Will you get vaccinated?

[QUOTE=mgftp;1654645283]That poster was claiming I said that, to which I was correcting. I am aware the sentiment has been had by others.



I am glad you wish him luck with the lifetime of boosters. Curious as to what you perceive as the increased risks of the lifetime of boosters in comparison to catching Covid at least once a year?[/QUOTE]

You know what people forget what was mentioned when this all began?
331 million people in the USA and only 1 million beds when i last checked the AHA numbers.
Perhaps preventing hospitalization was the goal all along?

[QUOTE=BK909;1654644753]
Freedom > Everything[/QUOTE]

My freedom has not been impacted.

[QUOTE=BK909;1654644753]There are far worse things than death [/QUOTE]

For some this is true, for the vast majority it is not


[QUOTE=BK909;1654644753] some people will do and anything for more time.[/QUOTE]

I am proud to be in this camp, I exercise, eat right and do what I can to increase my longevity. I am out in Nature almost daily, be it fishing, hunting, hiking, skiing, snowshoeing etc....

I would do a lot to get an extra day or longer of this, I am too busy living and not in a hurry to crawl in a hole for a dirt nap and feed the worms.

[img]https://i.imgur.com/cfzmZHs.png[/img]

[QUOTE=mtpockets;1654659863][img]https://i.imgur.com/cfzmZHs.png[/img][/QUOTE]

It is a fun game when out; is she hot or not,lol?

re: "BK909: "some people will do and anything for more time."

[QUOTE=mtpockets;1654659383]... I am proud to be in this camp...[/QUOTE]

I don't think BK meant it in that way. Most people are terrified of dying and the American hospital system can eat a lifetimes' savings by extending a dying persons' life an extra few weeks.

[QUOTE=mtpockets;1654659383]... I am proud to be in this camp, I exercise, eat right and do what I can to increase my longevity. I am out in Nature almost daily, be it fishing, hunting, hiking, skiing, snowshoeing etc... [/QUOTE] With that approach, even if you live not one minute longer, the life you did live was better quality. Either way you win.

I feel like the covid narrative and power grab is finally ending?

UK announced they are no longer allowing mandates or masks anymore and encouraging returning to work etc.

Current CEO is dispersing information as if it were new info about omicron, info most of us have had weeks ago about how mild the symptoms are. Is this finally the end of the clown world and shenanigans?

[QUOTE=asbrewerpro;1654646843]The last time I took something "needed" for my health from the government, I hallucinated[/QUOTE]

Fringe benefit. Don't whine.

[QUOTE=eomrat;1654663303]Fringe benefit. Don't whine.[/QUOTE]

Lol, fair enough

[img]https://i.imgur.com/VaDsKmt.jpg?1[/img]

[QUOTE=_zman;1654663073]I feel like the covid narrative and power grab is finally ending?

UK announced they are no longer allowing mandates or masks anymore and encouraging returning to work etc.

Current CEO is dispersing information as if it were new info about omicron, info most of us have had weeks ago about how mild the symptoms are. Is this finally the end of the clown world and shenanigans?[/QUOTE]

I think so unless another deadlu varient arises.

[QUOTE=mgftp;1654664563]I think so unless another deadlu varient arises.[/QUOTE]

I thought i was done in May of 2021 lol, i walked around mask free without a care in the world....fool me once.....:)

[QUOTE=x-trainer ben;1654672153]I thought i was done in May of 2021 lol, i walked around mask free without a care in the world....fool me once.....:)[/QUOTE]

Exactly. I mean listen I try to be optimistic, I hope it's all winding down, future varienrs are less and less deadly, etc, etc..., But we know it can go the other way quickly, unfortunately.

It's just plain crazy here right now

[IMG]https://i.ibb.co/bK5vKJn/Screenshot-from-2022-01-20-15-25-48.png[/IMG]

[QUOTE=mgftp;1654664563]I think so unless another deadlu varient arises.[/QUOTE]

Which is certainly possible. This virus is still generating a great deal of genetic variation. I won’t go as far as saying that it’s likely, but I wouldn’t be surprised if we see a more virulent and exploitative variant arise in the next 1-2 years. Keeping up with vaccination can help minimize that risk.

