CV19 - The Anti Vaxxers Are Back

[robuk]

LP12 said:

The fact that there is assymptomatic transmission

How close do two bums have to get to each other? Is it cheeky to cheek, hole to hole, or just a potent gust?






But seriously, what was your previous username and why did you get booted off ?

[captain_cynic]

isaldiri said:

gizlaroc said:

isaldiri said:

It is far from a good post. It's completely riddled with heaps of very obvious mistakes that the poster thinks repeating enough times might then make it true.

Go on then.

Well, if you insist.

gizlaroc said:

You should only use non neutralising vaccines, vaccines that don't make you immune just make the effects less severe, when a virus is not running wild in the eco system.

It should be used as a preventative measure, to allow the body to recognise the type of virus and have some sort of immunity to it at a later date.

You are going to have to explain what a 'non neutralising vaccine'.

Assuming you meant 'non sterilising vaccine', well a vaccine can't do what your immune system response isn't going to do. Measles infection and vaccines generate lifelong sterilising infection. Covid very obviously is not going to do so as antibody titers that enable sterilising infection almost certainly do not remain at high enough levels to do so after a period of time. If you have a problem with non lifetime sterilising immunity then you are going to have to stop everyone from being infected ever and start supporting zerocovid.

gizlaroc said:

It should be used as a preventative measure, to allow the body to recognise the type of virus and have some sort of immunity to it at a later date.

Er that is exactly what the current vaccines are doing.

gizlaroc said:

The problem using them when the virus is here, during a pandemic, is the virus is every where and if people don't show symptoms, if they don't feel really ill, we have the issue that they carry on as normal and we have a super spread.

The reason flu epidemics tend to come and go quickly is once people get flu they are really ill, most can't make it out of bed, and the few that do tend to look rough as fook, so we when we see them out and about we give them a massive swerve, it is just human nature. So with flu epidemics we tend to get the initial wave and then it naturally dies out because there is no hosts for it to jump to.

This virus has been different in that the majority who get it, who are not very old, tend to get mild symptoms, many don't know they have had it, therefore they carry on, go to work, go to shops, get on trains and planes and spread it. That in itself is not a problem, until they go and visit Nan and give it to her.

You do realise a whole heap of viruses cause asymptomatic infections. Flu for example has some estimates of asymptomatic infection at 40-50% - that's higher than the 30-35% estimated asymptomatic infection rate for covid. It is certainly not the case that 'once people get flu they are really ill'

gizlaroc said:

Then we have the case that a virus does what a virus does and will always try to get stronger and stronger, it is after all trying to attack the host, so it will mutate, and mutating in a host that is isolating is one thing, mutating and getting more deadly in millions of hosts that are wandering around as super spreaders is a completely different matter and a bloody stupid situation to put ourselves in.

Most viruses burn themselves out before they get too deadly because people are ill and therefore not spreading them. These vaccines are taking that away.

This is not the right time to be using this type of vaccine.

I don't even know where to start with this. A virus will try to spread not 'get stronger and stronger'. There are 4 existing human coronaviruses (pre covid) that humans have continually got for literally centuries multiple times throughout a person's lifetime, they haven't suddenly got mutated into some deadly variants.

I have no idea how you managed to come up with a scenario of millions of super spreaders wandering about all showing active infection permanently either as covid infection whether with or without vaccination is cleared by people after recovery and it is very obviously not the case that viral infection remains active in the host.


The strange thing perhaps is I fully agree with the idea that we should mainly concentrate vaccination on those who are vulnerable. However a lot of your so called justification for not doing so for the rest is quite frankly nonsensical and blatant mistruths like what you have come up with simply makes it easier for the everyone must vaccinate loons to brand anyone who is trying to argue for a more measured approach as an antivaxx loon.

For the people who are not at risk it is up to them whether to take it (and indeed for those at risk too but self interest pretty much takes care of that) and it very clearly should not be coerced or made effectively required by exclusion from society without but it is also very clearly not because of some of the apocalyptic scenarios you have dreamt up per above.

