total failure. This is what prolongs the debate and leads to the necessary rebuttals that you may perceive as cheer-leading.ATL Bear said:
The vaccine type is/was a problem. That's what is playing out. There is a lost perspective from the expectations, and some are trying to defend something that will continue to disappoint.
When you design a vaccine based upon recognition of a small component of a virus versus the actual virus (or at least more genetic detail), it's going to be less effective against variants and mutations. I think that's proven to be a strategic mistake and has hindered vaccine effectiveness.
It was already near impossible to have an effective vaccine against coronaviruses, primarily because of the upper respiratory nature of them. A vaccine built around a lab created antigen of a piece of the spike protein meant our immune system was looking for something very specific to fight. One alteration to an amino acid, which is a simple not complex variation, and the immune system loses its vaccine induced advantage.
This even plays out with our flu vaccines because we use lab created inactivated viral pieces versus live attenuated. Chosen for safety and production expediency primarily. While it contains many more antigen identifiers than the COVID vaccine, mutations trick it regularly and why it sits around 50% effectiveness. Influenza is much more genetically complex than COVID.
With the mRNA vaccine they took a small sliver of the spike protein of one variant and used that as the antigen. Sure our immune system responded well to primary variants, but the highly infectious coronavirus moved way faster, and since our immune system wasn't given the full story on the virus, it doesn't recognize many of the latest. Again, safety and expediency has played a large role in this outcome. That's the overhanging politics/bureaucracy that's there.
What happened with boosters isn't that the vaccine was any better, but the immune system was "hyped" up thanks to a vaccine and was ready to respond faster. As it settled in over time the immune system did too and couldn't respond as fast, especially for those most vulnerable and in need of having their immune system primed. But continuing to falsely "hype" immune systems has a negative impact as many studies have shown.
The problem I have with this "all hail the vax" mentality is it is creating a complacency toward new answers in both therapeutics and vaccines by trying to convince everyone how great it works, when at a macro level it is fading out exactly as this progression would expect. Farther and farther away from advised and expected performance, especially when you consider COVID has mutated to weaker and weaker strains (thankfully).
Another ironic twist is your warped sense of clinical trials, which yes they are supposed to evaluate the vaccine approach and it's efficacy. Yet all you use is clinical testing data to support your positions on effectiveness that continue to be undermined the more data is captured across the globe.
Outside of the die from the vaccine part, I feel like we're living the satire of this conversation on the vaccine.
The video tweet has three falsehoods in the first 30 seconds and goes downhill from there. If I were as confused as that guy, I'd think the world had gone crazy too.
However I did appreciate the technical explanation of how the vaccine and virus work in conjunction for the virus to defeat its protective measures. The problems of the mRNA spike protein approach are clear, and relate back to an earlier post of mine about not really supporting the T-cell immunity that truly stops viruses.
But the vaccine had nothing to do with weakening the strain anymore than it will likely strengthen it. Viruses mutate to survive, and the vast majority result in weaker versions. The problem is the type of vaccine we chose that is losing its priming capability for antibody resistance.
RE the satire, no real lies. Maybe exaggeration for effect, but touches on uncomfortable realities some aren't willing to acknowledge.
Early mRNA, even before COVID had multiple trials that were stopped because of high mortality in animal tests.Sam Lowry said:
They stopped the original mRNA experiments because the animals kept dying (lie). The Covid vaccine wasn't tested on animals (lie). Most vaccines take decades to test (lie). And so on...
Regarding vaccine time frames, to use your favorite term; Debunked.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-long-it-took-to-develop-other-vaccines-in-history-2020-7?amp
CNN dutifully jumping on the Chinese-propaganda train:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/26/health/wuhan-market-covid-19/index.html
If we had actual journalists it would not be difficult to posit - an infected person might visit a popular city market and spread the virus ... but we have idiot journo-propagandists.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/26/health/wuhan-market-covid-19/index.html
If we had actual journalists it would not be difficult to posit - an infected person might visit a popular city market and spread the virus ... but we have idiot journo-propagandists.
You have to stop reading these so-called scientists and their anti-vax agenda:ATL Bear said:Early mRNA, even before COVID had multiple trials that were stopped because of high mortality in animal tests.Sam Lowry said:
They stopped the original mRNA experiments because the animals kept dying (lie). The Covid vaccine wasn't tested on animals (lie). Most vaccines take decades to test (lie). And so on...
Regarding vaccine time frames, to use your favorite term; Debunked.
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-long-it-took-to-develop-other-vaccines-in-history-2020-7?amp
https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/moderna-trouble-mrna/
Moderna Therapeutics, the most highly valued private company in biotech, has run into troubling safety problems with its most ambitious therapy, STAT has learned and is now banking on a mysterious new technology to keep afloat its brash promise of reinventing modern medicine ...
But mRNA is a tricky technology. Several major pharmaceutical companies have tried and abandoned the idea, struggling to get mRNA into cells without triggering nasty side effects.
Bancel has repeatedly promised that Moderna's new therapies will change the world, but the company has refused to publish any data on its mRNA vehicles, sparking skepticism from some scientists and a chiding from the editors of Nature ...
A STAT investigation last year found that Bancel had driven away top talent from Moderna with a culture of recrimination and a caustic work environment, including on-the-spot firings for failed experiments.
Bancel, a first-time biotech CEO, has dismissed questions about Moderna's potential. He describes mRNA as a simple way to develop treatments for scores of ailments. As he told STAT over the summer, "mRNA is like software: You can just turn the crank and get a lot of products going into development."
It seems clear, however, that the software has run into bugs.
