Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 9.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, bojan said:

Due the controversy over the one in 1991?

Naw, it's just the Vaxx becoming totally politicized in the US (as everything does). With regards to Republicans, it's basically Owning the Libs by not getting vaccinated (although to be fair vaccination rates among blacks and hispanics aren't super great). Most active duty military I know got vaccinated as soon as they possibly could -- they have to get vaxxed for a variety of other stuff anyway. Actively serving US military on this forum (oh, wait, there aren't any of them anymore) might disagree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://coronavirus.rice.edu/news/covid-19-response-weekly-update-august-22

Quote

We’ve discovered some anomalies with the test results we received this week from one of our three providers. I’m going to explain in detail what we’ve discovered and how we discovered it, but the bottom line is this: Dozens of people whose initial tests showed them to be COVID-positive have been retested twice and all but one of those have turned out to be negative.

 

Quote

When we examined the results a few days ago, we suspected something was wrong. Those results didn’t seem right for a number of reasons: Over 90% of the positive infections came from a single test provider; three-quarters of the positive tests were from people who reported no symptoms; the positive results were widely scattered across various groups in our population, with only one potential cluster that seemed more likely to be associated with their proximity to a particular testing location; and over 90% of the reported infections were for people who were fully vaccinated.

 

Quote

Then we retested about 50 people who initially tested positive. Each of them was tested two additional times, on two different days, by two different test providers, and all but one came back negative. Based on the anomalies and the two follow-up negative tests from other providers, we concluded that these people who were previously treated as positive were in fact negative, so they were released from isolation. The people whose positive tests were verified remain in isolation.

49 out of 50 positives in the initial testing appear to have been false positives.

Bad data was used to make the decision to delay the return to campus residence. Kudos to Rice for drilling into the data and finding the problem.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, JWB said:

 

Christ almighty it makes me want to weep.  Most of them are wearing their masks incorrectly, at least one using only one elastic strap, several are the wrong shapes for their faces, most don't have seals, etc.  Having spent a painful stint as the internal compliance idiot and fit tester I'd flunk most of them.  The blonde chattering away in the foreground without a mask was a truly nice touch. . . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, nitflegal said:

Christ almighty it makes me want to weep.  Most of them are wearing their masks incorrectly, at least one using only one elastic strap, several are the wrong shapes for their faces, most don't have seals, etc.  Having spent a painful stint as the internal compliance idiot and fit tester I'd flunk most of them.  The blonde chattering away in the foreground without a mask was a truly nice touch. . . 

"The face of covid, is the person next to you...." especially if you put on your mask sideways, like dr. Muppet here behind me. 🙃

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, nitflegal said:

Christ almighty it makes me want to weep.  Most of them are wearing their masks incorrectly, at least one using only one elastic strap, several are the wrong shapes for their faces, most don't have seals, etc.  Having spent a painful stint as the internal compliance idiot and fit tester I'd flunk most of them.  The blonde chattering away in the foreground without a mask was a truly nice touch. . . 

Not that it matters, the Fraudster in charge just said it doesn't matter what kind of mask, just wear something.  If that's the case then it hardly matters if it fits well or is even worn correctly.
 

Want a nice touch, check out this still from a Democratic Party fund raiser just a couple of days ago.  Notice how the $10,000 plate diners are without masks while their serfs serving the food are all wearing masks.  Masks for thee, not for me.
Vid shows hoards of maskless people at apparent Pelosi DCCC event

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DKTanker said:

Not that it matters, the Fraudster in charge just said it doesn't matter what kind of mask, just wear something.  If that's the case then it hardly matters if it fits well or is even worn correctly.
 

Want a nice touch, check out this still from a Democratic Party fund raiser just a couple of days ago.  Notice how the $10,000 plate diners are without masks while their serfs serving the food are all wearing masks.  Masks for thee, not for me.
Vid shows hoards of maskless people at apparent Pelosi DCCC event

Duh, you can't catch or transmit the 'Rona if you're sitting down at an eating location. Everybody knows that's why masks aren't required when you are seated in a restaurant, only when walking around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Say, how do we spin the admission that our vaccine, which works the same way as several of the two-shot vaccines isn't magic but needs two doses as well?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, you could administer twenty-two shots of J&J's J and still fall short of the cost of a single dose of Pfizer/BioNTech's. At 86 cents per dose I don't care if their profit margin is 80 cents, not even if Pfizer's margin was 79 cents (which appears less than likely). It would still cost the world way less to vaccinate all seven billions of us with J&J's J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm. Isn't that how vaccination or infection works though? You get sick, you body has an immune response of a range of antibodies and t-cells that take different amounts of time to come to full strength quantity wise. And some taper off over time others increase over time. But a oater booster or infection will make those that taper off over time reassert in quantity. 
 