At this point isaldiri, you have to admit you've no idea what you're on about.

gizlaroc's post may not have been perfect, but he seems to have a very basic (6th form at least) understanding of micro-bio. His "errors" were mostly language based (and your English is not perfect either) but when you cant argue the point... argue the language. A competent English speaker would still understand despite a few wording issues.

The fact you're still comparing this to the flu... which has asymtomatic infections for a day or two before showing symptoms, rather than the week or more for Coronavirus is telling.

[isaldiri]

captain_cynic said:

The problem with the theory of selective pressure is that it requires very fast mutation, which Coronaviruses have never demonstrated in the past. It took months and tens of millions infected to create a few new strains. Influenza in the same time would have created dozens with a fraction of the hosts.

Vaccinations decrease the amount of time the Coronavirus has to spread, this alone imacts its abilty to mutate as colony sizes cant grow as fast as they need to in order to develop competing mutations.

So if coronaviruses never mutate quickly as you say why then is there the worry in the first place about mutation variants...? Bearing in mind the SA and kent variants have been thought to have been coming from antibody treatments to long term patients (or at least there were some suggestions of that last year in some of the medical papers), I'd suggest the probability of a variant that is able to have partial vaccine escape isn't quite as low as you are suggesting.

captain_cynic said:

At this point isaldiri, you have to admit you've no idea what you're on about.

The fact you're still comparing this to the flu... which has asymtomatic infections for a day or two before showing symptoms, rather than the week or more for Coronavirus is telling.

Oh I'm entirely comfortable I have more of a clue than you.. or gizlaroc for that matter.

P.S and asymptomatic means.... you don't show symptoms full stop. if it's only for a day or tw before showing symptoms as per above in your post that's presymptomatic and irrelevant to my earlier point. hth.

[Gary C]

isaldiri said:

Gary C said:

So that would require a person infected with a current mutation, to be much less able to be infected by the new mutation during or post infection therefor suppressing the new mutation.
Otherwise a new mutation would spread at a rate regardless of the current mutation (without any other external influences such as lockdown etc) ?

If the current mutation does indeed suppress a mutations spread, then why is infection by a current mutation or a vaccine that simulates that infection any different ?

I'm not entirely certain what your post is saying tbh.

I took your prior posts to suggest that overall infections had to be kept low through mass vaccination to reduce the chance of an escape variant occuring. Which is not untrue.

My point however was that higher levels of vaccination meant despite low infections, each infection means that higher chance of an escape variant being established given the selection pressure to escape spike protein resistance. Whether lower infection rates but higher probability of escape variant being established is higher or lower than higher infection rate but lower probability of escape variant being prevalent is unclear.

Sorry,

I was trying to work out what the 'selection pressure' that you referred to is ?

It suggests that the vaccine, by suppressing one is allowing another mutation to flourish ?

But why ?

[anonymous-user]

Gary C said:

LP12 said:

purplepenguin said:

What are your qualifications?

My BSc is in Human Cellular Pathology (ie the study of human diseases at the cellular and sub-cellular level).

My MSc is in Immunology.

My PhD is in Molecular Genetics (specifically appertaining to the control of the Immune System).

I studied under Tony Epstein (of Epstein-Barr virus fame), Bert Achong (sadly no longer with us), W. David Billington. and Av Mitchison.

Edited by LP12 on Saturday 17th April 20:21

Get yur pipe and smoke it Mr Penguin

So Gaz, you are happy to believe the science without question?

I can’t compete with those qualifications.

I would like to know if LP12 is a career academic in which institution ( and how that institution is funded) or in the public/government/NHS/PHE arena or in private business.

LP12’s knowledge should be listened to but as with all science and scientific theories, should also be questioned.

mRNA vaccines are relatively new and are undergoing a clinical trial on a massive level with emergency approval only.

And the collateral damage is not being taken into account.

I’m sure LP12 truly believes his theories and vaccine knowledge but this is new ground and scientists have been proved wrong in the past.

[gizlaroc]

Wow! Lot's of replies for a Saturday night!