Patients with Crigler-Najjar are missing a key liver enzyme needed to break down bilirubin, a yellowish substance that crops up in the body as old red blood cells break down. Without that enzyme, bilirubin proliferates in the blood, leading to jaundice, muscle degeneration, and even brain damage.
In Moderna's eyes, the one-in-million disease looked like an ideal candidate for mRNA therapy. The company crafted a string of mRNA that would encode for the missing enzyme, believing it had hit upon an excellent starting point to prove technology could be used to treat rare diseases.
But things gradually came apart last year.
Every drug has what's called a therapeutic window, the scientific sweet spot where a treatment is powerful enough to have an effect on a disease but not so strong as to put patients at too much risk. For mRNA, that has proved elusive ...
Yet Moderna could not make its therapy work, former employees and collaborators said. The safe dose was too weak, and repeat injections of a dose strong enough to be effective had troubling effects on the liver in animal studies.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2004/12/sars-vaccine-linked-liver-damage-ferret-study
https://regenerativemc.com/thursday-4-8-2021-what-happened-in-the-animal-trials-for-mrna-vaccines/
Biden after testing negative for COVID: "We made high quality masks available for free, so you should consider wearing a mask... COVID isn't gone"pic.twitter.com/rsDyBi3x6v
— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) July 27, 2022
That's not what the author says. He predicts that the vaccines will strongly decrease the chances of a more dangerous variant. They also induce a robust T-cell response, by the way.ATL Bear said:Vaccines had nothing to do with that as the author says in the article. Basically concludes that you really can't predict how a virus will mutate. Which is correct. The only argument he was trying to make is that since viruses will always mutate toward avoiding antibody resistance, which vaccines induce, you can't assume it will mutate to a worse version.Sam Lowry said:You're welcome. I don't quite understand your first paragraph, though. It was written before Omicron, predicting weaker strains, and that's what happened. How viruses evolve depends on their environment. The problem with Covid, as I pointed out a couple of years ago, is that it was under less pressure to attenuate because of its high transmissibility and the long course of the illness. The vaccines seem to have provided some of that pressure.ATL Bear said:Thank you for that link. It's fascinating how much our understanding of outcomes have changed in the past year plus. You keep referencing articles Pre Omicron that aren't following the "science" given for the opinion. We are in a series of prevailing understanding that prior research becomes no longer relevant. Sort of like a vaccine that's efficacy wanes.Sam Lowry said:We're benefiting from both, and the two are related. It's more than likely that the vaccine contributed to the emergence of the weaker variant. And vaccinated people are still getting sick, getting hospitalized, and dying at much lower rates. The virus was going to hit New Zealand eventually. They are far, far better off now than they would have been otherwise. Even now their cumulative death rate is about one-tenth of ours.ATL Bear said:I can't see how you can honestly say that. We're benefitting from a weaker mutated strain at this point more than a vaccine. Unfortunately places like New Zealand that quarantined their island early on in the pandemic are suffering greatly now that they've been exposed en masse to the virus.Sam Lowry said:They succeeded in their intended purpose. A broad evaluation of the approach is important, but it's not really what clinical trials are for. It's sure to be ongoing as this and other drugs hit the market.ATL Bear said:They're struggling to pivot from the original approach. And something doesn't need to be a total failure to have failed in its intended purpose. Each piece of data that mounts over time is part of the broader evaluation of the vaccine and approach. We intentionally went at "warp speed" to get the vaccine to market, but most if not all medications take years of evaluation before going to market. We are a gigantic live human trial, so these "factoids" are important in the evaluations.Sam Lowry said:They're doing the work they need to do as far as improving the vaccines and exploring other strategies. Normally this would be uncontroversial. The limitations of the current vaccines aren't shocking to anyone who's followed the science. But anti-vaxxers reliably seize on every new factoid and misrepresent it as proof the vaccines are a total failure. This is what prolongs the debate and leads to the necessary rebuttals that you may perceive as cheer-leading.ATL Bear said:
The vaccine type is/was a problem. That's what is playing out. There is a lost perspective from the expectations, and some are trying to defend something that will continue to disappoint.
When you design a vaccine based upon recognition of a small component of a virus versus the actual virus (or at least more genetic detail), it's going to be less effective against variants and mutations. I think that's proven to be a strategic mistake and has hindered vaccine effectiveness.
It was already near impossible to have an effective vaccine against coronaviruses, primarily because of the upper respiratory nature of them. A vaccine built around a lab created antigen of a piece of the spike protein meant our immune system was looking for something very specific to fight. One alteration to an amino acid, which is a simple not complex variation, and the immune system loses its vaccine induced advantage.
This even plays out with our flu vaccines because we use lab created inactivated viral pieces versus live attenuated. Chosen for safety and production expediency primarily. While it contains many more antigen identifiers than the COVID vaccine, mutations trick it regularly and why it sits around 50% effectiveness. Influenza is much more genetically complex than COVID.
With the mRNA vaccine they took a small sliver of the spike protein of one variant and used that as the antigen. Sure our immune system responded well to primary variants, but the highly infectious coronavirus moved way faster, and since our immune system wasn't given the full story on the virus, it doesn't recognize many of the latest. Again, safety and expediency has played a large role in this outcome. That's the overhanging politics/bureaucracy that's there.
What happened with boosters isn't that the vaccine was any better, but the immune system was "hyped" up thanks to a vaccine and was ready to respond faster. As it settled in over time the immune system did too and couldn't respond as fast, especially for those most vulnerable and in need of having their immune system primed. But continuing to falsely "hype" immune systems has a negative impact as many studies have shown.
