Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine

[Alan Klein]

The "polite and patient" part is certainly true. The "mostly correct" part is egregiously wrong.

I don't know how you can state someone's opinion is egregiously wrong?  It's an opinion.  Also, it would be helpful if you thought something I said that you thought differently on was explained by you so we can compare beliefs.  For example, you recently asked about inflation.  If you felt my explanation was "egregiously wrong", you did not explain how it was.  Certainly, I would like to hear your explanation if you disagree.  To say I'm wrong without a counter explanation doesn't advance the discussion. 

Regarding, right or wrong, I happen to follow the Austrian economic model.  There are many who follow Keynesian.  There are "experts" with long economic histories on both beliefs who disagree with each other and how the economic system works best.   Which ones are "egregiously wrong"?  It's like trying to discern whether Nikon or Canon lovers are right or wrong about which one is the better camera.  Have you ever gotten a second opinion from doctors who are "experts" in their field? Which one is wrong?

[TechTalk]

How did economic theories become part of a thread whose topic is vaccines?

"I react pragmatically. Where the market works, I'm for that. Where the government is necessary, I'm for that. I'm deeply suspicious of somebody who says, 'I'm in favor of privatization,' or, 'I'm deeply in favor of public ownership.' I'm in favor of whatever works in the particular case." — John Kenneth Galbraith C-SPAN, November 13, 1994

[Alan Klein]

The ability for a pandemic airborne virus to be transmitted and to subsequently reproduce itself and evolve into variants is dramatically diminished among people who are vaccinated; avoid large and/or crowded gatherings; wear masks in public places; and socially distance. Due to the preprogrammed and heightened immune response provided by vaccination, exposure to transmission causing an infection will likely result in a substantially lower viral load being produced due to the reduction in viral lifespan within the body as the prepared and boosted immune system attacks the virus to eradicate it. The reduction in viral load and lifespan limits the ability of the virus to: cause serious illness; be transmitted to others; or evolve into variants. Following the aforementioned common sense public health measures reduce both the quantity of virus spread and opportunity for viral transmission. Combining all of the above is the most effective means of combating and controlling pandemic viruses; reducing their impact on individuals and society; and saving lives.

Those that choose to go unvaccinated; gather in large and/or crowded environments; go unmasked in public places; and do not socially distance themselves aid in accelerating the spread of viral transmission and the evolution of variants. They have a far greater risk of: becoming infected and spreading the virus to others; of requiring hospitalization when infected; suffering from short or long-term complications; and dying. Their ignorance and poor choices not only unnecessarily risks their own health, but increases their potential for becoming a health risk to those around them. The primary beneficiary of this type of behavior is the virus, which will enjoy: a longer life; greater liberty to spread, and enhanced pursuit of victims to host their replication and continued evolution. They become Darwinian laboratories as their failure to adapt diminishes their own population while serving as hosts for the evolution of a virus. Viruses require hosts to survive and there are an unfortunate number of friendly hosts willing to assist.

The behavior, replication, and evolution of viruses is not nearly as great a mystery to those who have devoted their lives and careers to the study, research, treatment, control, and eradication of viruses. For those unable or unwilling to listen or learn from those most knowledgeable, it will remain mysterious and will result, for some, in deadly consequences for themselves or loved ones.

I don't necessarily believe that vaccination reduces the spread.  I seem to recall reading that they found both vaccinated and unvaccinated people were infected in roughly equal or high percentages.  I do agree that being vaccinated however reduces the seriousness of the infection should you get it. Often symptoms are absent or very mild and hospitalization and death rare. I would recommend that anyone who hasn't gotten the shot, get them unless there is some specific medical reason when it's not recommended. 

If I was given Pfizer's two shots, I would take the third as I'm over 65.  Fortunately, I've been given Moderna and it seems to be holding its efficacy longer, so a third shot is not yet recommended.

[Alan Klein]

What's the accuracy of the antibody test to determine how effective your vaccinations are?

[Alan Klein]

How did economic theories become part of a thread whose topic is vaccines?

"I react pragmatically. Where the market works, I'm for that. Where the government is necessary, I'm for that. I'm deeply suspicious of somebody who says, 'I'm in favor of privatization,' or, 'I'm deeply in favor of public ownership.' I'm in favor of whatever works in the particular case." — John Kenneth Galbraith C-SPAN, November 13, 1994

This thread and the other one often get swapped ideas and discussions.  I often forget which one I'm on.  Maybe you should post the Galbraith quote on the other thread? 