I don't disagree with your differing views on vaccines, the views I posted are just the ones that I posted that are other virologists, guys in the vaccine industries views.

Now as someone who has already had Covid, 47 years old, fairly healthy, I have listened to both sides and for me, I feel after listening to both sides I would much rather hold off with a vaccine.

Of course get the old and vulnerable vaccinated, but I will hold off and see how things play out, and I really don't see why we feel the need to be vaccinating the globe, especially with a new type of vaccine.

This is where LP12 loses a bit of credibility for me, saying the mRNA vaccines are not experimental, of course they are.
Only in the fact that all the trials it has been long term issues with them, not short term, that has caused issues, and so we won't really know where we will be by 2023 or so.

So for me, as someone healthy, as someone who has already had covid, and as someone who would feel incredibly anxious over the next few years if I had the mRNA vaccines, for my own health I think I am better to not have it for now and see how it plays out.

When I say for my own health, I mean the angst of worrying about whether an mRNA jab was going to cause me issues or not would play on my mind, probably enough to have a detrimental effect on me, that in itself is enough to not have it.


Anyway, it is a lovely day, new wheels to put on my car, Porsche being stripped for suspension tomorrow, and back in work again tomorrow, so off to enjoy the day, get the wheels on, come back and go for spin in the Porsche, I suggest you all do the same and make the most of your day. We may not have many left. Sorry, just kidding.

[grumbledoak]

purplepenguin said:

I would like to know if LP12 is a career academic in which institution ( and how that institution is funded) or in the public/government/NHS/PHE arena or in private business.

I would be more interested in what cars LP12 has and what prompted his sudden urge to join a car site and post about vaccines.

[gizlaroc]

I was presuming his name came from the Lifepak 12 Defibrillator that they are using in the vaccine centres for when they lose patients immediately after the vaccine?

[rxe]

Gary C said:

Sorry,

I was trying to work out what the 'selection pressure' that you referred to is ?

It suggests that the vaccine, by suppressing one is allowing another mutation to flourish ?

But why ?

Selective pressure is quite simple, but complex in the implementation.

Say you have an animal that roams the plains of Africa. The climate is good, food is plentiful, and the bog standard animal is thriving. That animals characteristics are expressed in the offspring - some are bigger, smaller, have longer legs, different fur. Some of these confer a benefit (bigger animal can fight better or reach more food) but also come at a cost (bigger animal takes more energy to operate). Only when the species is under pressure, (for example in a famine period) does selective pressure really kick in. That animal with the longer neck can reach more food, so long necks are preferred, and that animal will pass its genes on more readily than shorter necked animals. After a few million years of famine, you have Giraffes.

It’s the same with viruses. The original version of COVID swept the world, mutations happened, but when life is easy, they confer no advantage. The host species reacted and made it harder to transmit the virus - what happened, we got strains that were easier to transmit. We’ve vaccinated ourselves, and through vaccination and immunity via infection we’re giving the virus fewer hosts - what happens next - we will get a version that can re-infect vaccinated people. This is inevitable, and we shouldn’t be surprised that it is happening. It’s what pretty much every respiratory virus does, which is why we are still living with the common cold, about a billion years after the first human got a snotty nose.

Edited by rxe on Sunday 18th April 09:29

[Cold]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Let's just hope they make a financial donation to Wikipedia.

[isaldiri]

Gary C said:

Sorry,

I was trying to work out what the 'selection pressure' that you referred to is ?

It suggests that the vaccine, by suppressing one is allowing another mutation to flourish ?

But why ?

Say you have 100 infections (that number doesn't really matter use whatever you like) and 1 of those infections turns out to have a mutation that makes it partially vaccine resistant.

In an unvaccinated population, there is no advantage for that one to increase relative to the others, it's in competition with 99 other 'standard' variants and whether it increases in prevalence is not obvious and dependent on a whole lot of other factors.