The problem I have with this "all hail the vax" mentality is it is creating a complacency toward new answers in both therapeutics and vaccines by trying to convince everyone how great it works, when at a macro level it is fading out exactly as this progression would expect. Farther and farther away from advised and expected performance, especially when you consider COVID has mutated to weaker and weaker strains (thankfully).
Another ironic twist is your warped sense of clinical trials, which yes they are supposed to evaluate the vaccine approach and it's efficacy. Yet all you use is clinical testing data to support your positions on effectiveness that continue to be undermined the more data is captured across the globe.
Outside of the die from the vaccine part, I feel like we're living the satire of this conversation on the vaccine.
The video tweet has three falsehoods in the first 30 seconds and goes downhill from there. If I were as confused as that guy, I'd think the world had gone crazy too.
However I did appreciate the technical explanation of how the vaccine and virus work in conjunction for the virus to defeat its protective measures. The problems of the mRNA spike protein approach are clear, and relate back to an earlier post of mine about not really supporting the T-cell immunity that truly stops viruses.
But the vaccine had nothing to do with weakening the strain anymore than it will likely strengthen it. Viruses mutate to survive, and the vast majority result in weaker versions. The problem is the type of vaccine we chose that is losing its priming capability for antibody resistance.
RE the satire, no real lies. Maybe exaggeration for effect, but touches on uncomfortable realities some aren't willing to acknowledge.
Most vaccines take five to ten years for testing. If you're talking about the entire research and development process, as with the examples in your link, of course it can take decades. It did with mRNA vaccines as well. There were many failures for many reasons along the way, but it was never halted across the board because of animal mortality. Evidence of the technology's safety and effectiveness has been gradually accumulating since the 1980s.
And these are just the problems in the first 30 seconds of the video. The whole thing is such a Gish gallop of misinformation that it would take days to respond to it all. I can see how it's funny from a certain point of view, though.
You're not understanding the underlying issue. T-Cells are involved with killing viruses. All vaccines end up with a "robust" response from T cells because that's what our bodies do when antigens appear. The issue is the vaccine doesn't have a full scope of genetic information on the actual virus as it was an mRNA code that told our own bodies to generate a spike protein in order "to train" our body to react to that, as opposed to a natural genetically scoped COVID spike protein or a full live virus profile. It mimicked the alpha variant pretty well as that's the coding we knew of during development, but after that it's effectiveness waned because what our immune system had as the "wanted poster" was very minimal and subsequent mutations were farther and farther away from the vaccine's coded stimulator. Therefore, it isn't a robust long term genetic imprinting in the T cell which helps the natural immune system recognize variants better because variants may have different amino make up on a spike protein but still have other recognizable traits elsewhere that our T cells would log to react to. That's what natural immunity is at its heart.Sam Lowry said:That's not what the author says. He predicts that the vaccines will strongly decrease the chances of a more dangerous variant. They also induce a robust T-cell response, by the way.ATL Bear said:Vaccines had nothing to do with that as the author says in the article. Basically concludes that you really can't predict how a virus will mutate. Which is correct. The only argument he was trying to make is that since viruses will always mutate toward avoiding antibody resistance, which vaccines induce, you can't assume it will mutate to a worse version.Sam Lowry said:You're welcome. I don't quite understand your first paragraph, though. It was written before Omicron, predicting weaker strains, and that's what happened. How viruses evolve depends on their environment. The problem with Covid, as I pointed out a couple of years ago, is that it was under less pressure to attenuate because of its high transmissibility and the long course of the illness. The vaccines seem to have provided some of that pressure.ATL Bear said:Thank you for that link. It's fascinating how much our understanding of outcomes have changed in the past year plus. You keep referencing articles Pre Omicron that aren't following the "science" given for the opinion. We are in a series of prevailing understanding that prior research becomes no longer relevant. Sort of like a vaccine that's efficacy wanes.Sam Lowry said:We're benefiting from both, and the two are related. It's more than likely that the vaccine contributed to the emergence of the weaker variant. And vaccinated people are still getting sick, getting hospitalized, and dying at much lower rates. The virus was going to hit New Zealand eventually. They are far, far better off now than they would have been otherwise. Even now their cumulative death rate is about one-tenth of ours.ATL Bear said:I can't see how you can honestly say that. We're benefitting from a weaker mutated strain at this point more than a vaccine. Unfortunately places like New Zealand that quarantined their island early on in the pandemic are suffering greatly now that they've been exposed en masse to the virus.Sam Lowry said:They succeeded in their intended purpose. A broad evaluation of the approach is important, but it's not really what clinical trials are for. It's sure to be ongoing as this and other drugs hit the market.ATL Bear said:They're struggling to pivot from the original approach. And something doesn't need to be a total failure to have failed in its intended purpose. Each piece of data that mounts over time is part of the broader evaluation of the vaccine and approach. We intentionally went at "warp speed" to get the vaccine to market, but most if not all medications take years of evaluation before going to market. We are a gigantic live human trial, so these "factoids" are important in the evaluations.Sam Lowry said:They're doing the work they need to do as far as improving the vaccines and exploring other strategies. Normally this would be uncontroversial. The limitations of the current vaccines aren't shocking to anyone who's followed the science. But anti-vaxxers reliably seize on every new factoid and misrepresent it as proof the vaccines are a total failure. This is what prolongs the debate and leads to the necessary rebuttals that you may perceive as cheer-leading.ATL Bear said:
The vaccine type is/was a problem. That's what is playing out. There is a lost perspective from the expectations, and some are trying to defend something that will continue to disappoint.