My guess is we’re done however the virus scares accomplished a lot for certain politicians and drug companies that I’d imagine that they’re going to invent a new strain

[img]https://i.imgur.com/DC6gBRO.jpg?1[/img]

[QUOTE=Reliance012;1654690423]Which is certainly possible. This virus is still generating a great deal of genetic variation. I won’t go as far as saying that it’s likely, but I wouldn’t be surprised if we see a more virulent and exploitative variant arise in the next 1-2 years. Keeping up with vaccination can help minimize that risk.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, because all these “jabs” and boosters are doing such a great job slowing the spread right now…Everyone should just get an IV drip of whatever Pfizer says we should inject to save gram gram, right? LOL.

[img]https://i.imgur.com/aFtxLCi.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Plateauplower;1654775623]Yeah, because all these “jabs” and boosters are doing such a great job slowing the spread right now…Everyone should just get an IV drip of whatever Pfizer says we should inject to save gram gram, right? LOL.[/QUOTE]

They’re probably still having some effect on transmission, admittedly less than for previous variants.

The vaccines may reduce the risk of a virulent variant in other ways, too. Reducing overall replication within the host limits the generation of genetic diversity. Inducing an immune response and protection in tissues of the LRT selects against variants with tropism for these cells.

[QUOTE=Reliance012;1654781953]They’re probably still having some effect on transmission, admittedly less than for previous variants.

The vaccines may reduce the risk of a virulent variant in other ways, too. Reducing overall replication within the host limits the generation of genetic diversity. Inducing an immune response and protection in tissues of the LRT selects against variants with tropism for these cells.[/QUOTE]

Sure theoretically, just as a leaky vaccine can also lead to a more virulent strain because a random mutation finds a niche that it can exploit. Given the transmission rate, it’s pretty safe to say the vaccines are doing very little if anything to reduce transmission. Our positivity rate was nearly 20% a couple weeks ago, declining now. Deaths and hospitalizations remain elevated but declining. In my occupational setting, there were times when 80-90% of cases were in vaccinated people. I’m not even sure what our vaccination rate is officially, but I can’t imagine it’s over 60%. I think some people are just more inclined to testing frequently, as a majority of our cases in people are very mild and many asymptomatic.

[QUOTE=Plateauplower;1654786233]Sure theoretically, just as a leaky vaccine can also lead to a more virulent strain because a random mutation finds a niche that it can exploit. Given the transmission rate, it’s pretty safe to say the vaccines are doing very little if anything to reduce transmission. Our positivity rate was nearly 20% a couple weeks ago, declining now. Deaths and hospitalizations remain elevated but declining. In my occupational setting, there were times when 80-90% of cases were in vaccinated people. I’m not even sure what our vaccination rate is officially, but I can’t imagine it’s over 60%. I think some people are just more inclined to testing frequently, as a majority of our cases in people are very mild and many asymptomatic.[/QUOTE]

Not really how it works for leaky vaccines. I’m intimately familiar with Read’s work. He actually came out and gave an interview because his work was being misconstrued. Ironically, the very argument that leaky vaccines can select for higher virulence is dependent on high effectiveness against severe disease outcomes.

Theoretical doesn’t mean the insight isn’t valuable. If our health officials had a better understanding of the principles of natural selection, we may have avoided the confusing messages being delivered to the public.

[QUOTE=Reliance012;1654794373]Not really how it works for leaky vaccines. I’m intimately familiar with Read’s work. He actually came out and gave an interview because his work was being misconstrued. Ironically, the very argument that leaky vaccines can select for higher virulence is dependent on high effectiveness against severe disease outcomes.

Theoretical doesn’t mean the insight isn’t valuable. If our health officials had a better understanding of the principles of natural selection, we may have avoided the confusing messages being delivered to the public.[/QUOTE]

It is how it works, it’s a fundamental principle of biology. Vaccines are intended to illicit an immune response to an antigen. Since the covid vaccines illicit an immune response specific to the S protein, rather than all of the mechanisms associated with an actual infection, the response is narrower in scope. This allows an immune response with less risk than infection, but an immune response to a specific component of of the virus (S protein). So when you have a large population being infected by a virus, chances are, through natural selection and random chance of genetic changes from transcription errors, it becomes likely to propagate a virus that exploits a niche that allows it to survive in that environment. So now we are not slowing genetic mutations because the vaccines don’t prevent infection or transmission.

