Vaccine question

[dneal]

So I'll take it you don't want nice things either. That's unfortunate.

When you're interested in something besides believing you have won an internet argument because you used somebody's "zinger" against them, like listening to two Ph.D evolutionary biologists (now at Princeton) discuss the potential way-ahead and possibilities of this pandemic, let me know and I'll share it.

p.s.: the "bet" thing was my line. It isn't effective when you use it back at me.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

So I'll take it you don't want nice things either. That's unfortunate.

I've always wanted nice things, but I don't think you can handle extend periods of being nice. There's been scant evidence of it.

[dneal]

I believe you are demonstrating the opposite, and that's unfortunate.

When you offer a creative writer's "fact-check" as equivalent to a research paper at the National Academy of Sciences, you appear to be disingenuous and more interested in "winning". I don't have a problem with systemic review. In fact, the paper I linked regarding ivermectin is a review. I have a problem with a systemic review being offered by you as a final conclusion, when it clearly admits that there is more data upcoming. More disingenuousness?

I am not trying to be insulting or contentious. You raise points like ethics, and then refuse to discuss it. You formulate straw men instead of addressing the actual point. The internet is littered with that, and you're not novel nor clever. If you intend to continue like this, you do not seem to want nice things.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I am not trying to be insulting or contentious. You raise points like ethics, and then refuse to discuss it. You formulate straw men instead of addressing the actual point. The internet is littered with that, and you're not novel nor clever. If you intend to continue like this, you do not seem to want nice things.

Like to reexamine this quote for inconsistency? Maybe hypocrisy?

If you're not trying to be insulting or contentious then you are doing a great job being precisely both.

The term 'ethics' has different usage in different contexts. For you the principal context seems to be classical theory, for me it was as part of a mandated code of conduct for researchers. While the 'ethics' I was referring are no doubt predicated on some form of classical theory, I am not aware of which parts and neither do I need to know (though it may be interesting to read about). I explained this quite clearly when you raised the issue the first time.

You see strawmen when you want to see strawmen. I certainly don't deliberately construct them, but I will admit that they remain a possibility when discussing complicated subjects.

... you're not novel nor clever

is this you

...not trying to be insulting or contentious.

[TSherbs]

Data coming soon from Israel on over a million test subjects. It appears that the booster had strong efficacy against serious illness and mortality, at least for those 60+ yrs old. I'm not sure if the data looks only at those over 60, or of the results are different for those under 60. We shall see. Meantime, sign me up!

CNN: Israeli data on Covid-19 vaccine boosters to publish in prominent medical journal ahead of key FDA committee meeting next week.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/10/healt...ing/index.html

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[dneal]

@EoC - Yep. You seem to confuse my intent with your reaction. Offering you criticism that is unpleasant does not mean it is intended maliciously, which is why I specifically noted that I wasn't trying to be insulting or contentious.

You may not intend to construct straw men, deflect, ignore, obfuscate, etc... but you do. Most of your posts lean to the rhetorical, which is effective with persuasion but fails against reason due to the inherent logical fallacies. Again, go back and visit the "post your contentious virus posts here..." thread. Note how that is absent in the discussion. We were able to question each other, and even disagree, without rhetorical devices and petty bickering.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

@EoC - Yep. You seem to confuse my intent with your reaction. Offering you criticism that is unpleasant does not mean it is intended maliciously, which is why I specifically noted that I wasn't trying to be insulting or contentious.

Yes, like saying, 'You're fat, no offence'. It is still offensive. And we're not talking about unpleasant criticism of a discussion - as in a facet of an argument that I don't like - we are talking about personal insults like 'you are too stupid to understand this' or 'your reading comprehension is limited'. These are not statements based on facts they are bald-faced insults, and thus malicious.

