advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: hal
Date: July 31, 2021 05:03PM
I noticed gov't and health officials everywhere were showing their displeasure with the media overreacting to breakthrough numbers.

Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: rgG
Date: July 31, 2021 05:21PM
It has made me far less likely to eat out at a restaurant now.
I have no problem going back to wearing a mask in stores, but I will miss finally being able to enjoy eating out more.
I hope the vaccine rates will continue to rise.
Also heard that FL reported the highest number of cases ever today. WTH?





Roswell, GA (Atlanta suburb)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: Ombligo
Date: July 31, 2021 05:31PM
164 million x .001 mortality is still 164,000 murdered by anti-vax, anti-mask idiots.



“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.”
-- François de La Rochefoucauld

Growing older is mandatory. Growing up is optional.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: PeterB
Date: July 31, 2021 06:00PM
I think the big problem is, how are they defining "breakthrough infection" ? As has been discussed here already, it's possible for a fully vaccinated person to get corona and have a mild-to-moderate upper respiratory infection only, or not even that and be apparently completely asymptomatic.

There has been some disagreement about the data, but at one recent point, it was claimed that the infected, vaccinated person can as easily infect others as an infected, unvaccinated person with Delta. So the "breakthrough rate" may not actually be that low -- but it also wouldn't matter that the breakthrough rate was high, except for the fact that there are so many unvaccinated still around.

The way I'm thinking about it is: suppose EVERYONE were vaccinated. There's no question that even under that circumstance, the virus could still potentially infect some people and be transmitted from person to person (since the vaccines are of course not 100%) ... nevertheless, the rates of everything would be dramatically reduced across the board, and the final death toll would be really, really low. It might even be akin to the common cold... that it goes around and around and around, and yes, some people get sick, but very, very few actually get severe illness or die. That's what I see the ultimate goal as being... we'll never be rid of this virus, but if we can get it to the point of being no more dangerous than the common cold.




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2021 06:03PM by PeterB.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: mattkime
Date: July 31, 2021 06:27PM
Quote
Ombligo
164 million x .001 mortality is still 164,000 murdered by anti-vax, anti-mask idiots.

`.001` was a percentage, so it was really

164 million x .00001 mortality = 1,640

Still terrible.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: Sarcany
Date: July 31, 2021 07:42PM
[www.cnbc.com]



CDC needs to start tracking all Covid breakthrough infections, Gottlieb says


The CDC stopped tracking every breakthrough case in the U.S. on May 1, focusing just on those that result in hospitalization or death, a move physicians and scientists are increasingly criticizing.

"They don't have good real-time reporting," Gottlieb said. "We need to fix this, and this can be fixed. I mean we can properly resource them and build out better capabilities there."

With cases surging across the U.S. and new research showing that fully vaccinated people can transmit the virus as asymptomatic carriers, the scientific community is increasingly calling on the agency to track every breakthrough case, which is when fully vaccinated people test positive for Covid.

More than 5,900 fully vaccinated Americans have either died or been hospitalized with Covid breakthrough infections through July 19, according to the CDC's most recent data. The website also notes that 1,821 of those cases were either "asymptomatic or not related to Covid-19."

...There is varying data on the effectiveness of vaccines against the delta strain, but if mRNA vaccines are 90% to 95% effective in general, then someone who is fully vaccinated and exposed to the delta strain has a 1-in-10 or 1-in-20 chance of getting a breakthrough infection.

...People infected with the delta variant carry up to 1,000 times more virus in their nasal passages than other strains, resulting in higher transmissibility. New CDC data indicates that people who are vaccinated can carry the same amount of virus as someone who is unvaccinated.'




Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: hal
Date: July 31, 2021 07:53PM
This just in: 164,059,080 fully vaccinated Americans have not contracted Covid after receiving the vaccine!

(stolen from twitter)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: deckeda
Date: July 31, 2021 08:18PM
“Breakthrough” became (or likely always was) a casual description for, “Although vaxxed I got Covid AND I have symptoms that make me feel sick.”

BAM, there’s your news story, because apparently lots of folks misunderstood what a vaccine is and what a vaccine is not.

Group A is now sure vaccines were always a waste of time.
Group B hates that Group A now has something to chew on, however false.

Group C says that if everyone would shut up and get jabbed, we wouldn’t be arguing over masks and other things that disrupt our cherished trip to another mediocre restaurant.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: Janit
Date: July 31, 2021 08:20PM
Quote
PeterB
I think the big problem is, how are they defining "breakthrough infection" ? As has been discussed here already, it's possible for a fully vaccinated person to get corona and have a mild-to-moderate upper respiratory infection only, or not even that and be apparently completely asymptomatic.

There has been some disagreement about the data, but at one recent point, it was claimed that the infected, vaccinated person can as easily infect others as an infected, unvaccinated person with Delta. So the "breakthrough rate" may not actually be that low -- but it also wouldn't matter that the breakthrough rate was high, except for the fact that there are so many unvaccinated still around.