The point is to have sufficient primed by vaccine OR natural immune response such that an infection is mild or non-existent rather than harmful and deadly. 
 

Has it been established that we have any sterilizing immunity from vaccination? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, rmgill said:

The point is to have sufficient primed by vaccine OR natural immune response such that an infection is mild or non-existent rather than harmful and deadly. 

Inclusive OR, of course. The question the public health droids studiously avoid answering is, what are the antibody statuses of:

- fully vaxxed

- COVID-recovered

- vaxxed then recovered

- recovered then vaxxed

The narrative that the COVID-recovered are inches from death unless they get the vaccine is, TMK, not supported by data yet.

Likewise, if someone is fully vaxxed yet they get infected, is there something hinkey about their antibody levels? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The UK has started using antibody tests to assess immune response to infection - some tests will be sent to people who take a PCR test.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58293249

The article doesn't go into the trial protocol at all well, so I can't ell how they select people, but it seems likely that this will generate a mix of people who are at all stages of vaccination, and also those who haven't been vaccinated. 8000 tests should be large enough to get something useful out of the numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

 

The narrative that the COVID-recovered are inches from death unless they get the vaccine is, TMK, not supported by data yet.

We have a longer base line for covid recovery and resulting immune response durability than we do vaccination immune response durability. 
 

More so, several studies I looked at indicate a more broad immune response than just against the spike protein.  
 

I would love a reasonably easy antibody and t-cell assay but its not available yet. Lab corp has some tests but my doctor can't order them. 
 

I'd like to see my own numbers for the same reason I like to get an engine oil analysis on my various vehicles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, rmgill said:

I'd like to see my own numbers for the same reason I like to get an engine oil analysis on my various vehicles. 

Me too. I had both Pfizer shots, and had a strong reaction to them, so I have been assuming my body trained my T and B cells to go after spike proteins. I'd be happier if there was a test to confirm my defensive posture. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

Me to. I had both Pfizer shots, and had a strong reaction to them, so I have been assuming my body trained my T and B cells to go after spike proteins. I'd be happier if there was a test to confirm my defensive posture. 

Neither my wife nor I had any reaction whatsoever from either Pfizer shot.  I'm wondering if we didn't get short changed.

Edited by DKTanker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IDK if it is same thing, but my mother had ~7 times previous level of anti-bodies after two doses of Chinese one ( x 2 or more is considered good, above x 5 excelent), even through she had almost non-existent reaction (only mild sleepiness) to vaccine.

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This wouldn't be news on the BBC if the dead person hadn't been a BBC presenter, but note the statistics.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-58330796

Of approximately 35 million AZ injections given in the UK, there have been 332 reported cases of blood clots forming that are probably causally related to the vaccination, and 58 deaths. it's not clear from the article whether that's 332 cases of thrombotic thrombocytopenia, or includes all types of blood clot reactions.

The case described is in what seems to be the higher risk group - women of a certain age - for thrombotic thrombocytopenia and that's the consensus opinion of her cause of death.

Running the numbers isn't easy, because it's not clear whether the reaction is more or less likely on a first dose or second dose, or just random, but if it's random, then the raw data suggests that there is a bit lower than 1:100,000 chance of the complication occurring overall (given no knowledge of the subject) and about 1:7 chance of dying if the reaction occurs, although that probably includes people who died before the reaction was characterised and a proper treatment protocol established, bearing in mind that the normal blood clot treatment is apparently not appropriate for this particular type of clotting.

For a risk comparison, this early report via the CDC shows the adverse event rates for early Pfizer vaccinations:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7002e1.htm

Bearing in mind that it's early data and the demographics of the selection of early recipients may skew the statistics compared to the general population risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...