[TSherbs]

I've got 4 minutes before my next reaction comes off the analyzer, and another 6 to 10 minutes before I swap cassettes on a different analyzer. I am exhausted. My legs are cramping from roaming around the lab all day every work day. My head hurts and my eyes burn. I desperately want a rest, but it's not going to happen for a long time. If I call out sick, someone has to fill my spot, and someone has to fill their spot and so on. There are more spots than people in this town. If you want to work 80 hours a week in this field, you can. This is what COVID has done. This is what the anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers have done. This is what legions of idiots who just have to get out and socialize, exchanging infected aerosols and bringing their kids along for the fun, have done. Officially, we had a lockdown in my state. Yeah, riiiight. This is what your "rights" have done. COVID is a lot like unprotected sex. Just as with unprotected sex, you effectively have sex with your partner, anyone your partner ever had sex with, all of their partners and so on. Well, COVID means that you got breathed on my someone, who was breathed on by multiple someones, who were breathed on my multiple someones. It takes only one infected someone and one good sneeze or cough, and all of those nice, clean people you associate with can now transmit COVID to you, and from you onwards to others.

This is what all you healthy-eating, moderately-exercising, peak health advocates have done. None of that stops a virus. None of it. That is the nature of viruses. Reproduce is what they do, and that means infecting hosts. Viruses don't care about your politics, or your so-called principles. They simply spread and reproduce, passing from host to host. And I don't see a vacation any time in the next 12 months.

I agree with your point of view and am sorry that you are so exhausted. I hope that you find a way to stay well.

I can only add that I consider it (elective vaccine rejection) another example of human selfishness and narrow self interest, amplified by identity politics (in the USA).

And then some folks dismiss the deaths as inevitable or worth the "cost of freedom." What bullshit.

[dneal]

@EoC - Yep. You seem to confuse my intent with your reaction. Offering you criticism that is unpleasant does not mean it is intended maliciously, which is why I specifically noted that I wasn't trying to be insulting or contentious.

Yes, like saying, 'You're fat, no offence'. It is still offensive. And we're not talking about unpleasant criticism of a discussion - as in a facet of an argument that I don't like - we are talking about personal insults like 'you are too stupid to understand this' or 'your reading comprehension is limited'. These are not statements based on facts they are bald-faced insults, and thus malicious.

Maybe, but if you're fat it's still the truth. Consider the following:

"Darling, you're nearly 100 pounds overweight. You're morbidly obese and it is detrimental to your health".
"You're offensive!!! That hurts my feelings!!!"

See?

You use straw men and other rhetorical devices in lieu of rationality, whether you are aware of it or not. If that hurts your feelings, that's something you are going have to reconcile.

[TSherbs]

And let me add this:

The environment in which mutations occur more often is the environment in which more replications are occurring: in other words, the more viruses that exist, and the more that they replicate, the more chances there are for mutations to occur. Vaccines dampen the numbers of virus, and thus the numbers of replications, and thus number of chances of mutations. Vaccines, by activating our immune responses to attack a virus more quickly and effectively do not increase or "encourage" or "pressure" a virus to mutate nor do they "pressure" (or "encourage" or whatever other non-scientific term you might apply to this) a virus to "evolve." ("Evolve" is probably not even the right term for one form of virus mutating into another viral form.)

Vaccines are not toxins, they are not "agents" in any way that act upon viruses directly, and they certainly do not subject viral genetic material to forces that would cause or induce it to mutate: they have no direct agency on the virus whatsoever. Nor does the human immune system that is activated by a vaccine in advance of actual infection. Vaccines simply effect which viruses (or other infectious organisms) have reduced chances of replicating, infecting other hosts, and causing severe illness. They are not perfect shields, but they do what they are supposed to.

The epidemiologists know very well how all of this works, and they know that what increases the chances of viral mutation is increased numbers of hosts, increased numbers of viral load in those hosts, and increased numbers of replication (and the specific nature of the virus itself). And, we know, that vaccines reduce (mitigate) most of these circumstances. As far as I know, viruses in our body do not compete against each other nor attack each other: their mutation rates are not connected to what other viruses may or may not be present in the body, except, perhaps, that some viruses may increase their numbers in a host with a weakened immune system. And vaccines do not weaken immune systems. . To pry away at these understood numbers and viral behaviors with non-scientific terms and speculative fears and doubts, especially by the unlearned and/or politically motivated, is a disservice to all of the others who have trouble understanding the science and rely on word of mouth (or word of internet).