In a largely vaccinated population you are pretty much guaranteeing that variant will be the one increasing in prevalence as the other 99 'standard' variants will find it much harder to spread given the population's vaccinated resistance compared to that particular variant.

rxe said:

We’ve vaccinated ourselves, and through vaccination and immunity via infection we’re giving the virus fewer hosts - what happens next - we will get a version that can re-infect vaccinated people. This is inevitable, and we shouldn’t be surprised that it is happening.

This pretty much.

The 'scary variant' stories are assuming that any escape variant is going to cause the same level of disease as the original outbreak. That at the moment seems quite unlikely I would suggest given the neutralising effect of antibodies still work on all current variants (SA/Brazil etc) albeit at lower levels and t cell response still is being detected. Both being thought likely to help prevent severe disease I might add so future infection whether or not it's more likely due to special variant is likely to prove very much milder than what was seen last year.

as the 4 existing endemic human coronaviruses haven't sprung up a variant that causes wide scale devastation in centuries the scaremongering about new variants with hcov5 aka sars-cov2 seems a little overblown at the moment....

[markyb_lcy]

gizlaroc said:

This is where LP12 loses a bit of credibility for me, saying the mRNA vaccines are not experimental, of course they are.
Only in the fact that all the trials it has been long term issues with them, not short term, that has caused issues, and so we won't really know where we will be by 2023 or so.

Correct, and probably not the first time that someone who on the face of it has credentials, has misrepresented this.

gizlaroc said:

So for me, as someone healthy, as someone who has already had covid, and as someone who would feel incredibly anxious over the next few years if I had the mRNA vaccines, for my own health I think I am better to not have it for now and see how it plays out.

When I say for my own health, I mean the angst of worrying about whether an mRNA jab was going to cause me issues or not would play on my mind, probably enough to have a detrimental effect on me, that in itself is enough to not have it.

Don’t restrict healthy scepticism to *just* the mRNA type vaccines. The adenovirus viral vector vaccines (Ox/AZ and J&J) are also somewhat experimental in nature. Aiui, both types deliver essentially a genetically modified organism. The difference is that mRNA is entirely synthetic whilst the viral vector vaccines make use of an inactivated chimp virus.

The here are 6 adenovirus vector vaccines approved for use in at least one country - 4 of them are covid vaccines and the other two are Ebola vaccines which are also relatively new.

The adenovirus vector vaccines have more in common with mRNA type vaccines than they do “traditional” vaccines (which generally use a small part of the actual virus, often inactivated). Unfortunately, adenovirus vaccines are being misrepresented as being “traditional” because they’re not mRNA. This is somewhat of a logical fallacy.

This article is quite informative...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/health/ox...

Edited by markyb_lcy on Sunday 18th April 12:18

[Brave Fart]

rxe said:

<apologies for edit>
We’ve vaccinated ourselves, and through vaccination and immunity via infection we’re giving the virus fewer hosts - what happens next - we will get a version that can re-infect vaccinated people. This is inevitable, and we shouldn’t be surprised that it is happening. It’s what pretty much every respiratory virus does, which is why we are still living with the common cold, about a billion years after the first human got a snotty nose.

I can see the logic of that, and it begs the question: "what should our response be?"
Now, it may be that the next variant is rather milder than the first, and doesn't kill to the same extent. In which case the sensible response would be to do.....nothing much.
My fear is that governments everywhere will instead go down the "OMG a vaccine-evading variant; we must lock everyone down again, until a revised vaccine is developed to outwit this cunning new variant. Get back in your homes, people! Pfizer, work your magic!"

We could become locked in to a long term loop of vaccination then a resistant variant then lockdown............rinse and repeat, for ever.

[otolith]

The selection pressure for immunologically distinct variants which may achieve vaccine escape is not vaccination per se, it is immunity.

[Hoofy]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-56772902...

[markyb_lcy]

otolith said:

The selection pressure for immunologically distinct variants which may achieve vaccine escape is not vaccination per se, it is immunity.

Thinking out aloud (and because I’ve seen this suggested elsewhere) ... is lockdown, and social distancing more generally, creating selection pressure for “more transmissible variants”?

