Red Mosquito

spike wrote:An unvaccinated person is one more place for the virus to spread, mutate, and live on. How someone doesn’t understand this after nearly two years of a pandemic just means they’re not very bright.

Hepatitis B, a virus that causes liver damage, tells a similar story. The current vaccine, which principally targets a portion of the virus known as the hepatitis B surface antigen, was introduced in the U.S. in 1989. A year later, in a paper published in the Lancet, researchers described odd results from a vaccine trial in Italy. They had detected circulating hepatitis B viruses in 44 vaccinated subjects, but in some of them, the virus was missing part of that targeted antigen. Then, in a series of studies conducted in Taiwan, researchers sequenced the viruses that infected children who had tested positive for hepatitis B. They reported that the prevalence of these viral “escape mutants,” as they called them, that lacked the surface antigen had increased from 7.8 percent in 1984 to 23.1 percent in 1999.

Vaccines rarely provide full protection from disease. Nevertheless, partially effective (imperfect) vaccines may be used to protect both individuals and whole populations1,2,3. We studied the potential impact of different types of imperfect vaccines on the evolution of pathogen virulence (induced host mortality) and the consequences for public health. Here we show that vaccines designed to reduce pathogen growth rate and/or toxicity diminish selection against virulent pathogens. The subsequent evolution leads to higher levels of intrinsic virulence and hence to more severe disease in unvaccinated individuals. This evolution can erode any population-wide benefits such that overall mortality rates are unaffected, or even increase, with the level of vaccination coverage. In contrast, infection-blocking vaccines induce no such effects, and can even select for lower virulence. These findings have policy implications for the development and use of vaccines that are not expected to provide full immunity, such as candidate vaccines for malaria4.

spike wrote:I’m speaking to the potential ability of the vaccines to move things from pandemic to endemic. While yes, we don’t know if that will happen, we also don’t know it won’t.

Bammer wrote:First child dies of Covid-19 at Seattle Children’s Hospital. No details on age, other medical conditikns child might have had. Just the news that they had their first covid-related child death at that hospital.

I get patient privacy but that info (age, other conditions or not) seems pretty impoand could be shared anonymously.

Bi_3 wrote:

spike wrote:An unvaccinated person is one more place for the virus to spread, mutate, and live on. How someone doesn’t understand this after nearly two years of a pandemic just means they’re not very bright.

It's well documented that these vaccines do not magically block infection or arrest evolution. We don't know what will happen 12 months from now and there are many leading scientists, including some who worked on the AZ shot, who suggest a vaccine centric approach will not solve the long term problem and therapeutics must be developed 'moonshot' style as well as there has never been case of humanity attempting a global vaccination program during a pandemic (largely because this wasn't possible until recently), much less with a new vaccine technology, and we dont know how long it will hold out.

This is not to argue against pressure to ensure everyone who can be vaccinated gets vaccinated. It's the best weapon we have right now against the enemy we have right now, but it is not Jebus in a needle, and I truly believe we need to shift how we talk about vaccines to help society broadly adopt that understanding before we are irrevocably down to vaxxed vs unvaxxed in place of red vs blue... because that's when we all lose.


Pre-pandemic articles from before science became Science™:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-vacc ... -20180510/

Hepatitis B, a virus that causes liver damage, tells a similar story. The current vaccine, which principally targets a portion of the virus known as the hepatitis B surface antigen, was introduced in the U.S. in 1989. A year later, in a paper published in the Lancet, researchers described odd results from a vaccine trial in Italy. They had detected circulating hepatitis B viruses in 44 vaccinated subjects, but in some of them, the virus was missing part of that targeted antigen. Then, in a series of studies conducted in Taiwan, researchers sequenced the viruses that infected children who had tested positive for hepatitis B. They reported that the prevalence of these viral “escape mutants,” as they called them, that lacked the surface antigen had increased from 7.8 percent in 1984 to 23.1 percent in 1999.