When you design a vaccine based upon recognition of a small component of a virus versus the actual virus (or at least more genetic detail), it's going to be less effective against variants and mutations. I think that's proven to be a strategic mistake and has hindered vaccine effectiveness.
It was already near impossible to have an effective vaccine against coronaviruses, primarily because of the upper respiratory nature of them. A vaccine built around a lab created antigen of a piece of the spike protein meant our immune system was looking for something very specific to fight. One alteration to an amino acid, which is a simple not complex variation, and the immune system loses its vaccine induced advantage.
This even plays out with our flu vaccines because we use lab created inactivated viral pieces versus live attenuated. Chosen for safety and production expediency primarily. While it contains many more antigen identifiers than the COVID vaccine, mutations trick it regularly and why it sits around 50% effectiveness. Influenza is much more genetically complex than COVID.
With the mRNA vaccine they took a small sliver of the spike protein of one variant and used that as the antigen. Sure our immune system responded well to primary variants, but the highly infectious coronavirus moved way faster, and since our immune system wasn't given the full story on the virus, it doesn't recognize many of the latest. Again, safety and expediency has played a large role in this outcome. That's the overhanging politics/bureaucracy that's there.
What happened with boosters isn't that the vaccine was any better, but the immune system was "hyped" up thanks to a vaccine and was ready to respond faster. As it settled in over time the immune system did too and couldn't respond as fast, especially for those most vulnerable and in need of having their immune system primed. But continuing to falsely "hype" immune systems has a negative impact as many studies have shown.
The problem I have with this "all hail the vax" mentality is it is creating a complacency toward new answers in both therapeutics and vaccines by trying to convince everyone how great it works, when at a macro level it is fading out exactly as this progression would expect. Farther and farther away from advised and expected performance, especially when you consider COVID has mutated to weaker and weaker strains (thankfully).
Another ironic twist is your warped sense of clinical trials, which yes they are supposed to evaluate the vaccine approach and it's efficacy. Yet all you use is clinical testing data to support your positions on effectiveness that continue to be undermined the more data is captured across the globe.
Outside of the die from the vaccine part, I feel like we're living the satire of this conversation on the vaccine.
The video tweet has three falsehoods in the first 30 seconds and goes downhill from there. If I were as confused as that guy, I'd think the world had gone crazy too.
However I did appreciate the technical explanation of how the vaccine and virus work in conjunction for the virus to defeat its protective measures. The problems of the mRNA spike protein approach are clear, and relate back to an earlier post of mine about not really supporting the T-cell immunity that truly stops viruses.
But the vaccine had nothing to do with weakening the strain anymore than it will likely strengthen it. Viruses mutate to survive, and the vast majority result in weaker versions. The problem is the type of vaccine we chose that is losing its priming capability for antibody resistance.
RE the satire, no real lies. Maybe exaggeration for effect, but touches on uncomfortable realities some aren't willing to acknowledge.
Most vaccines take five to ten years for testing. If you're talking about the entire research and development process, as with the examples in your link, of course it can take decades. It did with mRNA vaccines as well. There were many failures for many reasons along the way, but it was never halted across the board because of animal mortality. Evidence of the technology's safety and effectiveness has been gradually accumulating since the 1980s.
And these are just the problems in the first 30 seconds of the video. The whole thing is such a Gish gallop of misinformation that it would take days to respond to it all. I can see how it's funny from a certain point of view, though.
Right now, Novavax is touting its use of an actual COVID spike protein as it tries to gain traction. That would certainly provide a much broader genetic identifier than current mRNA vaccines, but not as much as a live attenuated vaccine. It's sort of "live virus lite". I understand the safety concerns of live attenuated. The most effective flu vaccine is the nasal spray, which uses a form of live attenuated. However, it is not used on the immuno-compromised and certain elderly demographics because it could generate negative responses in those groups. Therefore, those groups are stuck with the usual flu vax, which suffers from the same type of aforementioned vulnerability to variants, and the real reason it at best has a 50% effectiveness ratio.
As to the article, the author has actually been proven incorrect on many of his assumptions because of the outcome of omicron and stealth omicron. The vaccine did not resist infection as he assumed with data he used from April 2021, and severity of the vaccinated did occur well beyond his predictions. But he literally said he (you/anyone) can't actually predict whether a virus will worsen or weaken as it mutates to avoid the detection of vaccines and our natural defense mechanisms. Stronger variant mutation is rare regardless of the presence of a vaccine. Therefore, vaccines aren't preventing stronger variants anymore than they are creating weaker ones.
