Coronavirus 2019-nCoV

[C0|dB|00ded]

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.

No, you're mistaken. Fauci was speaking about coronaviruses in general. He used words like "likely" in reference to Covid-19. It was a precautionary and responsible comment at the time.

And he is 100% correct; coronaviruses as a whole generally elicit non-durable immune responses. Would you like me to post some data on that? ;)

Also, there is immunity durability questions surrounding natural infection as well as vaccines. I just read a study where 16% of previously infected had breakthroughs. As I said before, the variants, severity of infection, amount of exposure, health of patient's immune system, etc. etc. etc. all have a big impact on the immunity outcome.

And something else just popped into my head: think about the implications of all the older, sicker people running first to get the vaccines, while the majority of those who shunned them were likely healthy and younger. Do you think that could have an impact on the "durability of the vaccine response"? Of course it could! The majority of the vaccine's early adopters were immunocompromised due to age. There are a dizzying array of variables in the durability discussion. It would be fun to debate it over a beer. Perhaps you and wufan could sit opposite me and we could have a go. 2 vs 1 .... you just might have a chance. ;)

But just to be clear: I'm not interested in dying on the hill of a vaccine vs. natural infection immunity battle. There are likely advantages to the immunity gained from a STRONG natural infection, and there are likely advantages gained from a full immunization; all things being equal, both recipients being the same age and health.

However, there is NO debate that the immunization route is the ONLY choice for the uninfected. Anybody using a superior immune response w/ natural infections to support an anti-vax argument is just wrong and will always be wrong.

NOW, someone screeching over being infected and not needing the vaccine; that is a better argument, but it is likely the wrong one based on all the data to date. Vaccines improve natural infection immunity, period.

[wufan]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...970_story.html



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.

And less deadly.

[MikeKennedyRulZ]

And less deadly.

Oh ya, there is that very important point that was left out by Clod...

[Downtown Shocker Brown]

Translated to Fauci:

”The potential Delta variant is possibly horrifically infectious compared to what could be the original strain. That should be somewhat clear to all by now.”

[C0|dB|00ded]

And less deadly.

No, the average opinion from doctors on the front line are that it is more insidious. It makes sense being a thousand times more infectious. The viral load is astronomical.

But... in the context of today's partially vaccinated/infected society I'll let your statement slide. Had this landed on our shores the winter of 2020, it would have been horrific. I'm thinking multiples of deaths greater during March and April. And if that would have been enough to tip the scales, collapsing the healthcare system... all bets are off.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Translated to Fauci:

”The potential Delta variant is possibly horrifically infectious compared to what could be the original strain. That should be somewhat clear to all by now.”

No, he would say "The Delta variant is orders of magnitude more infectious compared to the original strain."

Dr. Fauci is a gem.

The only people who criticize him voted for Donald Trump, who coincidentally, made it one of his final missions to attempt to smear and discredit the venerated public servant.

https://achievement.org/achiever/anthony-s-fauci-m-d/

Taking care of someone who’s really sick surprised me because depending upon what your fundamental nature is — and this isn’t good or bad or better, it’s just the way you are — the sicker the patient, the better I function. That’s why I went into infectious diseases ultimately.

He stood up to a bunch of backwards politicians during the worst pandemic in 100 years and never backed down despite enormous pressure and threats. That's what you call a hero.

As the virus spread around the world and across the United States, the government’s response became a subject of partisan debate. Dr. Fauci advocated closing many non-essential businesses and limiting public gatherings to minimize transmission of the disease. As the public face of science and the medical profession in addressing the pandemic, Dr. Fauci was subjected to severe criticism by those in the press and government who favored a less aggressive strategy in containing the spread of the infection. Despite calls for his replacement, Dr. Fauci stood his ground and remained in his post throughout the administration of President Donald Trump.

