Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine

[TechTalk]

The parallel is between new software and new vaccines, not between software and the virus.

I was thinking about updating my antivirus software.

The theme of your post appeared to be about personal risk. The risk in remaining unvaccinated is not exclusively personal. Refusing to be vaccinated dramatically increases your risk of becoming infected and as a result, increases the risk of transmitting the virus to others. That risk is a double-edged sword which cuts both ways, as a personal and public risk, and is nothing like your personal safety razor.

The greater the transmission rate of this virus, the greater the risk of it evolving into something worse. The Delta variant is already an evolution with twice or greater the transmission rate seen previously and every bit as deadly. Future variants could give us a virus that is more lethal as well, if efforts to curtail transmission and spread are not successful.

The dangerous link between transmission and viral evolution explained in under a minute

[TechTalk]

I get my information from people who actually know what they are doing and work in the private sector at places like Johns Hopkins and others.

Great, perhaps you can provide us with some links to Johns Hopkins, or other equally credible sources, that confirm some of the (mis)information that you've broadcast online. It would be interesting if you were to email Johns Hopkins a copy of your insights below and to read what, if any, response they might provide.

Let's start with just a small sample.

the Delta variant is not nearly as deadly as the original strain and evolving like all pandemic viruses do, becoming less deadly but more transmissible. 

Now we have the Delta variant, which is a 1000 times more contagious than Alpha... Even if we all wore new KN95 masks, properly, how is it going to matter to a variant that is 1000 times more contagious?

if you are vaccinated, you are golden and can return to normal life regardless of anything else... C-19 is less dangerous then [than] the flu after you are vaccinated.  Therefore it does not matter how many people you are with or if they are vaccinated. 

each new variant is decreasing in severity, as always happens... we, as the public, have no reason to be concerned with these mild cases since they are of no consequence to greater society, just like the average cold is of no consequence. The only cases that matter are those that are severe enough to land people in the hospital... It is going to do what it does regardless of our actions. we can't stop C-19 from doing what it does.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

....Refusing to be vaccinated dramatically increases your risk of becoming infected and as a result, increases the risk of transmitting the virus to others....

This guy won an International Emmy award for his Covid response:

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Refusing to be vaccinated dramatically increases your risk of becoming infected...

How so? Let alone dramatically.

The risk of becoming infected is the same as for those vaccinated. There is nothing a vaccine can do to protect you from being infected. It can only help once you are infected. It is not as if it creates an invisible protection shield around you. Although I’ve seen illustrations from your ideological brethren claiming exactly that.

[Alan Klein]

Looks like they're recommending a "booster" third dose for Moderna now as they did for Pfizer.  It will be a half dose. Both my wife and I have had our two initial Moderna doses more than 6 months ago.  I was thinking about getting the third as I'm over 65 and have other comorbidities.  But my wife, who's also over 65, doesn't want to take it. She's legitimately concerned about negative effects down the road.   

More confusing stuff from the medical community.

More Covid-19 boosters are on the horizon. But not everyone will need one, experts say
Dr. Paul Offit, a member of the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee that held the vote, told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Thursday that proper expectations need to be set about what vaccines are supposed to do and how they remain effective.

"We have to define what's the goal of this vaccine. If the goal of this vaccine is protection against serious illness, meaning the kind of illness that causes you to seek medical attention or go to the hospital or the ICU, the current vaccines, as two-dose vaccines, are doing exactly that," he said. "So, you don't really need a booster dose at least as far as those data are concerned."

Offit said that although he voted to recommend half-dose booster shots for some people six months after their first two doses of Moderna's vaccine, he doesn't think everyone needs one.
"I do worry about the sort of 18- to 29-year-old because that's the group that has a higher risk of myocarditis -- that's inflammation of the heart muscle," he said. "So, without sort of clear benefit that that third dose is necessary, I think we've created this kind of 'third dose fever' in this country because of the way this has played out."

Dr. Michael Kurilla, director of the Division of Clinical Innovation at the National Center for Advancing Translation Sciences at the National Institutes of Health, agreed.
"I don't see the need for a let-it-rip campaign for boosters," Kurilla said.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/15/health/us-coronavirus-friday/index.html

[Alan Klein]

Cases and deaths are in decline.  The article says it's not herd immunity, but I think it is.  What do you think?

‘Lurching Between Crisis and Complacency’: Was This Our Last Covid Surge?
Rising immunity and modest changes in behavior may explain why cases are declining, but much remains unknown, scientists say.


...“Delta is running out of people to infect,” said Jeffrey Shaman, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Columbia University.