That's the opposite of what he said, but okay. I'm all for a variety of approaches to improving the vaccines.ATL Bear said:You're not understanding the underlying issue. T-Cells are involved with killing viruses. All vaccines end up with a "robust" response from T cells because that's what our bodies do when antigens appear. The issue is the vaccine doesn't have a full scope of genetic information on the actual virus as it was an mRNA code that told our own bodies to generate a spike protein in order "to train" our body to react to that, as opposed to a natural genetically scoped COVID spike protein or a full live virus profile. It mimicked the alpha variant pretty well as that's the coding we knew of during development, but after that it's effectiveness waned because what our immune system had as the "wanted poster" was very minimal and subsequent mutations were farther and farther away from the vaccine's coded stimulator. Therefore, it isn't a robust long term genetic imprinting in the T cell which helps the natural immune system recognize variants better because variants may have different amino make up on a spike protein but still have other recognizable traits elsewhere that our T cells would log to react to. That's what natural immunity is at its heart.Sam Lowry said:That's not what the author says. He predicts that the vaccines will strongly decrease the chances of a more dangerous variant. They also induce a robust T-cell response, by the way.ATL Bear said:Vaccines had nothing to do with that as the author says in the article. Basically concludes that you really can't predict how a virus will mutate. Which is correct. The only argument he was trying to make is that since viruses will always mutate toward avoiding antibody resistance, which vaccines induce, you can't assume it will mutate to a worse version.Sam Lowry said:You're welcome. I don't quite understand your first paragraph, though. It was written before Omicron, predicting weaker strains, and that's what happened. How viruses evolve depends on their environment. The problem with Covid, as I pointed out a couple of years ago, is that it was under less pressure to attenuate because of its high transmissibility and the long course of the illness. The vaccines seem to have provided some of that pressure.ATL Bear said:Thank you for that link. It's fascinating how much our understanding of outcomes have changed in the past year plus. You keep referencing articles Pre Omicron that aren't following the "science" given for the opinion. We are in a series of prevailing understanding that prior research becomes no longer relevant. Sort of like a vaccine that's efficacy wanes.Sam Lowry said:We're benefiting from both, and the two are related. It's more than likely that the vaccine contributed to the emergence of the weaker variant. And vaccinated people are still getting sick, getting hospitalized, and dying at much lower rates. The virus was going to hit New Zealand eventually. They are far, far better off now than they would have been otherwise. Even now their cumulative death rate is about one-tenth of ours.ATL Bear said:I can't see how you can honestly say that. We're benefitting from a weaker mutated strain at this point more than a vaccine. Unfortunately places like New Zealand that quarantined their island early on in the pandemic are suffering greatly now that they've been exposed en masse to the virus.Sam Lowry said:They succeeded in their intended purpose. A broad evaluation of the approach is important, but it's not really what clinical trials are for. It's sure to be ongoing as this and other drugs hit the market.ATL Bear said:They're struggling to pivot from the original approach. And something doesn't need to be a total failure to have failed in its intended purpose. Each piece of data that mounts over time is part of the broader evaluation of the vaccine and approach. We intentionally went at "warp speed" to get the vaccine to market, but most if not all medications take years of evaluation before going to market. We are a gigantic live human trial, so these "factoids" are important in the evaluations.Sam Lowry said:They're doing the work they need to do as far as improving the vaccines and exploring other strategies. Normally this would be uncontroversial. The limitations of the current vaccines aren't shocking to anyone who's followed the science. But anti-vaxxers reliably seize on every new factoid and misrepresent it as proof the vaccines are a total failure. This is what prolongs the debate and leads to the necessary rebuttals that you may perceive as cheer-leading.ATL Bear said:
The vaccine type is/was a problem. That's what is playing out. There is a lost perspective from the expectations, and some are trying to defend something that will continue to disappoint.
When you design a vaccine based upon recognition of a small component of a virus versus the actual virus (or at least more genetic detail), it's going to be less effective against variants and mutations. I think that's proven to be a strategic mistake and has hindered vaccine effectiveness.
It was already near impossible to have an effective vaccine against coronaviruses, primarily because of the upper respiratory nature of them. A vaccine built around a lab created antigen of a piece of the spike protein meant our immune system was looking for something very specific to fight. One alteration to an amino acid, which is a simple not complex variation, and the immune system loses its vaccine induced advantage.
This even plays out with our flu vaccines because we use lab created inactivated viral pieces versus live attenuated. Chosen for safety and production expediency primarily. While it contains many more antigen identifiers than the COVID vaccine, mutations trick it regularly and why it sits around 50% effectiveness. Influenza is much more genetically complex than COVID.
With the mRNA vaccine they took a small sliver of the spike protein of one variant and used that as the antigen. Sure our immune system responded well to primary variants, but the highly infectious coronavirus moved way faster, and since our immune system wasn't given the full story on the virus, it doesn't recognize many of the latest. Again, safety and expediency has played a large role in this outcome. That's the overhanging politics/bureaucracy that's there.
What happened with boosters isn't that the vaccine was any better, but the immune system was "hyped" up thanks to a vaccine and was ready to respond faster. As it settled in over time the immune system did too and couldn't respond as fast, especially for those most vulnerable and in need of having their immune system primed. But continuing to falsely "hype" immune systems has a negative impact as many studies have shown.
The problem I have with this "all hail the vax" mentality is it is creating a complacency toward new answers in both therapeutics and vaccines by trying to convince everyone how great it works, when at a macro level it is fading out exactly as this progression would expect. Farther and farther away from advised and expected performance, especially when you consider COVID has mutated to weaker and weaker strains (thankfully).
Another ironic twist is your warped sense of clinical trials, which yes they are supposed to evaluate the vaccine approach and it's efficacy. Yet all you use is clinical testing data to support your positions on effectiveness that continue to be undermined the more data is captured across the globe.
Outside of the die from the vaccine part, I feel like we're living the satire of this conversation on the vaccine.
The video tweet has three falsehoods in the first 30 seconds and goes downhill from there. If I were as confused as that guy, I'd think the world had gone crazy too.
However I did appreciate the technical explanation of how the vaccine and virus work in conjunction for the virus to defeat its protective measures. The problems of the mRNA spike protein approach are clear, and relate back to an earlier post of mine about not really supporting the T-cell immunity that truly stops viruses.
But the vaccine had nothing to do with weakening the strain anymore than it will likely strengthen it. Viruses mutate to survive, and the vast majority result in weaker versions. The problem is the type of vaccine we chose that is losing its priming capability for antibody resistance.