[otolith]

markyb_lcy said:

Thinking out aloud (and because I’ve seen this suggested elsewhere) ... is lockdown, and social distancing more generally, creating selection pressure for “more transmissible variants”?

Not really, except to the extent that shooting anyone who can’t jump over a house creates a selection pressure for superheroes

The general pressure for increased transmissibility is always present. The specific pressure to transmit between people who haven’t been together is not likely to be realised.

[markyb_lcy]

otolith said:

markyb_lcy said:

Thinking out aloud (and because I’ve seen this suggested elsewhere) ... is lockdown, and social distancing more generally, creating selection pressure for “more transmissible variants”?

Not really, except to the extent that shooting anyone who can’t jump over a house creates a selection pressure for superheroes

The general pressure for increased transmissibility is always present. The specific pressure to transmit between people who haven’t been together is not likely to be realised.

With regard social distancing I more meant “keeping two metres” rather than not seeing people at all.

I agree there is a general pressure for increased transmissibility which is omnipresent, but I tend to also think whilst distancing may reduce spread, it puts an extra pressure on more transmissible variants to become more prevalent - in that it amplifies that omnipresent general selection pressure.

I’ll have to try and dig out the articles that have led me down this path.

[gizlaroc]

markyb_lcy said:

Don’t restrict healthy scepticism to *just* the mRNA type vaccines. The adenovirus viral vector vaccines (Ox/AZ and J&J) are also somewhat experimental in nature. Aiui, both types deliver essentially a genetically modified organism. The difference is that mRNA is entirely synthetic whilst the viral vector vaccines make use of an inactivated chimp virus.

The here are 6 adenovirus vector vaccines approved for use in at least one country - 4 of them are covid vaccines and the other two are Ebola vaccines which are also relatively new.

The adenovirus vector vaccines have more in common with mRNA type vaccines than they do “traditional” vaccines (which generally use a small part of the actual virus, often inactivated). Unfortunately, adenovirus vaccines are being misrepresented as being “traditional” because they’re not mRNA. This is somewhat of a logical fallacy.

This article is quite informative...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/health/ox...

Cheers for that.


I was meaning more that I am not against vaccines in general, MMR, travel vaccines, Polio etc.

But I do think we need to slow down a bit with the roll out of the Covid vaccines. I'm sure it will be fine, but no one really knows yet, and to make out we do is disingenuous at best.





A very good friend of mine is very much against vaccines, and medicines, he would take them if life and death, but he is one of these 'the body needs purity' types.

As much as we take the piss out of him, the fact is, he and his wife who have not taken any medicine since they we 16, not a paracetamol or aspirin, only eat farm meat, their own grown fruit and veg etc. are now mid 50s and neither have ever been ill.
When I say never been ill that is not quite true, they had the odd sniffle, but always shook it off within 24 hours or so.

Around a decade ago he put in some super sophisticated water filtration system.
He did it because of the crap in our water system, pour a pint of tap water and leave it to sit for a couple of weeks, pour out the water and look at the putrid gunk that is left sat in the glass, the smell of it is beyond foul. That is what we are putting into us every day.

Since putting his filtration system into place none of his family have had any illness at all. The only time he gets a headache now is from dehydration.


A guy my father knows in India, he was the same, he used to work at the shoe factory, he lived out in the sticks, would only drink the spring water and eat the food that grew around where he lived, and refused to put "the white mans poisons" (what he called medicines) never had a day off ill in his life. He was still cutting patterns in that factory when he was 100 years old. My old man always wondered how long he carried on working there for.


I think we will look back in years to come and laugh at how advanced we thought we were in 2020. But for now, many of us are happy to eat processed foods, fill our faces with 'medicines' and take more 'medicines' to get us through it, myself included, but I think we are only now at the start of really understanding what our bodies really need.

Edited by gizlaroc on Sunday 18th April 14:17

[scottyp123]

Hoofy said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-56772902...

This is similar to when members of right wing organisations get their personal details leaked on-line is it not?