If more vaccines for other Corona virus forms come out, I will be taking them all, both for myself and for everyone else in my community, and for the world. I'll take my flu shots this year, also, for the same reasons. These shots have efficacy both for me and for the community far beyond the risks to my self. Like voting, some people do not do it because they think that they individually do not count for enough in the large picture. That's too bad, and posts here that contribute to this cynical indifference or apathy do the community a disservice.

Get vaccinated, frequently.

Vote, frequently.

[TSherbs]

I would love to see an aggregate comparative study between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, compare their aggregate hospitalization and mortality rates, and then calculate a kind of mortality coefficient that each of us should understand is a consequence of our actions.

Maybe both group's decisions are equally lethal to the greater community of humans.

But I doubt it. But I think that it is ethically fair to ask, say, a group of 1000 unvaccinated persons to pick which, say, 3 extra persons (I am making this number up for illustrative purposes) will die later down the line in part because of their decision. There is a lot of "who gives a fuck, my family and friends are fine" attitude around this.

Meanwhile, see tFarnon's post above, and check the latest total number of deaths in the US (and in the end, what percentage will the vaccinated have out of the total number of deaths?--even five years from now....). US total to date: 654, 409.

[TSherbs]

... Viruses mutate all the time, randomly. The presence of a vaccine merely screens out those variations that are affected by it. There is no pressure to mutate, there is no pressure to evolve, there is merely a record of what survives.

correct



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[dneal]

Hmm. Those are some solid assertions from people who I believe also recommend readers get their science from scientists. I think there's more likely things none of us know, but will find out - like vaccines aren't really one and done, spike proteins are indeed cytotoxic, no matter if they come from a vaccine or a virus, etc...

Here is a real evolutionary biologist, talking about mutation on as layman of a level as he can, with a different scientist who raised a concern.




p.s.:There's a reason I picked this video.

[dneal]

Just because it's so much truth in three minutes.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Cytotoxic spike response

If you don't like the source - looking at you dneal - then check out their sources.

Here's a statement from the fake news people over at the FDA:

There is no scientific data to indicate that the spike protein in mRNA vaccines is toxic or that it lingers at any toxic level in the body after vaccination. As with many other vaccines, COVID-19 vaccines can cause some side effects. Most side effects of vaccines, including COVID-19 vaccines, are usually minor and short-lived. For example, a person may feel soreness at the injection site or experience a mild fever. Serious vaccine reactions are not common, but they can happen. The side effects that people may experience in the first few days following any vaccine is part of the body's immune response to the vaccine. However, it is important to note that side effects following vaccination, or lack of side effects, do not correlate with the effectiveness of a vaccine in an individual.

p.s.:There's a reason I picked this video.

I can think of various reasons you picked that video, but I wouldn't be so unkind as to air them here.

[dneal]

There is not a source. There are sources. Apparently we disagree on the credibility of the other's source(s), but it shouldn't affect the scientific process.

You obviously didn't watch the videos.

[dneal]

Back to something important.

Gorillas at Zoo Atlanta being treated after initial testing reveals Covid-19 virus

I'm no evolutionary biologist, but it does look like the virus has found yet another animal reservoir. I wonder if that has any significance.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Obviously, just as obviously you do nothing more than skim read other people's posts.

[dneal]

Obviously, just as obviously you do nothing more than skim read other people's posts.

Like nailing jello to a tree. What are you on about? I thought we were talking about mutating viruses.

I don't discount your sources, when they're scientific (sorry, but The Atlantic and Fact Check stuff isn't science). You have immediately attacked mine, with flaky rebuttals. I'm not so picky. If I've seen that info, fine; and if I haven't I add it into the calculus.

You clearly still haven't watched the videos. When you do you'll know why I can confidently say that. That's ok though, I didn't just post them for you. I posted them for myself and others too.

--edit--

hopefully this gets posted quick enough to save further electrons...

I know you're going to go find some quote where I commented about your systemic review site. Those were legitimate criticisms, delivered admittedly with a healthy dose of sarcasm and spite. You still haven't rebutted the criticisms other than to make mocking comments about "not believing in systemic review" (where you created a false dichotomy - a logical fallacy). You went straight to the motive. That's part of the problem I've already commented on (and might be related in some way to the videos...)

[Empty_of_Clouds]

More dismissiveness and arrogant presumption of other people's actions.