[TechTalk]

Your text or a quote?

I wrote what's above your question. If I'm quoting someone else, even if it's a sentence or phrase, I acknowledge the source and prefer to provide a link, book page and number, or source when doing so.

Since you asked, I don't mind answering. A "polite" individual once posted a reply telling me that I should provide a source when quoting someone else's writing for something that I wrote myself. It almost sounded like I was being accused of plagiarism.

[Alan Klein]

I wrote what's above your question. If I'm quoting someone else, even if it's a sentence or phrase, I acknowledge the source and prefer to provide a link, book page and number, or source when doing so.

Since you asked, I don't mind answering. A "polite" individual once posted a reply telling me that I should provide a source when quoting someone else's writing for something that I wrote myself. It almost sounded like I was being accused of plagiarism.

Why would you feel they were accusing you of plagiarism?  They may have just wanted to read the original source.

I usually provide the link 90% of the time when I am quoting.  That's the right thing to do IMO because we all tend to cherry-pick our quotes to "prove" our beliefs.  Letting the reader see the full article or statement is the fair thing to do. 

[TechTalk]

I don't necessarily believe that vaccination reduces the spread.

Fortunately, science and the ability of vaccines to reduce the spread of contagious diseases don't rely on your beliefs. If you doubt the ability of vaccination to reduce the spread of viruses and other diseases, you can ask polio and smallpox what they think the next time you see them.

https://www.healthgrades.com/right-care/vaccines/14-diseases-nearly-eliminated-by-vaccines

[TechTalk]

A "polite" individual once posted a reply telling me that I should provide a source when quoting someone else's writing for something that I wrote myself. It almost sounded like I was being accused of plagiarism.

Why would you feel they were accusing you of plagiarism?  They may have just wanted to read the original source.

I was the original source.

[Alan Klein]

I was the original source.

Maybe they didn't realize it was from you so they asked for the link.   Why assume they were accusing you of plagiarism?

[Alan Klein]

It's this kind of inconsistency that creates opposition to wearing masks.  The politicians seem to be playing games.  If you're on the left in California, then no masks are OK either for Hollywood or the governor.

Celebs DO get different Covid rules: Los Angeles Department of Health insists Emmy awards ceremony didn't violate restrictions because is 'classed as a TV production and stars are considered performers'
-LA County Health Department said 'exceptions are made for film and TV productions' with additional safety modifications
-All who were present including the guests and crew were fully vaccinated
-Those working behind the scenes had to show a negative test twice a week
-Entire event was ripped by Seth Rogen who mocked the awards show for packing a 'hermetically-sealed tent' and calling it 'outdoors '
-Hundreds of celebrities at the ceremony were seen sitting close together
-Those on social media called out the apparent hypocrisy that saw COVID-19 rules apply to ordinary people but not Hollywood elites
-LA has a mask mandate requiring attendees at an indoor event with more than 1,000 people  to wear masks at all times, except when eating
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10011495/LA-County-health-department-Emmys-exempt-mask-requirements-insists-award-COVID-safe.html#:~:text=Celebs%20DO%20get,except%20when%20eating

[TechTalk]

Maybe they didn't realize it was from you so they asked for the link.   Why assume they were accusing you of plagiarism?

Never mind.

[Manoli]

Your text or a quote?

*deleted

[TechTalk]

Honestly, I don't mind being asked and took no offense or thought any was intended from it.

It's when a "polite" individual starts with "These don't sound like your words." and ends with "it would be appropriate to credit the original writer and provide a link", that I find it a little bit overly accusatory in tone.

[Robert Roaldi]

It's this kind of inconsistency that creates opposition to wearing masks.  ...

It does nothing of the kind. So what if some privileged person gets away with acting irresponsibly, it happens all the time, nothing new there.

[Robert Roaldi]

I don't necessarily believe that vaccination reduces the spread.  I seem to recall reading that they found both vaccinated and unvaccinated people were infected in roughly equal or high percentages.  ...

When I saw this I wondered what you've been reading. But if by "infected" you simply mean acquire a viral load, of course vaccinated people will be infected as often as unvaccinated people. That's a function of environment and luck. Vaccinations don't create a Start Trek like force field around you. Viruses can still get into your body if you are vaccinated, why wouldn't they, but if you're vaccinated you are better at killing them off. That's the entire basis of herd immunity. If enough people in a society have the ability to kill off a virus relatively quickly after acquiring a load, then you stop a pandemic. This is old science, it was known in 1918. It's virology 101, despite some people claiming that it's a "mystery". It was known in February 2020 too, and public health officials all over the planet warned everyone because the early numbers showed how quickly Covid was spreading and how lethal it was. There was and is no mystery. The disease behaved as predicted. Some listened, some did not.

