This does lead to some funny incentives. The only restrictions are on the symptomatic, so if I’m vaccinated and have access to a supply of SARS-CoV-2, it’s in my best interest to be regularly dosing myself with SARS-CoV-2 in order to avoid my immunity dropping enough to ever develop symptoms.
Coronavirus. The n(in)th sequel.
- Thread starter Takhisis
- Start date
- Status
This does lead to some funny incentives. The only restrictions are on the symptomatic, so if I’m vaccinated and have access to a supply of SARS-CoV-2, it’s in my best interest to be regularly dosing myself with SARS-CoV-2 in order to avoid my immunity dropping enough to ever develop symptoms.
So this country currently has the fifth-lowest (official) rate of contagion.
The ‘president’ does his bit by hosting a campaign rally at a football stadium which is packed to more than double its capacity. The stadium's already provisionally closed, but can the ‘president’ be held to account?
Other speakers at the same event said that the misruling party should just keep power for at least twenty years, elections be damned.
The ‘president’ does his bit by hosting a campaign rally at a football stadium which is packed to more than double its capacity. The stadium's already provisionally closed, but can the ‘president’ be held to account?
Other speakers at the same event said that the misruling party should just keep power for at least twenty years, elections be damned.
EnglishEdward
Deity
Quite, but that is a dubious line for arguing for mandatory vaccination by law.
Consider the logical follow on:
(ii) But some people are killed because their natural eyesight is deficient.
(iii) To avoid that, they should be compelled to wear glasses.
(iv) But it is a complication working out who has deficient vision and must be compelled to wear glasses.
(v) So to avoid that complication, and because people might lie; we will compel everybody to wear glasses when driving.
(vi) Anybody found driving without wearing glasses should go to gaol.
The problem with analogies is that they work both ways.
When I was younger, my vision was good enough such that I didn't need glasses to drive legally. But I got glasses from when I was driving with loved ones in the vehicle.
There were three stages: I had a test to (1) prove that I was safe to drive (after my LASIK), so I (2) met a minimum standard. And then I (3) decided to go above the minimum standard for personal reasons.
If my vision then degraded to below a minimum standard, I would be expected to meet that minimum standard or stop driving. The burden of proof is on me (technically) to prove that my vision is good enough.
The only way this analogy would be perfectly applicable is if we expected people to pay (out of pocket) to prove that their antibody titre was at sufficient levels, and we'd just expect periodic testing based on the natural decay rate. Because we know the booster works, obviously a booster can be used in lieu of an antibody test.
As an aside: I realize I don't know enough about antibody location. Like, is it better to have antibodies in the actual respiratory system vs. just generally available? And is there a booster vaccine that will be causing such a thing? The irony will be if we're going to be inhaling nebulized spike proteins someday.
Last edited:
My knowledge on that is pretty bad, but there are 3 main classes of antibodies : IgA, IgG and IgM (also IgD, function unknown, and IgE, for parasitic infections and allergies).
IgA is mostly located in your various mucosas, whereas IgG and IgM is produced... everywhere else. I think this has something to do with the solubility, not sure. I think the location where the immune cells are is mostly responsible for what they produce (or they migrate where they're supposed to be), so getting something intra-muscular/venous will probably not lead to IgA production. I guess, I don't really know. On the other hand, to get seriously ill, you need an infection way broader than simply your mucosas, so for the final trajectory of the disease this shouldn't really matter either, I guess.
Yeah, my immunology knowledge isn't as good as it should be :/.
EDIT: Shouldn't be forgotten that vaccination also works fine for Influenza, which is a respiratory virus, so I'd overall not worry
.
IgA is mostly located in your various mucosas, whereas IgG and IgM is produced... everywhere else. I think this has something to do with the solubility, not sure. I think the location where the immune cells are is mostly responsible for what they produce (or they migrate where they're supposed to be), so getting something intra-muscular/venous will probably not lead to IgA production. I guess, I don't really know. On the other hand, to get seriously ill, you need an infection way broader than simply your mucosas, so for the final trajectory of the disease this shouldn't really matter either, I guess.