The way I'm thinking about it is: suppose EVERYONE were vaccinated. There's no question that even under that circumstance, the virus could still potentially infect some people and be transmitted from person to person (since the vaccines are of course not 100%) ... nevertheless, the rates of everything would be dramatically reduced across the board, and the final death toll would be really, really low. It might even be akin to the common cold... that it goes around and around and around, and yes, some people get sick, but very, very few actually get severe illness or die. That's what I see the ultimate goal as being... we'll never be rid of this virus, but if we can get it to the point of being no more dangerous than the common cold.

Yes, I think this is the best way to think about it, with the caveat that even with high levels of vaccination, an endemic delta variant would still cause serious illness in people for whom the vaccine is contraindicated. So not yet quite like the common cold.

Given the present incidence of the delta variant, maximal vaccination has become just the first step, in that it dramatically reduces mortality. The next step will be an updated vaccine that interferes with delta's ability to generate high viral loads and thus lowers the contagion. Of course, there could be yet another dangerous variant, so that we may be playing whack-a-mole for a while. Everyone who can should take every new vaccine as it is developed.

This makes me wonder about the evolutionary history of our endemic "common cold" coronaviruses. Did they follow a similar pattern of starting with serious illness, generating variants, and finally achieving a benign equilibrium after a long period of co-evolution?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: Janit
Date: July 31, 2021 08:27PM
Quote
deckeda
“Breakthrough” became (or likely always was) a casual description for, “Although vaxxed I got Covid AND I have symptoms that make me feel sick.”

BAM, there’s your news story, because apparently lots of folks misunderstood what a vaccine is and what a vaccine is not.

Group A is now sure vaccines were always a waste of time.
Group B hates that Group A now has something to chew on, however false.

Group C says that if everyone would shut up and get jabbed, we wouldn’t be arguing over masks and other things that disrupt our cherished trip to another mediocre restaurant.

Even if everyone who can take the vaccine gets jabbed, masks will still be necessary until an updated vaccine is developed that can prevent the low-grade/asymptomatic delta infections that can still pass the infection on to people who cannot take the vaccine.

There may be several iterations before this virus becomes manageable.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: deckeda
Date: July 31, 2021 08:40PM
Yes Janit. I was just trying to get us all to the end of this year.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: N-OS X-tasy!
Date: July 31, 2021 08:54PM
Anybody else notice they got the year wrong?



It is what it is.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: N-OS X-tasy!
Date: July 31, 2021 08:54PM
Quote
mattkime
Quote
Ombligo
164 million x .001 mortality is still 164,000 murdered by anti-vax, anti-mask idiots.

`.001` was a percentage, so it was really

164 million x .00001 mortality = 1,640

Still terrible.

164K seemed really high.



It is what it is.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: mrbigstuff
Date: July 31, 2021 08:56PM
Quote
mattkime
Quote
Ombligo
164 million x .001 mortality is still 164,000 murdered by anti-vax, anti-mask idiots.

`.001` was a percentage, so it was really

164 million x .00001 mortality = 1,640

Still terrible.

What's the incidence of other deaths from other viruses over this period? And what Is the period? No doubt that it's a tragedy when someone dies, no matter the cause, especially if they are an otherwise healthy individual. But there will be people who die from bug bites, or other viruses, or bacterial infection. In other words, something that they caught by no fault of their own. We will never get to zero deaths from this, ever, so we have to determine what that "percentage" is where we can again fee comfortable resuming a "normal" life.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: Acer
Date: July 31, 2021 08:59PM
Quote
Janit
Quote
PeterB
I think the big problem is, how are they defining "breakthrough infection" ? As has been discussed here already, it's possible for a fully vaccinated person to get corona and have a mild-to-moderate upper respiratory infection only, or not even that and be apparently completely asymptomatic.

There has been some disagreement about the data, but at one recent point, it was claimed that the infected, vaccinated person can as easily infect others as an infected, unvaccinated person with Delta. So the "breakthrough rate" may not actually be that low -- but it also wouldn't matter that the breakthrough rate was high, except for the fact that there are so many unvaccinated still around.

The way I'm thinking about it is: suppose EVERYONE were vaccinated. There's no question that even under that circumstance, the virus could still potentially infect some people and be transmitted from person to person (since the vaccines are of course not 100%) ... nevertheless, the rates of everything would be dramatically reduced across the board, and the final death toll would be really, really low. It might even be akin to the common cold... that it goes around and around and around, and yes, some people get sick, but very, very few actually get severe illness or die. That's what I see the ultimate goal as being... we'll never be rid of this virus, but if we can get it to the point of being no more dangerous than the common cold.