RE the satire, no real lies. Maybe exaggeration for effect, but touches on uncomfortable realities some aren't willing to acknowledge.
Most vaccines take five to ten years for testing. If you're talking about the entire research and development process, as with the examples in your link, of course it can take decades. It did with mRNA vaccines as well. There were many failures for many reasons along the way, but it was never halted across the board because of animal mortality. Evidence of the technology's safety and effectiveness has been gradually accumulating since the 1980s.
And these are just the problems in the first 30 seconds of the video. The whole thing is such a Gish gallop of misinformation that it would take days to respond to it all. I can see how it's funny from a certain point of view, though.
Right now, Novavax is touting its use of an actual COVID spike protein as it tries to gain traction. That would certainly provide a much broader genetic identifier than current mRNA vaccines, but not as much as a live attenuated vaccine. It's sort of "live virus lite". I understand the safety concerns of live attenuated. The most effective flu vaccine is the nasal spray, which uses a form of live attenuated. However, it is not used on the immuno-compromised and certain elderly demographics because it could generate negative responses in those groups. Therefore, those groups are stuck with the usual flu vax, which suffers from the same type of aforementioned vulnerability to variants, and the real reason it at best has a 50% effectiveness ratio.
As to the article, the author has actually been proven incorrect on many of his assumptions because of the outcome of omicron and stealth omicron. The vaccine did not resist infection as he assumed with data he used from April 2021, and severity of the vaccinated did occur well beyond his predictions. But he literally said he (you/anyone) can't actually predict whether a virus will worsen or weaken as it mutates to avoid the detection of vaccines and our natural defense mechanisms. Stronger variant mutation is rare regardless of the presence of a vaccine. Therefore, vaccines aren't preventing stronger variants anymore than they are creating weaker ones.
BREAKING: Los Angeles County drops plan to reimpose indoor mask mandate - AP
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) July 28, 2022
Naturally immune perfectly healthy athlete in the prime of peak physical performance struggles to get into a country whose quadruple vaccinated president just recovered from infection and finally got the same natural immunity he's had for a long time
— Rising serpent ๐บ๐ธ (@rising_serpent) July 30, 2022
We live in truly stupid times https://t.co/iwQpipcZRw
Since vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission, why would there be any question about his entry?Cobretti said:Naturally immune perfectly healthy athlete in the prime of peak physical performance struggles to get into a country whose quadruple vaccinated president just recovered from infection and finally got the same natural immunity he's had for a long time
— Rising serpent ๐บ๐ธ (@rising_serpent) July 30, 2022
We live in truly stupid times https://t.co/iwQpipcZRw
Still not true.ATL Bear said:Since vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission, why would there be any question about his entry?Cobretti said:Naturally immune perfectly healthy athlete in the prime of peak physical performance struggles to get into a country whose quadruple vaccinated president just recovered from infection and finally got the same natural immunity he's had for a long time
— Rising serpent ๐บ๐ธ (@rising_serpent) July 30, 2022
We live in truly stupid times https://t.co/iwQpipcZRw
https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/vaccination-status/
Pretty much expresses exactly what I said. You're focused on the top chart obviously that is death rate.Sam Lowry said:Still not true.ATL Bear said:Since vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission, why would there be any question about his entry?Cobretti said:Naturally immune perfectly healthy athlete in the prime of peak physical performance struggles to get into a country whose quadruple vaccinated president just recovered from infection and finally got the same natural immunity he's had for a long time
— Rising serpent ๐บ๐ธ (@rising_serpent) July 30, 2022
We live in truly stupid times https://t.co/iwQpipcZRw
https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/vaccination-status/
Both charts show much higher risk for the unvaccinated. They're at least four times as likely to test positive.ATL Bear said:Pretty much expresses exactly what I said. You're focused on the top chart obviously that is death rate.Sam Lowry said:Still not true.ATL Bear said:Since vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission, why would there be any question about his entry?Cobretti said:Naturally immune perfectly healthy athlete in the prime of peak physical performance struggles to get into a country whose quadruple vaccinated president just recovered from infection and finally got the same natural immunity he's had for a long time
— Rising serpent ๐บ๐ธ (@rising_serpent) July 30, 2022
We live in truly stupid times https://t.co/iwQpipcZRw
https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/vaccination-status/
No it doesn't. First off, it's a comparison of boosted to unvaccinated. Boosters didn't start until September I believe. Second, other than a period of time pre Omicron and lower overall infection and a low number of boosted population skewed the 4x number because that had ratios of like 290/29 per 100,000 for a short period. Not a real comparative given the recency of boosting. As Omicron exploded and then Stealth Omicron non vaxxed not only had similar performance to boosted individuals, the ratio actually flips at times, and continues that trend as case volume grows again.Sam Lowry said:Both charts show much higher risk for the unvaccinated. They're at least four times as likely to test positive.ATL Bear said:Pretty much expresses exactly what I said. You're focused on the top chart obviously that is death rate.Sam Lowry said:Still not true.ATL Bear said:Since vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission, why would there be any question about his entry?Cobretti said:Naturally immune perfectly healthy athlete in the prime of peak physical performance struggles to get into a country whose quadruple vaccinated president just recovered from infection and finally got the same natural immunity he's had for a long time
— Rising serpent ๐บ๐ธ (@rising_serpent) July 30, 2022
We live in truly stupid times https://t.co/iwQpipcZRw
https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/vaccination-status/
