Coronavirus 2019-nCoV

[C0|dB|00ded]

I need help writing a script so every time I click on a link in Cold’s post, it takes me here.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-15629160

Once I get there it reminds me how much you should trust “science”.

Brother, 75 yrs ago we were covered in hair, dragging our knuckles along the ground, playing with sticks and rocks.

This is what we play with today:

A ribonucleic acid (RNA) vaccine or messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine is a type of vaccine that uses a copy of a molecule called messenger RNA (mRNA) to produce an immune response.[1] The vaccine transfects molecules of synthetic RNA into immune cells, where the vaccine functions as mRNA, causing the cells to build foreign protein that would normally be produced by a pathogen (such as a virus) or by a cancer cell. These protein molecules stimulate an adaptive immune response which teaches the body to identify and destroy the corresponding pathogen or cancer cells.[1] The mRNA is delivered by a co-formulation of the RNA encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles which protect the RNA strands and help their absorption into the cells.[2][3]

A lil' company called Pfizer took the aforementioned technology and delivered a knock-out blow to the worst virus this world has seen in over a hundred years. And they did it all in about 12 months.

What a great time to be alive!

[Ted Lasso's Neighbor]

Brother, 75 yrs ago we were covered in hair, dragging our knuckles along the ground, playing with sticks and rocks.

This is what we play with today:

A ribonucleic acid (RNA) vaccine or messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine is a type of vaccine that uses a copy of a molecule called messenger RNA (mRNA) to produce an immune response.[1] The vaccine transfects molecules of synthetic RNA into immune cells, where the vaccine functions as mRNA, causing the cells to build foreign protein that would normally be produced by a pathogen (such as a virus) or by a cancer cell. These protein molecules stimulate an adaptive immune response which teaches the body to identify and destroy the corresponding pathogen or cancer cells.[1] The mRNA is delivered by a co-formulation of the RNA encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles which protect the RNA strands and help their absorption into the cells.[2][3]

A lil' company called Pfizer took the aforementioned technology and delivered a knock-out blow to the worst virus this world has seen in over a hundred years. And they did it all in about 12 months.

What a great time to be alive!

Actually the mRNA company behind the "Pfizer" vaccine is a German company called BioNTech, who partnered up with Pfizer to help distribute it. Another mRNA company, Moderna, worked on their version of a mRNA vaccine at the same time, but the BioNTech/Pfizer one came to market first.

Speaking of markets, the stocks of BioNTech and Moderna have done quite well compared to Pfizer. A year ago, a share of Pfizer was about $36 per share and today it's around $48. BioNTech was around $70 and is now around $340, while Moderna was also around $70 and is now around $370.

[wufan]

Actually the mRNA company behind the "Pfizer" vaccine is a German company called BioNTech, who partnered up with Pfizer to help distribute it. Another mRNA company, Moderna, worked on their version of a mRNA vaccine at the same time, but the BioNTech/Pfizer one came to market first.

Speaking of markets, the stocks of BioNTech and Moderna have done quite well compared to Pfizer. A year ago, a share of Pfizer was about $36 per share and today it's around $48. BioNTech was around $70 and is now around $340, while Moderna was also around $70 and is now around $370.

Pfizer is a much bigger company with the vaccine being a much smaller part of their portfolio.

[wufan]

Brother, 75 yrs ago we were covered in hair, dragging our knuckles along the ground, playing with sticks and rocks.

!

75 years ago…sounds like you got the **** end of the gene pool.

[Kung Wu]

Please source/quote so I can verify. I would actually be very interested in seeing Fauci caught in a legitimate (public) mistake. I've not seen one yet. I'm sure he makes a ton in his private life though. It's the job of the scientist to make a lot of mistakes in their search for truth.

Not sure what proof you are looking for.

1) You want proof he said it? I was just taking your word for it that he actually said that ...

CoronaviruZ scienceZ 101: The coronavirus immune response is historically non-durable. Dr. Fauci said this Day 1 of the pandemic and it's no more true today than it was then.

Fauci from the very start said that coronavirus immunity is not durable and likely will wane around the 6 month period.

“When you look at the history of coronaviruses — the common coronaviruses that cause the common cold — the reports in the literature are that the durability of immunity that’s protective ranges from three to six months to almost always less than a year,” he said last month. “That’s not a lot of durability and protection.” - Dr. Fauci

...

Unfortunately, if you look at the issue logically, and take into account what we know so far - Dr. Fauci himself stating that Coronavirus protective antibodies are likely short-lived - one should draw the conclusion that some cases of reinfection are a possibility if not a certainty depending on the level of circulating infections in the community.