The fact that case numbers are falling does not mean that the country has reached herd immunity, a goal that many scientists now believe is unattainable. But the rising levels of vaccination and infection, combined with more modest behavioral changes, may have been enough to bring the surge to an end.

“It’s a combination of immunity, but also people being careful,” said Joshua Salomon, an infectious disease expert and modeler at Stanford University...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/14/health/coronavirus-delta-surge.html

[Robert Roaldi]

...  But my wife, who's also over 65, doesn't want to take it. She's legitimately concerned about negative effects down the road.   

More confusing stuff from the medical community.

....

What legitimate concerns?

I'm not confused, why are you?

[Robert Roaldi]

Cases and deaths are in decline.  The article says it's not herd immunity, but I think it is.  What do you think?

Well, cases and deaths have declined before, was is herd immunity then?

What is herd immunity, exactly?

Why should we care what your opinion is? I don't mean that in a derogatory manner. I sensibly and reasonably ask, why should anyone go to YOU for such an assessment. And why would my opinion matter. My opinion is as unimportant as yours.

[Chris Kern]

What is herd immunity, exactly?

I think the important point is that it doesn't mean anything exactly: it is intended to describe a condition where the probability of becoming infected by a disease is becoming vanishingly rare.  The term is a simple, nontechnical way to refer to a situation in the propagation cycle of a pathogen where so many members of a given population have either died or become invulnerable to it—through an infection- or vaccine-induced durable immune reaction—that the pathogen essentially stops spreading because it cannot find new hosts.  It doesn't appear that any country or other identifiable geographical area has reached that state yet with respect to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and because some people who have been infected or vaccinated are still getting sick (although in most cases not sick enough to die or even require hospitalization), it seems unlikely that any will—at least, not in the immediate future.

[TechTalk]

How so? Let alone dramatically.

The risk of becoming infected is the same as for those vaccinated. There is nothing a vaccine can do to protect you from being infected. It can only help once you are infected. It is not as if it creates an invisible protection shield around you. Although I’ve seen illustrations from your ideological brethren claiming exactly that.

The risk of exposure to the virus (SARS-COV-2) is the same whether you're vaccinated or unvaccinated. The risk of an exposure becoming an infection is NOT the same for vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Exposure (the virus entering your body) and infection (a state of disease or an exposure which results in continuous viral replication and cell damage) are not the same thing.

Exposure does not immediately result in having an infection or being infectious to others, whether you are vaccinated or unvaccinated. That requires time known as the incubation period. It's early in that stage (incubation period) between exposure and infection (disease) when a vaccinated person's enhanced immune system targets the virus for elimination and prevents infection from occurring and therefore becoming infectious to others.

It is the critical time element, in the progression from initial exposure to becoming infectious to those around you, which is misunderstood by some. The bottom line is that if you are exposed and the virus is quickly eliminated thru immune response, you will not become infectious to others. If you have insufficient immune response following exposure, you probably will become infectious to others, and may never be aware of it (asymptomatic infection)—hence the need for widespread vaccination to mitigate widespread transmission and the continuing evolution of the virus. If you do become infected and develop symptoms, you may be infectious before you are aware of those symptoms—hence the need for public health agencies to conduct rapid contact tracing of known cases.

If breaking that chain of events: from exposure, thru incubation, to infection does not happen rapidly enough thru immune response, a vaccinated person becomes infected (breakthrough infection). This is relatively rare and infection occurs far less frequently in vaccinated persons than in those unvaccinated. That's the purpose of vaccines. They cannot prevent exposure; they can only assist your immune system in preventing infection from occurring.

The overwhelming majority of those vaccinated have a boosted immune response that is able to target and eliminate the virus before it has time for sufficient replication to cause infection. For the minority of vaccinated people that do develop an infection (COVID-19 disease) following exposure, the resulting infection is shorter in duration and with milder symptoms. Even in the case of a vaccinated person developing an infection, the shorter duration will still reduce the risk of transmission by reducing the length of time during which they are infectious.

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/CDC COVID-19 Study Shows mRNA Vaccines Reduce Risk of Infection by 91 Percent for Fully Vaccinated People

[TechTalk]

The article says it's not herd immunity, but I think it is.  What do you think?

I think that you're trying to bait people into a silly circular debate based on a frivolous assertion.

[TechTalk]

More confusing stuff from the medical community.

What legitimate concerns?

I'm not confused, why are you?

That record has a skip in it causing the needle to jump back and repeat the same phrase over and over endlessly. It may need to have the dust removed from the grooves.