I did a study in an applied environmental microbiology class in college where we collected soil samples in grass/dirt parking areas where there was chronic oil contamination from leaking oils. These samples contained large populations of bacteria that metabolized oil. The availability of the oil allowed populations to flourish because these bacteria exploited a niche. While viruses don’t have any metabolic processes, they still exploit niches whether natural or manmade. We’ve effectively selected for a strain that exploits an advantage in that it is not affected by our antibodies to the S protein. This is independent of virulence, omicron could have been more, less, or the same severity of the previous variant. The mutations are random, host environmental factors are not.

Keep taken those boosters though. Surely trying the same thing the didn’t work over and over will work eventually right? It’s science cause fauci and Pfizer said so.

[QUOTE=Plateauplower;1654801163]It is how it works, it’s a fundamental principle of biology. Vaccines are intended to illicit an immune response to an antigen. Since the covid vaccines illicit an immune response specific to the S protein, rather than all of the mechanisms associated with an actual infection, the response is narrower in scope. This allows an immune response with less risk than infection, but an immune response to a specific component of of the virus (S protein). So when you have a large population being infected by a virus, chances are, through natural selection and random chance of genetic changes from transcription errors, it becomes likely to propagate a virus that exploits a niche that allows it to survive in that environment. So now we are not slowing genetic mutations because the vaccines don’t prevent infection or transmission.

I did a study in an applied environmental microbiology class in college where we collected soil samples in grass/dirt parking areas where there was chronic oil contamination from leaking oils. These samples contained large populations of bacteria that metabolized oil. The availability of the oil allowed populations to flourish because these bacteria exploited a niche. While viruses don’t have any metabolic processes, they still exploit niches whether natural or manmade. We’ve effectively selected for a strain that exploits an advantage in that it is not affected by our antibodies to the S protein. This is independent of virulence, omicron could have been more, less, or the same severity of the previous variant. The mutations are random, host environmental factors are not.[/QUOTE]

You should’ve taken my course instead. I could’ve conveyed the principle so you actually understood it.

It’s a life history trade off. Higher exploitation brings with it higher within host reproductive success, but curtails onward transmission prospects. When vaccines delay mortality (or reduce disease severity) but permit considerable transmission, they relax the cost of higher within host exploitation. This selects for more harmful variants. These variants can circulate successfully in vaccinated populations causing low disease severity, but will cause severe infections in the unvaccinated. Targeting a specific antigen doesn’t make a vaccine leaky. Recall that our mRNA vaccines were highly effective against infection for the wild type. It is more nuanced than that. It is about how the immune response targets the pathogen in relation to its life cycle in the host. This is why evolutionary biologists have raised concern about certain malaria vaccines that target merozoites but not the gametocytes. Or why targeting a toxin that is a by product of a pathogen’s life cycle will ultimately favor selection for higher toxin production. My PhD advisor was one of the pioneers of this entire field.

[QUOTE=Reliance012;1654802593]You should’ve taken my course instead. I could’ve conveyed the principle so you actually understood it.

It’s a life history trade off. Higher exploitation brings with it higher within host reproductive success, but curtails onward transmission prospects. When vaccines delay mortality (or reduce disease severity) but permit considerable transmission, they relax the cost of higher within host exploitation. This selects for more harmful variants. These variants can circulate successfully in vaccinated populations causing low disease severity, but will cause severe infections in the unvaccinated. Targeting a specific antigen doesn’t make a vaccine leaky. Recall that our mRNA vaccines were highly effective against infection for the wild type. It is more nuanced than that. It is about how the immune response targets the pathogen in relation to its life cycle in the host. This is why evolutionary biologists have raised concern about certain malaria vaccines that target merozoites but not the gametocytes. Or why targeting a toxin that is a by product of a pathogen’s life cycle will ultimately favor selection for higher toxin production. My PhD advisor was one of the pioneers of this entire field.[/QUOTE]