Yes, I think this is the best way to think about it, with the caveat that even with high levels of vaccination, an endemic delta variant would still cause serious illness in people for whom the vaccine is contraindicated. So not yet quite like the common cold.

Given the present incidence of the delta variant, maximal vaccination has become just the first step, in that it dramatically reduces mortality. The next step will be an updated vaccine that interferes with delta's ability to generate high viral loads and thus lowers the contagion. Of course, there could be yet another dangerous variant, so that we may be playing whack-a-mole for a while. Everyone who can should take every new vaccine as it is developed.

This makes me wonder about the evolutionary history of our endemic "common cold" coronaviruses. Did they follow a similar pattern of starting with serious illness, generating variants, and finally achieving a benign equilibrium after a long period of co-evolution?

I think success needs to be defined with comparison to the current status of influenza, not the common cold. The flu still kills people outright, the common cold much, much less so. But still we consider the risk of the flu "manageable" with current measures. Perhaps someday COVID will fade into the ranks of its common cold cousins, but flu-level threats (not 1918 levels, but 2021 levels of course) in the meantime would be welcome.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: PeterB
Date: July 31, 2021 09:13PM
Quote
Janit
Quote
PeterB
I think the big problem is, how are they defining "breakthrough infection" ? As has been discussed here already, it's possible for a fully vaccinated person to get corona and have a mild-to-moderate upper respiratory infection only, or not even that and be apparently completely asymptomatic.

There has been some disagreement about the data, but at one recent point, it was claimed that the infected, vaccinated person can as easily infect others as an infected, unvaccinated person with Delta. So the "breakthrough rate" may not actually be that low -- but it also wouldn't matter that the breakthrough rate was high, except for the fact that there are so many unvaccinated still around.

The way I'm thinking about it is: suppose EVERYONE were vaccinated. There's no question that even under that circumstance, the virus could still potentially infect some people and be transmitted from person to person (since the vaccines are of course not 100%) ... nevertheless, the rates of everything would be dramatically reduced across the board, and the final death toll would be really, really low. It might even be akin to the common cold... that it goes around and around and around, and yes, some people get sick, but very, very few actually get severe illness or die. That's what I see the ultimate goal as being... we'll never be rid of this virus, but if we can get it to the point of being no more dangerous than the common cold.

Yes, I think this is the best way to think about it, with the caveat that even with high levels of vaccination, an endemic delta variant would still cause serious illness in people for whom the vaccine is contraindicated. So not yet quite like the common cold.

Given the present incidence of the delta variant, maximal vaccination has become just the first step, in that it dramatically reduces mortality. The next step will be an updated vaccine that interferes with delta's ability to generate high viral loads and thus lowers the contagion. Of course, there could be yet another dangerous variant, so that we may be playing whack-a-mole for a while. Everyone who can should take every new vaccine as it is developed.

This makes me wonder about the evolutionary history of our endemic "common cold" coronaviruses. Did they follow a similar pattern of starting with serious illness, generating variants, and finally achieving a benign equilibrium after a long period of co-evolution?

I don't know too many patient populations for whom the vaccines are contraindicated at this point? (Especially with the mRNA vaccines, where it's not even a viral particle in the vaccine...) But hopefully herd immunity would keep infections in such individuals limited, and/or they could be treated with donated antibodies. My real concern (as I've stated here many times) is that we're going to end up with Delta Plus (as India already has) or Delta plus plus, eventually leading to an Omega, where Omega evades all current vaccines. This virus mutates more and faster than would be expected for a run-of-the-mill coronavirus.

My understanding is that the endemic, "common cold" coronaviruses are exactly that, basically coronaviruses that are simply not as pathogenic as MERS, SARS, and SARS-CoV-2.

There are a whole host of other coronaviruses which, though not as pathogenic as these, can still cause disease -- one of the most interesting of those (at least, to me) is NL63, which does not usually cause serious disease, but CAN cause respiratory infection outbreaks in susceptible populations (such as the elderly), and especially in crowded conditions (such as assisted living facilities). I ran across some very interesting publications about NL63 because it could potentially serve as a less-pathogenic-but-still-useful model for SARS-CoV-2. Researchers have used it to see if some of the antiviral stuff in Sambucus (for example) might be useful for preventing or treating corona:

[pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
[pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

And reading the last part of what Sarcany wrote, still makes me wonder if we shouldn't just encourage masking and of course vaccination, but also push forward the work on the nasal spray to prevent infection (as an adjunct to vaccination). If there were an OTC nasal spray that you could do daily-- that would, say, reduce your chance of getting infected by 95%-- I think a lot of people might do it. I know I would. (It might even appeal more to some of the vaccine-averse, because it wouldn't involve injection and all the spray ingredients could be non-proprietary and therefore listed right on the label.)