To the extent that is accurate, none of it has any effect on the incidence rate ratio. The comparison only pertains to the last 28 days.ATL Bear said:No it doesn't. First off, it's a comparison of boosted to unvaccinated. Boosters didn't start until September I believe. Second, other than a period of time pre Omicron and lower overall infection and a low number of boosted population skewed the 4x number because that had ratios of like 290/29 per 100,000 for a short period. Not a real comparative given the recency of boosting. As Omicron exploded and then Stealth Omicron non vaxxed not only had similar performance to boosted individuals, the ratio actually flips at times, and continues that trend as case volume grows again.Sam Lowry said:Both charts show much higher risk for the unvaccinated. They're at least four times as likely to test positive.ATL Bear said:Pretty much expresses exactly what I said. You're focused on the top chart obviously that is death rate.Sam Lowry said:Still not true.ATL Bear said:Since vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission, why would there be any question about his entry?Cobretti said:Naturally immune perfectly healthy athlete in the prime of peak physical performance struggles to get into a country whose quadruple vaccinated president just recovered from infection and finally got the same natural immunity he's had for a long time
— Rising serpent ๐บ๐ธ (@rising_serpent) July 30, 2022
We live in truly stupid times https://t.co/iwQpipcZRw
https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/vaccination-status/
What?Sam Lowry said:To the extent that is accurate, none of it has any effect on the incidence rate ratio. The comparison only pertains to the last 28 days.ATL Bear said:No it doesn't. First off, it's a comparison of boosted to unvaccinated. Boosters didn't start until September I believe. Second, other than a period of time pre Omicron and lower overall infection and a low number of boosted population skewed the 4x number because that had ratios of like 290/29 per 100,000 for a short period. Not a real comparative given the recency of boosting. As Omicron exploded and then Stealth Omicron non vaxxed not only had similar performance to boosted individuals, the ratio actually flips at times, and continues that trend as case volume grows again.Sam Lowry said:Both charts show much higher risk for the unvaccinated. They're at least four times as likely to test positive.ATL Bear said:Pretty much expresses exactly what I said. You're focused on the top chart obviously that is death rate.Sam Lowry said:Still not true.ATL Bear said:Since vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission, why would there be any question about his entry?Cobretti said:Naturally immune perfectly healthy athlete in the prime of peak physical performance struggles to get into a country whose quadruple vaccinated president just recovered from infection and finally got the same natural immunity he's had for a long time
— Rising serpent ๐บ๐ธ (@rising_serpent) July 30, 2022
We live in truly stupid times https://t.co/iwQpipcZRw
https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/vaccination-status/
It's a 28-day rate comparison. Unvaccinated incidence rate in the last 28 days divided by vaccinated incidence rate in the last 28 days.ATL Bear said:What?Sam Lowry said:To the extent that is accurate, none of it has any effect on the incidence rate ratio. The comparison only pertains to the last 28 days.ATL Bear said:No it doesn't. First off, it's a comparison of boosted to unvaccinated. Boosters didn't start until September I believe. Second, other than a period of time pre Omicron and lower overall infection and a low number of boosted population skewed the 4x number because that had ratios of like 290/29 per 100,000 for a short period. Not a real comparative given the recency of boosting. As Omicron exploded and then Stealth Omicron non vaxxed not only had similar performance to boosted individuals, the ratio actually flips at times, and continues that trend as case volume grows again.Sam Lowry said:Both charts show much higher risk for the unvaccinated. They're at least four times as likely to test positive.ATL Bear said:Pretty much expresses exactly what I said. You're focused on the top chart obviously that is death rate.Sam Lowry said:Still not true.ATL Bear said:Since vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission, why would there be any question about his entry?Cobretti said:Naturally immune perfectly healthy athlete in the prime of peak physical performance struggles to get into a country whose quadruple vaccinated president just recovered from infection and finally got the same natural immunity he's had for a long time
— Rising serpent ๐บ๐ธ (@rising_serpent) July 30, 2022
We live in truly stupid times https://t.co/iwQpipcZRw
https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/vaccination-status/
Nope. That's horrible math and didn't match the graph.Sam Lowry said:It's a 28-day rate comparison. Unvaccinated incidence rate in the last 28 days divided by vaccinated incidence rate in the last 28 days.ATL Bear said:What?Sam Lowry said:To the extent that is accurate, none of it has any effect on the incidence rate ratio. The comparison only pertains to the last 28 days.ATL Bear said:No it doesn't. First off, it's a comparison of boosted to unvaccinated. Boosters didn't start until September I believe. Second, other than a period of time pre Omicron and lower overall infection and a low number of boosted population skewed the 4x number because that had ratios of like 290/29 per 100,000 for a short period. Not a real comparative given the recency of boosting. As Omicron exploded and then Stealth Omicron non vaxxed not only had similar performance to boosted individuals, the ratio actually flips at times, and continues that trend as case volume grows again.Sam Lowry said:Both charts show much higher risk for the unvaccinated. They're at least four times as likely to test positive.ATL Bear said:Pretty much expresses exactly what I said. You're focused on the top chart obviously that is death rate.Sam Lowry said:Still not true.ATL Bear said:Since vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission, why would there be any question about his entry?Cobretti said:Naturally immune perfectly healthy athlete in the prime of peak physical performance struggles to get into a country whose quadruple vaccinated president just recovered from infection and finally got the same natural immunity he's had for a long time
— Rising serpent ๐บ๐ธ (@rising_serpent) July 30, 2022
We live in truly stupid times https://t.co/iwQpipcZRw
https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/vaccination-status/