In 2021, Dr. Fauci was awarded Israel’s $1 million Dan David Prize for his contributions to society and for his courage and persistence in informing the public of the measures necessary to prevent the spread of the disease. Recipients of the award, administered in affiliation with Tel Aviv University, are expected to contribute ten percent of the prize to scholarships in their field. Dr. Fauci continues to serve as Director of NIAID and as chief medical advisor to President Joseph Biden.

Hero.

[Kung Wu]

No, you're mistaken. Fauci was speaking about coronaviruses in general. He used words like "likely" in reference to Covid-19. It was a precautionary and responsible comment at the time.

And he is 100% correct; coronaviruses as a whole generally elicit non-durable immune responses.

I fully understand and never in this conversation had a problem with him saying it back then. But YOU are the one STILL REPEATING it as truth, even though it has been proven wrong. Some of your RECENT arguments have stood on an old, provably wrong educated concern of Fauci's -- that natural immunity isn't durable.

Also, there is immunity durability questions surrounding natural infection as well as vaccines. I just read a study where 16% of previously infected had breakthroughs.

And to be honest, I didn't feel like posting 3 or 4 more completely independent journal articles that confirm the results of the journal article I posted -- I chose to post only the one most easily read. But the research on durability of natural immunity research is being confirmed globally by many independent researchers. I'll post more journal articles, but I don't think you read them, and nobody else here needs that level of confirmation.

There are likely advantages to the immunity gained from a STRONG natural infection, and there are likely advantages gained from a full immunization; all things being equal, both recipients being the same age and health.

Actually, at least one journal paper I read said that after enough time mild/asymptotic cases are yielding similar defense against reinfection as initial infections with more severe symptoms (it just takes their bodies longer to build up their immune system).

However, there is NO debate that the immunization route is the ONLY choice for the uninfected. Anybody using a superior immune response w/ natural infections to support an anti-vax argument is just wrong and will always be wrong.

I haven't seen anybody on here really argue that.

So I will!

Our uninfected children should not be vaxed, unless they have special health circumstances.

[C0|dB|00ded]

It appears the Biden Admin. is going to recommend boosters at 8 mos. I think the time period should be 6, but I'm going off anecdotal evidence.

[C0|dB|00ded]

I fully understand and never in this conversation had a problem with him saying it back then. But YOU are the one STILL REPEATING it as truth, even though it has been proven wrong. Some of your RECENT arguments have stood on an old, provably wrong educated concern of Fauci's -- that natural immunity isn't durable.



And to be honest, I didn't feel like posting 3 or 4 more completely independent journal articles that confirm the results of the journal article I posted -- I chose to post only the one most easily read. But the research on durability of natural immunity research is being confirmed globally by many independent researchers. I'll post more journal articles, but I don't think you read them, and nobody else here needs that level of confirmation.




Actually, at least one journal paper I read said that after enough time mild/asymptotic cases are yielding similar defense against reinfection as initial infections with more severe symptoms (it just takes their bodies longer to build up their immune system).



I haven't seen anybody on here really argue that.

So I will!

Our uninfected children should not be vaxed, unless they have special health circumstances.

Because it IS the truth lol. Coronaviruses by and large historically provoke nondurable immunity...

I also have read reports of natural infection creating "durable" responses and have posted as such. Where I think you're getting confused is the definition of durability; durability in coronaviruses in general, and durable immunity against COVID-19 all variants. It seems to be a loosely defined term even among the scientists. I mean, the definition of durability w/ respect to how to how it applies to infectious disease is: "how long the immune response lasts". I've seen them call immunity durable because it "declined only modestly after 8 mos." Does that seem "durable" to you?

So far it is widely held by ID scientists that "durability of immunity" is greater in those with more severe bouts of infection. It is also widely held that the vaccine bolsters natural immunity. It is also widely held that the vaccine has advantages on immunity from ALL CURRENTLY KNOWN variants over someone who was infected w/ the Alpha variant due to the targeting of the spike protein.

