CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 13)
Discussion
APontus said:
chrisgtx said:
Christ on a bike!, if that comes true we are royally screwed.
I'm not qualified to know who is likely right or wrong. Nothing is a certainty. The article I linked from the Jerusalem Post was a typical example.
APontus said:
Reading that thread, it seems eerily close to what Geert Vanden Bossche was predicting back in May. With mass vaccination the virus becomes more infectious and is spread asymptomatically amongst the vaccinated. This then begins to affect the unvaccinated who are more likely to become infected and suffer illness (the Twitter thread asks why it switched to the unvaccinated- this may be why). His prediction is then that the virus will further mutate and become vaccine resistant, at which point the vaccinated will be most at risk (as they will be reliant on the now ineffective vaccine antibodies, whilst the unvaccinated will be able to create their own ones that are specific to the new strain).
Scary stuff.
I’ve heard this argument before and where I get lost is: in the case of a variant that dodges the vaccine, why a vaccinated person would be any worse off than an unvaccinated person?Scary stuff.
Assuming for the sake of simplicity that neither person has encountered the wild virus beforehand, both people’s immune systems are starting from a blank sheet. The fact that Mr. Vaxxer’s immune system holds a memory for antibodies targeted at a different variant than the one he’s facing is irrelevant. His body holds memory for antibodies for thousands of types of viruses he’s not encountering at the present moment, what’s one more?
Boringvolvodriver said:
The fact that they use the word “think” is a concern. I accept that it is a changing situation but if they don’t know, then they should say so.
The article I linked from the Jerusalem Post was a typical example.
Er... isn't the use of the word 'think' sufficient to show that they are admitting they don't know but in their judgement it's the best guess for the moment? Damning people for not being certain about something seems a little odd I'd have thought especially given it's been various people insisting that they were actually certain about various things which were far from certain that's caused all manner of trouble with the way the pandemic response has been shaped by the various authorities.....The article I linked from the Jerusalem Post was a typical example.
Venturist said:
I’ve heard this argument before and where I get lost is: in the case of a variant that dodges the vaccine, why a vaccinated person would be any worse off than an unvaccinated person?
Antibody dependent enhancement was initially thought to be a possibility (given some of the ferret research done for sars1). But that as far as sars-cov2 is concerned has been repeatedly shown not to be an issue. It's just not at the moment anyway a relevant worry worth bothering about.
Edited by isaldiri on Wednesday 28th July 23:33
isaldiri said:
No it bloody well doesn't for goodness sake. your continued insistence in 'vaccine resistant mutants' etc is so far utterly irrational and pointlessly scaremongering.
The PHE and Israel data is very clear on this - efficacy vs severe illness and death remains extremely high. A lot of various studies irrespective of variant (and including the SA variant thought to be the most immune escape variant) has clearly shown t cell and neutralising antibodies being effective such that said severe illness is very considerably reduced. That is ultimately the medical end point that should be the measure of success rather than symptomatic illness.
Forgive me, I'm paraphrasing people I believe are more qualified than you or I who have described in reasonable detail the process. The PHE and Israel data is very clear on this - efficacy vs severe illness and death remains extremely high. A lot of various studies irrespective of variant (and including the SA variant thought to be the most immune escape variant) has clearly shown t cell and neutralising antibodies being effective such that said severe illness is very considerably reduced. That is ultimately the medical end point that should be the measure of success rather than symptomatic illness.
The end point appears to be a virus that is vaccine resistant. If those people are wrong, and we should hope they are, then so be it.
isaldiri said:
Boringvolvodriver said:
The fact that they use the word “think” is a concern. I accept that it is a changing situation but if they don’t know, then they should say so.
The article I linked from the Jerusalem Post was a typical example.
Er... isn't the use of the word 'think' sufficient to show that they are admitting they don't know but in their judgement it's the best guess for the moment? Damning people for not being certain about something seems a little odd I'd have thought especially given it's been various people insisting that they were actually certain about various things which were far from certain that's caused all manner of trouble with the way the pandemic response has been shaped by the various authorities.....The article I linked from the Jerusalem Post was a typical example.