Lastly, my trying to compare it to the common cold was indeed because they are both caused by coronaviruses, and it'd be great if we could reduce it to that level of pathogenicity ... since I think the likelihood of our being able to interfere with its transmissibility is not high. These are just very contagious viruses. I was thinking of the best possible achievable outcome.

Edit, more interesting reading, some have been thinking about it the same way I have:

[www.cdc.gov]
[www.the-scientist.com]
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2021 10:00PM by PeterB.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: mattkime
Date: July 31, 2021 09:25PM
I too hate the term 'breakthrough' although I begrudging respect its usefulness. It hasn't broken through anything....thats just part of how vaccines work!

...someday this will all be over...right? right???



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: Filliam H. Muffman
Date: July 31, 2021 10:34PM
I would consider a daily nasal spray to reduce susceptibility but it would need to either be shelf stable and available everywhere, or an auto-ship option.

The evidence that this virus is mutating so fast is disturbing, and still waiting for China to publish genetic profiles of the Wuhan 2015 Gain of Function research to prove it isn't related (like that is ever gonna happen).



In tha 360. MRF User Map
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: PeterB
Date: July 31, 2021 11:21PM
Quote
Filliam H. Muffman
I would consider a daily nasal spray to reduce susceptibility but it would need to either be shelf stable and available everywhere, or an auto-ship option.

The evidence that this virus is mutating so fast is disturbing, and still waiting for China to publish genetic profiles of the Wuhan 2015 Gain of Function research to prove it isn't related (like that is ever gonna happen).

I don't see why the nasal spray couldn't be both shelf-stable AND available everywhere. It's a lipopeptide, which I would guess should be pretty stable in formulation, and hopefully not too hard to mass-produce: [www.nytimes.com]




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: Sarcany
Date: July 31, 2021 11:38PM
Quote
Filliam H. Muffman
The evidence that this virus is mutating so fast is disturbing, and still waiting for China to publish genetic profiles of the Wuhan 2015 Gain of Function research to prove it isn't related (like that is ever gonna happen).

Good luck waiting for the papers documenting something that never happened.

On top of all the other evidence against the whole "THOSE DARK-SKINNED FUNNY-SPEAKING FOREIGNERS ENGINEERED IT" line of BS pushed most notably by Rand Paul at the behest of Donald Trump, there was an international pause on "Gain of Function" research and a moratorium on funding at the time in question.

(Whatever Facebook groups you're on, take a break.)



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: Filliam H. Muffman
Date: August 01, 2021 12:36AM
Just like there was a moratorium on manipulating human embryos? Not really paying attention, I don't do the Faecesbook.



In tha 360. MRF User Map
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: Sarcany
Date: August 01, 2021 01:32AM
Quote
Filliam H. Muffman
Just like there was a moratorium on manipulating human embryos? Not really paying attention, I don't do the Faecesbook.

No. There wasn't a moratorium on manipulating human embryos.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: Ca Bob
Date: August 01, 2021 03:42AM
That looks like a mortality of one in a hundred thousand for the vaccinated population, which is comparable to non-melanoma skin cancer over the course of a year -- in other words, not zero, but pretty low compared to the really dangerous stuff like riding in a car.

I am cautiously optimistic that we won't see a super-variant (at least for a while) because every single nucleotide in the RNA genome is, on the average, mutated in at least one copy of the viruses put out in the standard human infection, particularly one that is bad enough to have any symptoms. The Covid RNA polymerase is pretty sloppy (about one mutation per ten thousand bases) which would be an average of 3 per Covid genome on each pass. Figure millions of new Covid virus particles every hour in a modest infection and you've got the entire genome covered by mutations in the various genome copies. On the average, every ten thousand new virus particles you've covered the genome.

Admittedly, there could be some recombinant event which passes the Covid spike protein RNA sequence to something that is more deadly. That is just one good reason to reduce the production of Covid viruses as much as possible, as quickly as possible, and the way to do this is by getting herd immunity through vaccination.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: cbelt3
Date: August 01, 2021 07:17AM
“One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is statistics.”
Josef Stalin

“It’s just the China Flu. Less than 2% die from it. It’s nothing.”
Donald “Stalin” Trump
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: PeterB
Date: August 01, 2021 08:12AM
Ca Bob, that's part of why I posted the links I did. Recombination events apparently occur pretty frequently with the other coronaviruses, often as a result of someone being co-infected with multiple viruses. It's naive to think that this won't happen here too... coronaviruses "in the wild" being fairly common, and now we add SARS-CoV-2 to the mix.

Also, the mutations are not totally random, in the sense that there are mutational hotspots and, in the case of SARS-CoV-2, a selection pressure for mutation... that may be why we're seeing the rise of Delta. It's already been speculated in the literature that we may be selecting for particular mutations by virtue even of just our adjustment of our own behaviors, e.g., hand-washing and social distancing.