2) Or do you want proof you repeated it over and over?

We know we won't get full participation and the idea of durable immunity w/ Covid-19 has mostly gone out the window. Reinfections are everywhere.

With 'Rona, which seems to not elicit a durable immune response, you need boosters.

So yes, if Covid-19 anitbodies are not durable, and without a safe and effective vaccine administered several times a year, we would be looking at battling this into the foreseeable future.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Not sure what proof you are looking for.

1) You want proof he said it? I was just taking your word for it that he actually said that ...








2) Or do you want proof you repeated it over and over?

Was just waiting for you to quote whatever it is you were talking about lol.

Here's the first entry on Google when I searched for coronavirus, durable immunity, and Fauci:

White House health advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci said he worries about the “durability” of a potential coronavirus vaccine, saying there’s a chance it may not provide long-term immunity.

If Covid-19 acts like other coronaviruses, “it likely isn’t going to be a long duration of immunity,” Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said during an interview Tuesday evening with JAMA Editor Howard Bauchner.

“When you look at the history of coronaviruses, the common coronaviruses that cause the common cold, the reports in the literature are that the durability of immunity that’s protective ranges from three to six months to almost always less than a year,” he said. “That’s not a lot of durability and protection.”

---June 2, 2020

I don't have a problem with that statement. I can't imagine anybody would unless... they were watching FOX News. ;)

[C0|dB|00ded]

75 years ago…sounds like you got the **** end of the gene pool.

Thank God for technology!

[Kung Wu]

At least one Hahvahd guy (but what does he know?) thinks R_t has dipped below 1.0 for the week ending Aug 8 (who knows if it will last?). The more frequent that R_t value dips below 1.0 and the greater the magnitude it dips below 1.0, the more likely it is to stay that way.

The trend ....

Week	Rt
Jul 11	1.26
Jul 18	1.47
Jul 25	1.48
Aug 1	1.29
Aug 8	0.77

[Kung Wu]

Here's the first entry on Google when I searched for coronavirus, durable immunity, and Fauci: ---June 2, 2020

I don't have a problem with that statement. I can't imagine anybody would unless... they were watching FOX News. ;)

Haven't watched Fox News in well over a decade, except for election nights. Sorry, try a new, untired schtick.

I don't have a problem with it either, he was just guessing. But it's now provably wrong that natural immunity to Covid-19 is not durable and only lasts 3 to 6 months. It lasts > 12 months.

With Pfizer fizzling out at 4 to 5 months while being 42% effective, natural immunity is proving to be much more effective at > 90% after 6 months and lasting at least 12 months (and could be considerably longer -- we just don't know) -- a silver lining for those unfortunate to catch a case of the Rona.

And to answer an earlier question, no, I don't read any of the lay articles or quotes you post. If I want answers I fetch them from journal articles written by scientists actually researching the disease we are talking about.

[C0|dB|00ded]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/coronavirus-vaccine-booster-shots/2021/08/11/aefec5dc-fae0-11eb-9c0e-97e29906a970_story.html

The change in coronavirus guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and from some local authorities came about because of the delta variant, which epidemiologists estimate has a basic reproductive number between 6 and 9. The basic reproductive number, or R0 (pronounced arr-naught), is a measure of the average number of people directly infected by a single infectious person in a scenario where no one in the population has any immunity to the disease. The original virus that caused covid-19 had an R0 of about 3, meaning that someone infected in April 2020 would, on average, infect three others. The delta variant is two to three times more infectious; on average, one infected person may infect between six and nine people if none of them are vaccinated or had a prior infection.

But the basic reproductive number alone doesn’t tell the whole story. To really understand what we can expect from the delta variant, we need to consider vaccinations, natural immunity and any precautions people are taking to lower their chances of being exposed, such as wearing masks and social distancing. To do that, epidemiologists calculate another measure, called the effective reproduction number, or Re (pronounced arr-eee). The Re helps us estimate how much a disease may spread when a population has at least some immunity. Technically speaking, the Re measures how many new people a single person infects, accounting for whatever precautions people are taking and overall immunity levels. Whether we’re talking about the Re or the R0, any value larger than 1 means trouble, because if each person can infect more than one other person, any disease outbreak will continue to spread exponentially unless we take action.

The Re for a place and time can be calculated from the R0 using a fairly simple equation: Multiply the R0 by the proportion of the population that is susceptible to the disease. This proportion can be expressed as 1 minus the proportion of the population that is immune to the disease, and it can incorporate different types of immunity. In mathematical terms, the equation would be Re=Ro*(1-x*v), where x*v is the proportion of the population that is immune, x is the percentage of people who are fully immune (i.e., vaccinated) and v is the vaccine’s effectiveness.