That's because the graph only shows absolute numbers per total population. It doesn't show incidence rates, which have to be calculated separately for the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations based on the number of people in each group.ATL Bear said:Nope. That's horrible math and didn't match the graph.Sam Lowry said:It's a 28-day rate comparison. Unvaccinated incidence rate in the last 28 days divided by vaccinated incidence rate in the last 28 days.ATL Bear said:What?Sam Lowry said:To the extent that is accurate, none of it has any effect on the incidence rate ratio. The comparison only pertains to the last 28 days.ATL Bear said:No it doesn't. First off, it's a comparison of boosted to unvaccinated. Boosters didn't start until September I believe. Second, other than a period of time pre Omicron and lower overall infection and a low number of boosted population skewed the 4x number because that had ratios of like 290/29 per 100,000 for a short period. Not a real comparative given the recency of boosting. As Omicron exploded and then Stealth Omicron non vaxxed not only had similar performance to boosted individuals, the ratio actually flips at times, and continues that trend as case volume grows again.Sam Lowry said:Both charts show much higher risk for the unvaccinated. They're at least four times as likely to test positive.ATL Bear said:Pretty much expresses exactly what I said. You're focused on the top chart obviously that is death rate.Sam Lowry said:Still not true.ATL Bear said:Since vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission, why would there be any question about his entry?Cobretti said:Naturally immune perfectly healthy athlete in the prime of peak physical performance struggles to get into a country whose quadruple vaccinated president just recovered from infection and finally got the same natural immunity he's had for a long time
— Rising serpent ๐บ๐ธ (@rising_serpent) July 30, 2022
We live in truly stupid times https://t.co/iwQpipcZRw
https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/vaccination-status/
Since there are more people unvaccinated than boosted in the Texas population, even that theory is wrong and would be warped in favor of the unvaccinated.Sam Lowry said:That's because the graph only shows absolute numbers per total population. It doesn't show incidence rates, which have to be calculated separately for the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations based on the number of people in each group.ATL Bear said:Nope. That's horrible math and didn't match the graph.Sam Lowry said:It's a 28-day rate comparison. Unvaccinated incidence rate in the last 28 days divided by vaccinated incidence rate in the last 28 days.ATL Bear said:What?Sam Lowry said:To the extent that is accurate, none of it has any effect on the incidence rate ratio. The comparison only pertains to the last 28 days.ATL Bear said:No it doesn't. First off, it's a comparison of boosted to unvaccinated. Boosters didn't start until September I believe. Second, other than a period of time pre Omicron and lower overall infection and a low number of boosted population skewed the 4x number because that had ratios of like 290/29 per 100,000 for a short period. Not a real comparative given the recency of boosting. As Omicron exploded and then Stealth Omicron non vaxxed not only had similar performance to boosted individuals, the ratio actually flips at times, and continues that trend as case volume grows again.Sam Lowry said:Both charts show much higher risk for the unvaccinated. They're at least four times as likely to test positive.ATL Bear said:Pretty much expresses exactly what I said. You're focused on the top chart obviously that is death rate.Sam Lowry said:Still not true.ATL Bear said:Since vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission, why would there be any question about his entry?Cobretti said:Naturally immune perfectly healthy athlete in the prime of peak physical performance struggles to get into a country whose quadruple vaccinated president just recovered from infection and finally got the same natural immunity he's had for a long time
— Rising serpent ๐บ๐ธ (@rising_serpent) July 30, 2022
We live in truly stupid times https://t.co/iwQpipcZRw
https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/vaccination-status/
EDIT: Even your primary assertion is incorrect. If you'll review in the gray area under "Rate Calculation" on your link, they did break it into vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations.
40.6% boosted, 37.4% not fully vaccinated (i.e. unvaccinated or partially vaccinated), according to Becker's. Note that partially vaccinated are not included in the DSHS definition, so their unvaccinated population consists only of those who received no doses.ATL Bear said:Since there are more people unvaccinated than boosted in the Texas population, even that theory is wrong and would be warped in favor of the unvaccinated.Sam Lowry said:That's because the graph only shows absolute numbers per total population. It doesn't show incidence rates, which have to be calculated separately for the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations based on the number of people in each group.ATL Bear said:Nope. That's horrible math and didn't match the graph.Sam Lowry said:It's a 28-day rate comparison. Unvaccinated incidence rate in the last 28 days divided by vaccinated incidence rate in the last 28 days.ATL Bear said:What?Sam Lowry said:To the extent that is accurate, none of it has any effect on the incidence rate ratio. The comparison only pertains to the last 28 days.ATL Bear said:No it doesn't. First off, it's a comparison of boosted to unvaccinated. Boosters didn't start until September I believe. Second, other than a period of time pre Omicron and lower overall infection and a low number of boosted population skewed the 4x number because that had ratios of like 290/29 per 100,000 for a short period. Not a real comparative given the recency of boosting. As Omicron exploded and then Stealth Omicron non vaxxed not only had similar performance to boosted individuals, the ratio actually flips at times, and continues that trend as case volume grows again.Sam Lowry said:Both charts show much higher risk for the unvaccinated. They're at least four times as likely to test positive.ATL Bear said:Pretty much expresses exactly what I said. You're focused on the top chart obviously that is death rate.Sam Lowry said:Still not true.ATL Bear said:Since vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission, why would there be any question about his entry?Cobretti said:Naturally immune perfectly healthy athlete in the prime of peak physical performance struggles to get into a country whose quadruple vaccinated president just recovered from infection and finally got the same natural immunity he's had for a long time
— Rising serpent ๐บ๐ธ (@rising_serpent) July 30, 2022
We live in truly stupid times https://t.co/iwQpipcZRw
https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/vaccination-status/