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: Janit
Date: August 01, 2021 08:20AM
Quote
PeterB
I don't know too many patient populations for whom the vaccines are contraindicated at this point? (Especially with the mRNA vaccines, where it's not even a viral particle in the vaccine...) But hopefully herd immunity would keep infections in such individuals limited, and/or they could be treated with donated antibodies. My real concern (as I've stated here many times) is that we're going to end up with Delta Plus (as India already has) or Delta plus plus, eventually leading to an Omega, where Omega evades all current vaccines. This virus mutates more and faster than would be expected for a run-of-the-mill coronavirus.

Rather than just "contra-indicated" I should have included immunocompromised, and any other population that can't mount a robust immunological defense, for whatever reason.

My issue here with the over-broad application of the concept of "herd immunity." The classical concept of herd immunity is that vaccination of the majority of a population will stop transmission of the virus to anyone else, and thereby protect even those who are not immunized.

We won't achieve herd immunity against delta until a vaccine is devised that will stop transmission of the delta variant. The current vaccine makes delta infections largely non-lethal, but does not reduce delta transmission anywhere near enough to qualify as herd immunity.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: PeterB
Date: August 01, 2021 08:39AM
Quote
Janit
Quote
PeterB
I don't know too many patient populations for whom the vaccines are contraindicated at this point? (Especially with the mRNA vaccines, where it's not even a viral particle in the vaccine...) But hopefully herd immunity would keep infections in such individuals limited, and/or they could be treated with donated antibodies. My real concern (as I've stated here many times) is that we're going to end up with Delta Plus (as India already has) or Delta plus plus, eventually leading to an Omega, where Omega evades all current vaccines. This virus mutates more and faster than would be expected for a run-of-the-mill coronavirus.

Rather than just "contra-indicated" I should have included immunocompromised, and any other population that can't mount a robust immunological defense, for whatever reason.

My issue here with the over-broad application of the concept of "herd immunity." The classical concept of herd immunity is that vaccination of the majority of a population will stop transmission of the virus to anyone else, and thereby protect even those who are not immunized.

We won't achieve herd immunity against delta until a vaccine is devised that will stop transmission of the delta variant. The current vaccine makes delta infections largely non-lethal, but does not reduce delta transmission anywhere near enough to qualify as herd immunity.

I agree. I also think though that it's a matter of reduction, rather than elimination, of transmission ... I think it'll be nearly impossible to prevent transmission of Delta. Rather, it may be possible to reduce the viral load sufficiently to the point where transmission will be minimized, and the only groups that might need to be worried are, as you say, the contra-indicated and immunocompromised (of which I myself am a member).

For anyone curious, here's an interesting graphic:



(... I see a lot of very nice potential targets there...)



(both of these are from here, which makes a very good read: [www.nature.com])




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: sekker
Date: August 01, 2021 11:56AM
Quote
PeterB
Quote
Filliam H. Muffman
I would consider a daily nasal spray to reduce susceptibility but it would need to either be shelf stable and available everywhere, or an auto-ship option.

The evidence that this virus is mutating so fast is disturbing, and still waiting for China to publish genetic profiles of the Wuhan 2015 Gain of Function research to prove it isn't related (like that is ever gonna happen).

I don't see why the nasal spray couldn't be both shelf-stable AND available everywhere. It's a lipopeptide, which I would guess should be pretty stable in formulation, and hopefully not too hard to mass-produce: [www.nytimes.com]

There is a nasal spray-based next generation vaccine now in clinical trials. They just designed the version against the Delta variant. This could be the next step. But it will still be months before we know it works and is generally safe. Still, scientists are still 'sciencing' and trying to get new solutions - even if the politics are a challenge.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: sekker
Date: August 01, 2021 11:57AM
Quote
Sarcany
Quote
Filliam H. Muffman
Just like there was a moratorium on manipulating human embryos? Not really paying attention, I don't do the Faecesbook.

No. There wasn't a moratorium on manipulating human embryos.

This. Even the recent WHO report has no legal binding to its recommendation.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: sekker
Date: August 01, 2021 11:59AM
Quote
Sarcany
Quote
Filliam H. Muffman
The evidence that this virus is mutating so fast is disturbing, and still waiting for China to publish genetic profiles of the Wuhan 2015 Gain of Function research to prove it isn't related (like that is ever gonna happen).

Good luck waiting for the papers documenting something that never happened.

On top of all the other evidence against the whole "THOSE DARK-SKINNED FUNNY-SPEAKING FOREIGNERS ENGINEERED IT" line of BS pushed most notably by Rand Paul at the behest of Donald Trump, there was an international pause on "Gain of Function" research and a moratorium on funding at the time in question.

(Whatever Facebook groups you're on, take a break.)