[Robert Roaldi]

I saw this odd report today about people in the US suing to get access to ivermectin, https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ivermectin-lawsuits-covid-us-1.6214131.

This is is too confusing for me. Doctors won't prescribe an untested unapproved and not recommended drug so people are suing to receive it based on the say-so of fools who appear on talk shows? Is this for real?

If enough of these suits are launched then sooner or later some brain-dead judge is probably going to give the ok. I can only assume that hospitals and doctors are consulting their lawyers to obtain bullet-proof waivers in case that happens.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

BREAKING: booster shots to become once-a-day, DIY event.

[PeterAit]

I saw this odd report today about people in the US suing to get access to ivermectin, https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ivermectin-lawsuits-covid-us-1.6214131.

This is is too confusing for me. Doctors won't prescribe an untested unapproved and not recommended drug so people are suing to receive it based on the say-so of fools who appear on talk shows? Is this for real?

If enough of these suits are launched then sooner or later some brain-dead judge is probably going to give the ok. I can only assume that hospitals and doctors are consulting their lawyers to obtain bullet-proof waivers in case that happens.

Ivermectin is approved for use in humans to treat "some parasitic worms and head lice and skin conditions like rosacea" (FDA quote). It is not approved for treating covid. But physicians can prescribe it anyway for what's called "off-label use." And anyone can hunt around and find a physician who will prescribe anything they want (such as oxycontin).

[TechTalk]

As a brief followup to my post above with my layman's explanation of the timeline between transmission and exposure to a virus (pathogen) and becoming infectious to others, below is a link to a simple diagram of disease progression (pathogenesis) from exposure, thru incubation, to communicable infectious disease and transmission to others.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Key-time-periods-of-COVID-19-infection-the-latent-or-exposed-period-before-the-onset-of-communicability

For a concise and easy to understand explanation of the difference between exposure and infection which is better than my own, see the link below.

https://health-desk.org/articles/what-is-the-difference-between-exposure-and-infection-to-a-virus

For those that want a deeper dive into the microbiology, see the link below. About halfway down the page you'll find the section titled "Stages of Pathogenesis" which describes the stages of disease development as: Exposure (pathogen enters the body), Adhesion (attachment to cells), Invasion (localized or systemic spread in the body), Infection (successful multiplication of pathogen leading to infection), Transmission (continuing persistence of disease by transmission to a new host).

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/microbiology/chapter/how-pathogens-cause-disease/

[TechTalk]

I apologize that nothing above is conducive to giggles for the authors or the reader nor contains any flippant or entertaining remarks. Those who are still confused, however, regarding how transmissible diseases progress in an individual and spread thru a population may find illumination.

[TechTalk]

Here is an additional diagram which shows the relationship between the timeline of exposure of one individual to the infection of another. It is following the latent period of incubation when infection begins leading to transmission of the virus.

It is during the latent period of incubation, following exposure, when the immune system of vaccinated individuals targets the virus for destruction to prevent infection and transmission.

https://wiki.ecdc.europa.eu/Images/Incubation-infection-transmission

[Robert Roaldi]

Ivermectin is approved for use in humans to treat "some parasitic worms and head lice and skin conditions like rosacea" (FDA quote). It is not approved for treating covid. But physicians can prescribe it anyway for what's called "off-label use." And anyone can hunt around and find a physician who will prescribe anything they want (such as oxycontin).

Quite right, I really did phrase that badly. I was just trying to say that it is NOT approved for treatment of Covid and that's why it's a mystery to me why some people are suing to be able to use it that way.

In some article or other that I have lost track of, they traced the original article that indicated that it could be useful. That article was pretty flimsy and uncorroborated, and possibly also refuted (but I can't remember the details so not sure about that last point). There seems to be large numbers of people who lunge for magical cures whenever one comes up. Given that there are known, better and approved ways of dealing with Covid, it's a mystery to me why this happens. Contrarianism masquerading as scepticism?

It doesn't seem to me to internally consistent. If you believe that all experts are lying to you and so therefore you can't trust vaccines (leaving aside for the moment actual results), how do you then turn around and decide you trust some obscure other approach? I mean, if you aren't going to trust expert group No. 1, why would you trust expert group No.2?  Seems like knee-jerk contrarianism to me, purely ego-driven, though it's not clear to me why there exists ego gratification in doing so. Do they think they're being "rebels"? Is it some reptilian brain attraction to "magic"?

[Robert Roaldi]

Here's a "sorry antivaxxer" site https://www.sorryantivaxxer.com, containing names and photos of anti-vaxxer activists who helped spread Covid.