In daily informal speech, though, when people think "infected" they probably don't simply mean "to acquire a viral load", they mean "get sick". The reality is that we've been surrounded by viruses (and bacteria) every minute of our lives since we've been born, there's nothing new about acquiring a viral load. What matters is how well we fight it off.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Honestly, I don't mind being asked and took no offense or thought any was intended from it...

My apologies if it was perceived as an attempt to offend (even if so by others, not you).

My question was genuine, because I heard such an explanation several times, the last from my friend, a doctor. So it sounded like a common source.

Having said that, it appears to rely on a set of assumptions, primarily based on how vaccines work historically. What Alan and I had in mind, is a more recent quote by the perceived expert in the field, Dr. Fauci, that the vaccinated are equally likely to be infectious as the unvaccinated. I will try to find a source of that quote.

EDIT: someone even suggested these (C19 and the flu) shouldn't even be called vaccines, but rather shots, given that they do not create immunity, just reduce the symptoms. Which was quietly confirmed recently by CDC changing the very definition of a vaccine.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

When I saw this I wondered what you've been reading. But if by "infected" you simply mean acquire a viral load, of course vaccinated people will be infected as often as unvaccinated people. That's a function of environment and luck. Vaccinations don't create a Start Trek like force field around you. Viruses can still get into your body if you are vaccinated, why wouldn't they, but if you're vaccinated you are better at killing them off. That's the entire basis of herd immunity. If enough people in a society have the ability to kill off a virus relatively quickly after acquiring a load, then you stop a pandemic. This is old science, it was known in 1918. It's virology 101, despite some people claiming that it's a "mystery". It was known in February 2020 too, and public health officials all over the planet warned everyone because the early numbers showed how quickly Covid was spreading and how lethal it was. There was and is no mystery. The disease behaved as predicted. Some listened, some did not.

In daily informal speech, though, when people think "infected" they probably don't simply mean "to acquire a viral load", they mean "get sick". The reality is that we've been surrounded by viruses (and bacteria) every minute of our lives since we've been born, there's nothing new about acquiring a viral load. What matters is how well we fight it off.

Your verbosity is another example how strawmanning works: you gloriously appear to defeat the argument, although that wasn't the argument.

You talk about being infected, and Alan (and I) about being infectious.

[TechTalk]

Having said that, it appears to rely on a set of assumptions, primarily based on how vaccines work historically.

It relies on scientists who have acquired knowledge of how viruses and vaccines work and are putting their knowledge to use daily for the benefit of all.

What Alan and I had in mind, is a more recent quote by the perceived expert in the field, Dr. Fauci, that the vaccinated are equally likely to be infectious as the unvaccinated. I will try to find a source of that quote.

https://www.reuters.com/article/fact check-fauci-vaccines-delta variant

Host John Dickerson asked Fauci about his understanding of the Delta variant, which has become the dominant variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the United States.

Fauci responded by explaining that no vaccine is 100% effective and that breakthrough infections can happen.

“When you look at the level of virus in the nasopharynx of people who are vaccinated, who get breakthrough infections, it’s really quite high and equivalent to the level of virus in the nasopharynx of unvaccinated people who get infected,” Fauci said in the interview. “That’s very different from the Alpha variant.”

Fauci then explained that the earlier Alpha variant presented an extremely low level of virus in a vaccinated person compared to an unvaccinated infected person, pointing out that we now know vaccinated people with breakthrough infections of the Delta variant can spread the virus to others.

He said that the level of virus in the nasopharynx of vaccinated and unvaccinated people with the Delta variant of the virus are similar and that vaccinated people with breakthrough infections can infect others.

the perceived expert in the field, Dr. Fauci

Dr. Fauci is not only perceived as an expert in his field, he is a preeminent expert and one of the most cited scientific researchers in his field. In my opinion, if someone wanted to single out one individual (though I think that would be a silly thing to do) deserving the most credit for many of the COVID vaccines that we have today it would be Dr. Fauci for many reasons, some of which I have expressed in earlier posts regarding the history of COVID vaccines. He's someone that should be given serious attention and listened to regarding the current pandemic.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Well, thank you for finding the quote I had in mind.

Your point?

Because the quote seems to confirm what I was saying, no?