This. This misguided Senator (I will honor his political title, not his now clearly misused health care professional title) is doing a huge disservice to many. No, there is no clear gain of function work. And, I will point it, it doesn't matter. The virus is busy out there TODAY killing people. Let's deal with that fire - FIRST.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: PeterB
Date: August 01, 2021 02:18PM
Quote
sekker
Quote
PeterB
Quote
Filliam H. Muffman
I would consider a daily nasal spray to reduce susceptibility but it would need to either be shelf stable and available everywhere, or an auto-ship option.

The evidence that this virus is mutating so fast is disturbing, and still waiting for China to publish genetic profiles of the Wuhan 2015 Gain of Function research to prove it isn't related (like that is ever gonna happen).

I don't see why the nasal spray couldn't be both shelf-stable AND available everywhere. It's a lipopeptide, which I would guess should be pretty stable in formulation, and hopefully not too hard to mass-produce: [www.nytimes.com]

There is a nasal spray-based next generation vaccine now in clinical trials. They just designed the version against the Delta variant. This could be the next step. But it will still be months before we know it works and is generally safe. Still, scientists are still 'sciencing' and trying to get new solutions - even if the politics are a challenge.

To which one are you referring? There are actually now a few nasal sprays in development; the one I linked to from the NYT is a lipoprotein, already tested on ferrets, but there are others in development (and one which is OTC and according to a publication, interferes with corona infection, though I'm not sure I believe their data).




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: Filliam H. Muffman
Date: August 01, 2021 02:21PM
Quote
Sarcany
On top of all the other evidence against the whole "THOSE DARK-SKINNED FUNNY-SPEAKING FOREIGNERS ENGINEERED IT" line of BS pushed most notably by Rand Paul at the behest of Donald Trump, there was an international pause on "Gain of Function" research and a moratorium on funding at the time in question.

Just a FYI, I wasn't talking about Senator Nutso's comments. I was talking about the study I previously referenced that was done before the 'agreement' and pause in funding.



In tha 360. MRF User Map
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: Sarcany
Date: August 01, 2021 02:41PM
Quote
Filliam H. Muffman
Quote
Sarcany
On top of all the other evidence against the whole "THOSE DARK-SKINNED FUNNY-SPEAKING FOREIGNERS ENGINEERED IT" line of BS pushed most notably by Rand Paul at the behest of Donald Trump, there was an international pause on "Gain of Function" research and a moratorium on funding at the time in question.

Just a FYI, I wasn't talking about Senator Nutso's comments. I was talking about the study I previously referenced that was done before the 'agreement' and pause in funding.


The article I cited today makes specific reference to that type of study. Scientists do not consider that type of research to be "Gain of Function."

Rand Paul and other right-wingers have repeatedly tried to spin it as "Gain of Function" research by Chinese government stooges to further their political ends.

Don't swallow the spin. Follow the science.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: Filliam H. Muffman
Date: August 01, 2021 03:07PM
Quote
Sarcany
Quote
Filliam H. Muffman
Quote
Sarcany
On top of all the other evidence against the whole "THOSE DARK-SKINNED FUNNY-SPEAKING FOREIGNERS ENGINEERED IT" line of BS pushed most notably by Rand Paul at the behest of Donald Trump, there was an international pause on "Gain of Function" research and a moratorium on funding at the time in question.

Just a FYI, I wasn't talking about Senator Nutso's comments. I was talking about the study I previously referenced that was done before the 'agreement' and pause in funding.


The article I cited today makes specific reference to that type of study. Scientists do not consider that type of research to be "Gain of Function."

Rand Paul and other right-wingers have repeatedly tried to spin it as "Gain of Function" research by Chinese government stooges to further their political ends.

Don't swallow the spin. Follow the science.

Not swallowing anything, just waiting for China to provide the data the world has been waiting for since Feb., 2020. Again, not consuming any right-wing crap. Don't knee-jerk associate me with them just because it was in a recent news cycle.



In tha 360. MRF User Map
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: Sarcany
Date: August 01, 2021 05:15PM
Quote
Filliam H. Muffman
Quote
Sarcany
Quote
Filliam H. Muffman
Quote
Sarcany
On top of all the other evidence against the whole "THOSE DARK-SKINNED FUNNY-SPEAKING FOREIGNERS ENGINEERED IT" line of BS pushed most notably by Rand Paul at the behest of Donald Trump, there was an international pause on "Gain of Function" research and a moratorium on funding at the time in question.

Just a FYI, I wasn't talking about Senator Nutso's comments. I was talking about the study I previously referenced that was done before the 'agreement' and pause in funding.


The article I cited today makes specific reference to that type of study. Scientists do not consider that type of research to be "Gain of Function."

Rand Paul and other right-wingers have repeatedly tried to spin it as "Gain of Function" research by Chinese government stooges to further their political ends.

Don't swallow the spin. Follow the science.

Not swallowing anything, just waiting for China to provide the data the world has been waiting for since Feb., 2020. Again, not consuming any right-wing crap. Don't knee-jerk associate me with them just because it was in a recent news cycle.