Well I was probably taking these classes when you were learning to ride a tricycle, so I’m sure there have been some updates. That said, I continue to believe when you have a very specific immune target (S protein) you are missing a large part of the “puzzle” with regard to immune response and efficacy. When I was in school the cutting edge stuff was mRNA vaccines, but that metaphorically, using mushrooms as an example would target the stem rather than the cap. This is to say that there is a lot of variation in button mushroom caps for example, but the stems are all nearly identical. If you can develop a vaccine that targets something that is not easily changed in a bacteria or virus, you can avoid the impact that slight mutations have and end up with a vaccine that will continue to work unless significant genetic changes occur in the pathogen. This was intended for influenza viruses because of their ability to h share genetic material with other influenza viruses.

If you think the current vaccines are curtailing onward transmission prospects, I’ve got some bad news…They are completely ineffective from what I’ve been seeing both in regional numbers and in our workplace of 2000 or so.

[QUOTE=Plateauplower;1654807963] …They are completely ineffective from what I’ve been seeing both in regional numbers and in our workplace of 2000 or so.[/QUOTE] What's that quote? Repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity? how many more boosters are we looking at? In reality I think we're done. First shot was "Yay! a vaccine" then the second shot was "OK I guess we need to do this". The booster was "wow, again?" I don't think many will take a 4th.

[QUOTE=Tommy W.;1654808903]What's that quote? Repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity? how many more boosters are we looking at? In reality I think we're done. First shot was "Yay! a vaccine" then the second shot was "OK I guess we need to do this". The booster was "wow, again?" I don't think many will take a 4th.[/QUOTE]

If they can’t get everyone once, profits are just as good getting some over and over.

[QUOTE=Plateauplower;1654807963]Well I was probably taking these classes when you were learning to ride a tricycle, so I’m sure there have been some updates. That said, I continue to believe when you have a very specific immune target (S protein) you are missing a large part of the “puzzle” with regard to immune response and efficacy. When I was in school the cutting edge stuff was mRNA vaccines, but that metaphorically, using mushrooms as an example would target the stem rather than the cap. This is to say that there is a lot of variation in button mushroom caps for example, but the stems are all nearly identical. If you can develop a vaccine that targets something that is not easily changed in a bacteria or virus, you can avoid the impact that slight mutations have and end up with a vaccine that will continue to work unless significant genetic changes occur in the pathogen. This was intended for influenza viruses because of their ability to h share genetic material with other influenza viruses.

If you think the current vaccines are curtailing onward transmission prospects, I’ve got some bad news…They are completely ineffective from what I’ve been seeing both in regional numbers and in our workplace of 2000 or so.[/QUOTE]

You’re going back and forth between two separate but interconnected topics.
What you’re talking about is targeting conserved regions. In evolutionary biology we can test for positive selection (we literally quantify it), and when we see conserved regions that have undergone very little selective change, it’s a clue that the polypeptide might be a good target for drug or vaccine mechanisms. This has been in the C19 literature since day. But as of now, there is no better option than the spike protein and if there is, I applaud and support the development.

A more robust response doesn’t necessarily stymie evolution. Think of your mushroom analogy in the context of naturally acquired immunity. NAI has failed miserably at driving pathogens to extinction. In fact, I know of no example in history of a circulating human pathogen being driven to extinction from NAI.

[img]https://i.imgur.com/NjHF6BX.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Reliance012;1654823223]You’re going back and forth between two separate but interconnected topics.
What you’re talking about is targeting conserved regions. In evolutionary biology we can test for positive selection (we literally quantify it), and when we see conserved regions that have undergone very little selective change, it’s a clue that the polypeptide might be a good target for drug or vaccine mechanisms. This has been in the C19 literature since day. But as of now, there is no better option than the spike protein and if there is, I applaud and support the development.

A more robust response doesn’t necessarily stymie evolution. Think of your mushroom analogy in the context of naturally acquired immunity. NAI has failed miserably at driving pathogens to extinction. In fact, I know of no example in history of a circulating human pathogen being driven to extinction from NAI.[/QUOTE]

But the vaccine is clearly not working now, so why not just go the NAI route instead of pushing for more useless boosters?