Yeah, my immunology knowledge isn't as good as it should be :/.
EDIT: Shouldn't be forgotten that vaccination also works fine for Influenza, which is a respiratory virus, so I'd overall not worry
.
Last edited:
Zardnaar
Deity
Strong odds that recent data is artificially low, because of delays in reporting from various regions.
My hope is that we'll learn that boosting is loads easier than getting the initial immune response.
I think the risk is high enough that we're at the 'fine-tuning is worth it' stage of development. Plus, it's not like inhaled boosters wouldn't be spiffy. Ideally I want antibodies in the region the exhaled viruses are being produced, to increase the odds of damaging them before I shed them. I'm less worried about fighting it off myself, since that's basically handled as long as I kept my immunity high.EDIT: Shouldn't be forgotten that vaccination also works fine for Influenza, which is a respiratory virus, so I'd overall not worry
My hope is that we'll learn that boosting is loads easier than getting the initial immune response.
Last edited:
Lexicus
Deity
It's not an argument about mandatory vaccinations, it's an argument about how stupid people sound when they're blathering about "natural immunity" in this context.
Gelion
Retired Captain
Does anybody else find it strange that the 2021 Nobel medicine price didn't go to the people who made COVID vaccines?
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
What context?
thetrooper
Misanthrope
- Joined
- May 24, 2004
- Messages
- 8,801
Gelion
Retired Captain
I think an invention that will literally save the plant from this terrible crisis should deserve some recognition?
thetrooper
Misanthrope
- Joined
- May 24, 2004
- Messages
- 8,801
I think an invention that will literally save the plant from this terrible crisis should deserve some recognition?
1. The planet won't be saved by this.
2. There's nothing really inventive here.
Gelion
Retired Captain
1. Won't it?
There's so much discussion and pressure to use the vaccines that I thought its sold as a panacea solution
Privately I know its not, but its not being marketed as such.2. Thats true, but due to the importance of the issue or the efficacy of this medical solution (
) it should be at least somewhat appreciated by high value prizes like this one.Anyway, its ironic to me if nothing else
thetrooper
Misanthrope
- Joined
- May 24, 2004
- Messages
- 8,801
Imagine the vaccine candidates as tap-in goals
Gelion
Retired Captain
Sorry, this needs translation from English to Simple EnglishImagine the vaccine candidates as tap-in goals
What did you mean?
The major innovation that seems to be common among all the vaccines was designing the spike protein to remain in its prefusion configuration. There is no doubt that this is a big deal, but the advances in biology are fast. Hell, the TRPV receptors are incredibly old news from a neuroscience perspective, but it's neat to see such status given to a set of discoveries that honestly is so mainstream that we now just read it summarized in paragraphs. We just take it for granted, and their amazing biology is just accepted in our paradigms as 'things sometimes work this way' and we just notice when other things act like TRPV receptors.
All that said, I sometimes wonder if we should be giving the Nobel Prize in Literature to that essay about "Flattening the Curve" that everyone seems to have read. That was some incredibly effective writing.
All that said, I sometimes wonder if we should be giving the Nobel Prize in Literature to that essay about "Flattening the Curve" that everyone seems to have read. That was some incredibly effective writing.
thetrooper
Misanthrope
- Joined
- May 24, 2004
- Messages
- 8,801
Sorry, this needs translation from English to Simple English
Youtube tap in goal
Gelion
Retired Captain
I understand that and obviously the point is to recognise the discovery of vital areas in research that are new, but to take the example of Penicillin, which was discovered in 1928 and awarded a Nobel price in 1945! Purely on the usefulness of this invention after a devastating pandemic... I mean war.
It would be more logical to give it to the people who invented the mRNA and viral vector platforms, which made quick "plug and play" development of covid vaccines possible.
- Status