Understanding this formula will yield important intuition on why boosters aren’t yet helpful, so let’s walk through a simplified example supposing that everyone in the population was vaccinated.

Calculating how effective vaccines are against new variants is challenging, but epidemiologists have estimated that the two-dose vaccines are about 85 percent effective against the delta variant. That’ll be our value for v, with one important caveat — for simplicity, we are assuming that all vaccines have the same effectiveness, because we don’t have great data on how the vaccines differ for the delta variant. For demonstration purposes, we’ll use an R0 of 8 (although the range is between 6 and 9, so try out other values and see how things change). Based on these numbers, our Re estimate would be around 1.2 if we were able to vaccinate 100 percent of the population. That’s still higher than 1, but just barely, and it’s definitely within a range where other control measures such as frequent testing and contact tracing would probably be enough to stop any outbreak.

But we don’t expect everyone to be vaccinated. As of Tuesday, about 50 percent of the U.S. population was fully vaccinated. Taking into account the 85 percent efficacy of the vaccines, this means about 43 percent of the population is protected against the delta variant. The Re for this scenario is just over 4. That’s much higher than 1, and it’s even higher than the R0 of the original, non-variant form of the coronavirus. So with half the population in the United States vaccinated, the delta variant is still more infectious than the original virus was last year.

Here's a nice article explaining what KW is talking about.

The Delta variant is horrifically infectious compared to the original strain. That should be clear to all by now.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Haven't watched Fox News in well over a decade, except for election nights. Sorry, try a new, untired schtick.

I don't have a problem with it either, he was just guessing. But it's now provably wrong that natural immunity to Covid-19 is not durable and only lasts 3 to 6 months. It lasts > 12 months.

With Pfizer fizzling out at 4 to 5 months while being 42% effective, natural immunity is proving to be much more effective at > 90% after 6 months and lasting at least 12 months (and could be considerably longer -- we just don't know) -- a silver lining for those unfortunate to catch a case of the Rona.

And to answer an earlier question, no, I don't read any of the lay articles or quotes you post. If I want answers I fetch them from journal articles written by scientists actually researching the disease we are talking about.

I would call it an informed opinion based on many decades of experience.

That's too bad that you don't read the articles I post. Maybe that's why we are going around in circles. You would probably do well to have the journals interpreted for you by the AcTuAL scientists I've been quoting.

My accuracy record on opinions/guidance/ in this thread stands on its own. Can you say the same about yours?

That's a no.

[Kung Wu]

The Delta variant is horrifically infectious compared to the original strain. That should be clear to all by now.

And yet with > 93% of all cases being reported stemming from the Delta variant, the nations R_t has fallen for two weeks straight. Why is that?

[Kung Wu]

I would call it an informed opinion based on many decades of experience.

That's too bad that you don't read the articles I post. Maybe that's why we are going around in circles. You would probably do well to have the journals interpreted for you by the AcTuAL scientists I've been quoting.

My accuracy record on opinions/guidance/ in this thread stands on its own. Can you say the same about yours?

That's a no.

That's a weird way to admit that Fauci and his #1 acolyte are wrong about the efficacy of natural immunity being 6 months and not as effective as vaccinations, but whatever.

[C0|dB|00ded]

And yet with > 93% of all cases being reported stemming from the Delta variant, the nations R_t has fallen for two weeks straight. Why is that?

Perhaps because you're averaging the national data and not focusing on the specific areas that are experiencing a severe outbreak? It was made clear, by one of the scientists, in one of my quotes..... that it's likely we will experience the pandemic going forward as regional flare-ups due to differing vaccination rates, masking, etc.

There are also many unknowns contributing to a dizzying array of potential variables as well. This also was discussed in one of the articles I posted yesterday. It's really not logical that the southern United States has the highest infectious spread currently in all of the world (as of a few days ago).

[MikeKennedyRulZ]

At least one Hahvahd guy (but what does he know?) thinks R_t has dipped below 1.0 for the week ending Aug 8 (who knows if it will last?). The more frequent that R_t value dips below 1.0 and the greater the magnitude it dips below 1.0, the more likely it is to stay that way.

The trend ....

Week	Rt
Jul 11	1.26
Jul 18	1.47
Jul 25	1.48
Aug 1	1.29
Aug 8	0.77

THank you for providing data to support your point. Refreshing.