The problem with your position; the problem that has always been with your position, is it is biased. You are biased towards herd immunity attainment and mild anti-vax theories. This has been your Achilles heel from the start. I apologize if that comment enrages you but it's true. You were also a major Covid denier during the first 6-9 mos of the pandemic and shared truckloads full of misinformation in this thread.

I am 100% on board with whatever the science reveals. I will not however, jump on every fringe, un-peer reviewed, regionally biased scientific study I come across to support AN agenda. Do you know how many scientific studies I've read in my lifetime? You can find as much bias in them as you can the daily news. If the data is true, then it will be revealed and circulated amongst the leading healthcare professionals in America. Just like all the stuff I posted yesterday that you did not read. You did not read it because it encourages vaccination and you are anti-vax on some level.

And if the top scientists determine that our children are safe to be vaccinated than by golly, they absolutely should be vaccinated... if you are a logical, science-believing person that is.

P.S. I personally think you are an unscientific person that bases his worldview in faith/hope/happiness and rainbows and then uses science to support it, discarding science that doesn't. This makes you a pseudo-scientific person. Am I off-base here? Honest question. Zero trollz.

[C0|dB|00ded]

https://www.salon.com/2020/10/29/coronavirus-covid-19-misconception-herd-immunity-durable-transient-immunity-pandemic/

How a misconception about coronavirus immunity is causing thousand of needless deaths

Understanding "durable immunity" versus "transient immunity" is the key to knowing how to defeating the virus

First, let's talk about immunity

There are myriad ways the human body can fight off a viral infection. Dr. Charles Chiu, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of California–San Francisco, pointed Salon to three specific ones: passive immunity, neutralizing antibody immunity, and active immunity.

"The idea is that with any viral infection, including an infection from the novel SARS-CoV-2, is that patients who have intact or healthy immune systems will mount an immune response," Dr. Charles Chiu, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of California–San Francisco, told Salon. This, he said, is known as "passive immunity."

"That's really antibody-centered," Chiu said. "The idea is that the B cells, which are white blood cells in your blood, will react to the virus, and will produce antibodies."

These antibodies, Chiu said, can be used one of two different ways. One way is that the antibodies will be "neutralizing" and bind to the virus. Hence, the name, these antibodies will "neutralize," or inactivate, the coronavirus. This is called "neutralizing antibody immunity."

"The idea is that if you're immune, if there's a next time and you are reinfected, then those antibodies are already circulating and present in your blood and they will neutralize the virus immediately," Chiu explained. "So you will, you'll be less likely or you will not be reinfected."

However, not all antibodies are neutralizing. Chiu pointed to HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) as an example of a virus that creates antibodies that aren't neutralizing.

"You will make antibodies in response to a viral infection, but you may not necessarily make neutralizing antibodies that will prevent you from getting reinfected," Chiu noted.

Then, there's "active immunity," which is another type of immune response that's mediated by another type of white blood cells, T cells.

"T cells will actively react to [the virus], they're memory T cells that sort of remember when you've been infected before," Chiu said. "If you get exposed again, those T cells will then kick in and help to prevent you from getting reinfected."

Understanding "durable" and "transient" immunity

Immunologists are trying to figure out whether novel coronavirus infection confers durable immunity or transient immunity. These terms refer to the strength and period of the type of immunity. For example, if the antibodies made due to a viral infection are durable, that means immunity is long-lasting. If they're transient, that means they only last a short while.

As mentioned above, mounting evidence suggests that immunity to the novel coronavirus is transient. But just how transient? We don't know, but there is more evidence every week. In September, researchers published a study in the scientific journal Nature Medicine suggesting that people who contract the novel coronavirus and then become immune may stay that way for up to twelve months, based on studying four different seasonal coronaviruses.

However, as Chiu noted there are a couple of differences between the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and the seasonal ones. One is that they've been around longer, meaning they're more diverse because they've had more time to mutate.

"It hasn't had the time to mutate widely and to become very divergent," Chiu said. "And what that means is that it's possible that vaccines that are directed specifically against SARS-CoV-2 are more likely to be durable; they're more likely to last longer and be effective longer, perhaps because there's less divergence within this particular strain versus the other seasonal coronaviruses."