https://www.nature.com/articles/414751a

Vaccines rarely provide full protection from disease. Nevertheless, partially effective (imperfect) vaccines may be used to protect both individuals and whole populations1,2,3. We studied the potential impact of different types of imperfect vaccines on the evolution of pathogen virulence (induced host mortality) and the consequences for public health. Here we show that vaccines designed to reduce pathogen growth rate and/or toxicity diminish selection against virulent pathogens. The subsequent evolution leads to higher levels of intrinsic virulence and hence to more severe disease in unvaccinated individuals. This evolution can erode any population-wide benefits such that overall mortality rates are unaffected, or even increase, with the level of vaccination coverage. In contrast, infection-blocking vaccines induce no such effects, and can even select for lower virulence. These findings have policy implications for the development and use of vaccines that are not expected to provide full immunity, such as candidate vaccines for malaria4.

Mecca wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:
*snip*

The majority of the messaging around the vaccine has been that it prevents you (with high efficacy) from dying of the disease, which has largely been true since the vaccine has been a accessible to everyone. That seems like it is in line with your viewpoint already?

Either way, the only issue is the misinformed spreading lies that you have a better chance of dying from vaccine side effects than of Covid

Peeps wrote:

Bammer wrote:First child dies of Covid-19 at Seattle Children’s Hospital. No details on age, other medical conditikns child might have had. Just the news that they had their first covid-related child death at that hospital.

I get patient privacy but that info (age, other conditions or not) seems pretty impoand could be shared anonymously.

LIAR. EVERYONE KNOWS COVID DOESNT AFFECT KIDS

....

In Germany and Austria, the governments mandated that citizens wear filtering facepieces (FFP)—a European standard that offers a similar filtration system to the N95—on public transportation, in workplaces, and in shops.

.....


The difference between cloth masks and medical-grade masks is how much protection they offer the wearer when they breathe in particles. N95 masks, for instance, prevent at least 95% of airborne particles from entering. In a test conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), surgical masks were found to provide 71.5% filtration, but only when they were fitted with ties that provide a close fit on the face. Surgical masks with ear loops only offered 38.1% filtration.

Since cloth masks come in a wide array of materials and designs, it’s hard to make generalizations about how effective they are. The EPA found that a three-layer knitted cotton mask blocked 26.5% of particles and a two-layer nylon mask with a filter insert and a metal nose bridge blocked 79%. Other masks fell somewhere in between. The researchers found that creating a better seal around the wearer’s face by tightening ear loops, for instance, could improve a cloth mask’s filtration ability by between 60.3% and 80.2%. “The most effective cloth masks are made from tightly woven materials and have a close seal on your face,” says L’Orange.

The problem, however, is that there are no standards governing cloth face masks, so there is no way to know whether the particular one you’re using is offering robust protection or not. This is why organizations have decided to ban them in favor of medical masks, which are subject to government regulations.

spike wrote:I haven’t understood the cloth masks from the get go; it’s nothing new that they’re not very effective. I suppose people feel they’re more fashionable?

Bammer wrote:

spike wrote:I haven’t understood the cloth masks from the get go; it’s nothing new that they’re not very effective. I suppose people feel they’re more fashionable?

Meditate on this for a while and see if it clicks with you why people have had such resistance to wearing these fucking things in unnecessary situations.

Bammer wrote:

spike wrote:I haven’t understood the cloth masks from the get go; it’s nothing new that they’re not very effective. I suppose people feel they’re more fashionable?

Meditate on this for a while and see if it clicks with you why people have had such resistance to wearing these fucking things in unnecessary situations.

wease wrote:

Bammer wrote:

spike wrote:I haven’t understood the cloth masks from the get go; it’s nothing new that they’re not very effective. I suppose people feel they’re more fashionable?

Meditate on this for a while and see if it clicks with you why people have had such resistance to wearing these fucking things in unnecessary situations.

Do you consider there to be any necessary situations?

Bi_3 wrote:So... cloth masks are not significantly helpful, blue surgical masks just barely.