The paper that you cite examined the adaptability of a mouse-adapted SARS virus to mouse cells in-culture.

How does that turn into SARS-COV2?



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: sekker
Date: August 01, 2021 07:18PM
Quote
PeterB
Quote
sekker
Quote
PeterB
Quote
Filliam H. Muffman
I would consider a daily nasal spray to reduce susceptibility but it would need to either be shelf stable and available everywhere, or an auto-ship option.

The evidence that this virus is mutating so fast is disturbing, and still waiting for China to publish genetic profiles of the Wuhan 2015 Gain of Function research to prove it isn't related (like that is ever gonna happen).

I don't see why the nasal spray couldn't be both shelf-stable AND available everywhere. It's a lipopeptide, which I would guess should be pretty stable in formulation, and hopefully not too hard to mass-produce: [www.nytimes.com]

There is a nasal spray-based next generation vaccine now in clinical trials. They just designed the version against the Delta variant. This could be the next step. But it will still be months before we know it works and is generally safe. Still, scientists are still 'sciencing' and trying to get new solutions - even if the politics are a challenge.

To which one are you referring? There are actually now a few nasal sprays in development; the one I linked to from the NYT is a lipoprotein, already tested on ferrets, but there are others in development (and one which is OTC and according to a publication, interferes with corona infection, though I'm not sure I believe their data).

[www.postbulletin.com]

Actual vaccine, nasal delivery. Very cool tech.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: sekker
Date: August 01, 2021 07:21PM
Quote
Sarcany
Quote
Filliam H. Muffman
Quote
Sarcany
Quote
Filliam H. Muffman
Quote
Sarcany
On top of all the other evidence against the whole "THOSE DARK-SKINNED FUNNY-SPEAKING FOREIGNERS ENGINEERED IT" line of BS pushed most notably by Rand Paul at the behest of Donald Trump, there was an international pause on "Gain of Function" research and a moratorium on funding at the time in question.

Just a FYI, I wasn't talking about Senator Nutso's comments. I was talking about the study I previously referenced that was done before the 'agreement' and pause in funding.


The article I cited today makes specific reference to that type of study. Scientists do not consider that type of research to be "Gain of Function."

Rand Paul and other right-wingers have repeatedly tried to spin it as "Gain of Function" research by Chinese government stooges to further their political ends.

Don't swallow the spin. Follow the science.

Not swallowing anything, just waiting for China to provide the data the world has been waiting for since Feb., 2020. Again, not consuming any right-wing crap. Don't knee-jerk associate me with them just because it was in a recent news cycle.

The paper that you cite examined the adaptability of a mouse-adapted SARS virus to mouse cells in-culture.

How does that turn into SARS-COV2?

Snopes has debunked Dr Nutso’s claims too.

I do not know what will take to end this false story.

Note - I am not saying absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Just that what is being cited is not what they say it is - it’s not proof that the Chinese lab was trying to make a human infectious virus out of something that doesn’t normally infect humans.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: PeterB
Date: August 01, 2021 07:36PM
Quote
sekker
Quote
PeterB
Quote
sekker
Quote
PeterB
Quote
Filliam H. Muffman
I would consider a daily nasal spray to reduce susceptibility but it would need to either be shelf stable and available everywhere, or an auto-ship option.

The evidence that this virus is mutating so fast is disturbing, and still waiting for China to publish genetic profiles of the Wuhan 2015 Gain of Function research to prove it isn't related (like that is ever gonna happen).

I don't see why the nasal spray couldn't be both shelf-stable AND available everywhere. It's a lipopeptide, which I would guess should be pretty stable in formulation, and hopefully not too hard to mass-produce: [www.nytimes.com]

There is a nasal spray-based next generation vaccine now in clinical trials. They just designed the version against the Delta variant. This could be the next step. But it will still be months before we know it works and is generally safe. Still, scientists are still 'sciencing' and trying to get new solutions - even if the politics are a challenge.

To which one are you referring? There are actually now a few nasal sprays in development; the one I linked to from the NYT is a lipoprotein, already tested on ferrets, but there are others in development (and one which is OTC and according to a publication, interferes with corona infection, though I'm not sure I believe their data).

[www.postbulletin.com]

Actual vaccine, nasal delivery. Very cool tech.

Interesting; but I thought the problem with adenoviral nasal-based vaccines is that (ironically) the body doesn't respond well to the adenovirus as a vector when it's applied intranasally rather than bloodstream injected? (That is, the body eliminates it right away...) And what about adjuvant?

I still like the idea of using a lipoprotein. Less complicated and probably easier to mass-produce.