What does this mean for COVID-19?

There have been several studies on antibodies and SARS-CoV-2. In one study, researchers tracked COVID-19 patients over time and found that the amount of their antibodies peaked following the onset of symptoms and then began to decline. For some study participants, the antibodies were almost all undetectable within three months. A more recent study of patients in Britain showed a similar trend. But as Nature explained in an article, it could just take minute numbers of antibodies to prevent a reinfection and fight off the coronavirus again.

Most importantly, however, vaccines can confer different types of immunity than actually contracting the virus. Indeed, immunologists note that a vaccine could have durable immunity even if the natural response is transient.

"The vaccine doesn't have to mimic or mirror the natural infection," Shane Crotty, a virologist at the La Jolla Institute for Immunology, told the New York Times.

Immunologists have been pointing to the human papillomavirus (HPV) as an example of a virus that has a poor immune response and weak antibodies, but a durable vaccine immune response that lasts for at least a decade.

Considering that the coronavirus likely has transient immunity, this would make it harder for countries and cities to achieve herd immunity through letting the virus spread.

"It really depends on how transient it is, and how rapidly we can really ramp up to be able to vaccinate a sufficient proportion of the population to develop herd immunity," Chiu said, adding that vaccine hesitancy is another barrier if the coronavirus vaccine requires multiple doses to be effective. "We already have issues right now with adherence to the flu vaccine, and there's no reason to think that it's going to be different."

That means that humanity's best bet for achieving durable immunity is still through a vaccine. Relying on a strategy of waiting for herd immunity to be achieved is "flawed," according to a paper by a group of researchers published in The Lancet.

"There is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection, and the endemic transmission that would be the consequence of waning immunity would present a risk to vulnerable populations for the indefinite future," the researchers wrote. "Such a strategy would not end the COVID-19 pandemic but result in recurrent epidemics, as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination."

In other words, political leaders who have pinned hopes of defeating the virus on achieving herd immunity will not only fail, but will needlessly kill their citizens in the process. President Donald Trump as well as UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson have both touted a strategy of achieving herd immunity through deliberate public health inaction in order to let the virus run its course through citizens.

This is an old article with some outdated science, but it is a nice primer on types of immunities. I learned something new reading it!

[C0|dB|00ded]

Okay, this is enough talk about Covid for a while - EVEN FOR ME! JFC!

[wichshock65]

Every once in a while I wonder over to this thread and then quickly reminded why I stayed away in the first place.

Cold, buddy, you need a new hobby. An interest. There's a lot of basketball talk lately. What do you think of the newcomers? Have you taken in a scrimmage yet?

[C0|dB|00ded]

Every once in a while I wonder over to this thread and then quickly reminded why I stayed away in the first place.

Cold, buddy, you need a new hobby. An interest. There's a lot of basketball talk lately. What do you think of the newcomers? Have you taken in a scrimmage yet?

Yeah. I only started posting here again when the infections spiked and we started our 4th wave. I had given up on Covid talk for good. Was happily vaccinated and living normally again. I'm still living fairly normally, but when I see nonsense.....

I'm not gonna go to a scrimmage. That would be irresponsible. I could be carrying the alien bug.

I still haven't fully recovered from Marshall's firing to be honest. It's been hard for me to reengage fully.

[WstateU]

Okay, this is enough talk about Covid for a while - EVEN FOR ME! JFC!

[C0|dB|00ded]

Every once in a while I wonder over to this thread and then quickly reminded why I stayed away in the first place.

Cold, buddy, you need a new hobby. An interest. There's a lot of basketball talk lately. What do you think of the newcomers? Have you taken in a scrimmage yet?

I will attempt to heed your advice and walk away... slowly.

Is your father still well I hope? That was a tough night when you shared your story. Maybe the low point of the pandemic for me. It just struck a chord. Hearing he pulled through really lifted my spirits!