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: Filliam H. Muffman
Date: August 01, 2021 07:41PM
Quote
Sarcany
Quote
Filliam H. Muffman
Quote
Sarcany
Quote
Filliam H. Muffman
Quote
Sarcany
On top of all the other evidence against the whole "THOSE DARK-SKINNED FUNNY-SPEAKING FOREIGNERS ENGINEERED IT" line of BS pushed most notably by Rand Paul at the behest of Donald Trump, there was an international pause on "Gain of Function" research and a moratorium on funding at the time in question.

Just a FYI, I wasn't talking about Senator Nutso's comments. I was talking about the study I previously referenced that was done before the 'agreement' and pause in funding.


The article I cited today makes specific reference to that type of study. Scientists do not consider that type of research to be "Gain of Function."

Rand Paul and other right-wingers have repeatedly tried to spin it as "Gain of Function" research by Chinese government stooges to further their political ends.

Don't swallow the spin. Follow the science.

Not swallowing anything, just waiting for China to provide the data the world has been waiting for since Feb., 2020. Again, not consuming any right-wing crap. Don't knee-jerk associate me with them just because it was in a recent news cycle.

The paper that you cite examined the adaptability of a mouse-adapted SARS virus to mouse cells in-culture.

How does that turn into SARS-COV2?

That is just what they admitted to. Release it back into the wild and a couple of years of natural mutation will hide their work.



In tha 360. MRF User Map
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: Sarcany
Date: August 01, 2021 08:29PM
Quote
Filliam H. Muffman
Quote
Sarcany
Quote
Filliam H. Muffman
Quote
Sarcany
Quote
Filliam H. Muffman
Quote
Sarcany
On top of all the other evidence against the whole "THOSE DARK-SKINNED FUNNY-SPEAKING FOREIGNERS ENGINEERED IT" line of BS pushed most notably by Rand Paul at the behest of Donald Trump, there was an international pause on "Gain of Function" research and a moratorium on funding at the time in question.

Just a FYI, I wasn't talking about Senator Nutso's comments. I was talking about the study I previously referenced that was done before the 'agreement' and pause in funding.


The article I cited today makes specific reference to that type of study. Scientists do not consider that type of research to be "Gain of Function."

Rand Paul and other right-wingers have repeatedly tried to spin it as "Gain of Function" research by Chinese government stooges to further their political ends.

Don't swallow the spin. Follow the science.

Not swallowing anything, just waiting for China to provide the data the world has been waiting for since Feb., 2020. Again, not consuming any right-wing crap. Don't knee-jerk associate me with them just because it was in a recent news cycle.

The paper that you cite examined the adaptability of a mouse-adapted SARS virus to mouse cells in-culture.

How does that turn into SARS-COV2?

That is just what they admitted to. Release it back into the wild and a couple of years of natural mutation will hide their work.

I think that ends the discussion right there.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: JoeH
Date: August 02, 2021 01:24AM
Quote
Sarcany
Quote
Filliam H. Muffman
Quote
Sarcany
Quote
Filliam H. Muffman
Quote
Sarcany
Quote
Filliam H. Muffman
Quote
Sarcany
On top of all the other evidence against the whole "THOSE DARK-SKINNED FUNNY-SPEAKING FOREIGNERS ENGINEERED IT" line of BS pushed most notably by Rand Paul at the behest of Donald Trump, there was an international pause on "Gain of Function" research and a moratorium on funding at the time in question.

Just a FYI, I wasn't talking about Senator Nutso's comments. I was talking about the study I previously referenced that was done before the 'agreement' and pause in funding.


The article I cited today makes specific reference to that type of study. Scientists do not consider that type of research to be "Gain of Function."

Rand Paul and other right-wingers have repeatedly tried to spin it as "Gain of Function" research by Chinese government stooges to further their political ends.

Don't swallow the spin. Follow the science.

Not swallowing anything, just waiting for China to provide the data the world has been waiting for since Feb., 2020. Again, not consuming any right-wing crap. Don't knee-jerk associate me with them just because it was in a recent news cycle.

The paper that you cite examined the adaptability of a mouse-adapted SARS virus to mouse cells in-culture.

How does that turn into SARS-COV2?

That is just what they admitted to. Release it back into the wild and a couple of years of natural mutation will hide their work.

I think that ends the discussion right there.

Yep, because that last statement by FHM is a load of baloney. It may not be an expression of the craziest conspiracy theories, but is part of the same nonsense.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: CDC stats on breakthrough infection (minus the media hysteria)
Posted by: deckeda
Date: August 02, 2021 03:16PM
Hah, no one asserting China intentionally created Covid is prepared to deal with the car after having caught it. But they do love the chase. It’s important to have goals beyond, “we proved they made this.”

What you want to say is they intended (or did not care) to hurt everyone. No plausible rationale.
What you want to say is there’s a benefit to them. See the above

What you want to say is that even if it’s a mistake, it’s critical to know the source. It isn’t.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 86
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 5122 on October 03, 2020