Venturist said:
I’ve heard this argument before and where I get lost is: in the case of a variant that dodges the vaccine, why a vaccinated person would be any worse off than an unvaccinated person?
Antibody dependent enhancement was initially thought to be a possibility (given some of the ferret research done for sars1). But that as far as sars-cov2 is concerned has been repeatedly shown not to be an issue. It's just not at the moment anyway a relevant worry worth bothering about.
Edited by isaldiri on Wednesday 28th July 23:33
When I was a lad way back, one of my managers (very old school) used to have a right go at anyone who, when asked a question, would reply with “I think…..”! His expletive ridden reply was something along the lines of “ if you don’t know, just tell me you don’t know and go and find out”!
Venturist said:
I’ve heard this argument before and where I get lost is: in the case of a variant that dodges the vaccine, why a vaccinated person would be any worse off than an unvaccinated person?
Assuming for the sake of simplicity that neither person has encountered the wild virus beforehand, both people’s immune systems are starting from a blank sheet. The fact that Mr. Vaxxer’s immune system holds a memory for antibodies targeted at a different variant than the one he’s facing is irrelevant. His body holds memory for antibodies for thousands of types of viruses he’s not encountering at the present moment, what’s one more?
In answer to your first question they aren't, in fact assuming neither have ever contracted Covid before, the vaccinated person will still be better off as their immune system will in some way know how to deal with it, for the unvaccinated it will be all new. The only way the scales would be tipped is if the unvaccinated person and already had Covid, as it's looking pretty clear now by the low number of reinfections everywhere natural immunity is pretty robust. Assuming for the sake of simplicity that neither person has encountered the wild virus beforehand, both people’s immune systems are starting from a blank sheet. The fact that Mr. Vaxxer’s immune system holds a memory for antibodies targeted at a different variant than the one he’s facing is irrelevant. His body holds memory for antibodies for thousands of types of viruses he’s not encountering at the present moment, what’s one more?
Also, the chances of a variant appearing that can evade the vaccines is vanishingly small - there was a great interview with Sarah Gilbert who headed up the Oxford team, and she said that if SARS 2 mutated enough to evade the protection given by the vaccines, then it would cease to function as a virus.
It would effectively have to be a new strain rather than a variant from what I can tell. Unless Fauci has been pissing about in his lab again I would say SARS 2 mutating into a new strain would, in the context of previous Coronaviruses, be.. unprecedented..
isaldiri said:
Antibody dependent enhancement was initially thought to be a possibility (given some of the ferret research done for sars1).
But that as far as sars-cov2 is concerned has been repeatedly shown not to be an issue. It's just not at the moment anyway a relevant worry worth bothering about.
Malone has responded today, on the news that titres are *reportedly* higher in Pfizer vaccinated than unvaccinated, suggesting this may be the early evidence of ADE.But that as far as sars-cov2 is concerned has been repeatedly shown not to be an issue. It's just not at the moment anyway a relevant worry worth bothering about.
Interestingly, the Wall Street Journal has today published an opinion piece questioning the FDA's blocking of Ivermectin. Possibly the first mainstream media outlet to even discuss it openly.
I wonder if the worm is turning?
APontus said:
isaldiri said:
No it bloody well doesn't for goodness sake. your continued insistence in 'vaccine resistant mutants' etc is so far utterly irrational and pointlessly scaremongering.
The PHE and Israel data is very clear on this - efficacy vs severe illness and death remains extremely high. A lot of various studies irrespective of variant (and including the SA variant thought to be the most immune escape variant) has clearly shown t cell and neutralising antibodies being effective such that said severe illness is very considerably reduced. That is ultimately the medical end point that should be the measure of success rather than symptomatic illness.
Forgive me, I'm paraphrasing people I believe are more qualified than you or I who have described in reasonable detail the process. The PHE and Israel data is very clear on this - efficacy vs severe illness and death remains extremely high. A lot of various studies irrespective of variant (and including the SA variant thought to be the most immune escape variant) has clearly shown t cell and neutralising antibodies being effective such that said severe illness is very considerably reduced. That is ultimately the medical end point that should be the measure of success rather than symptomatic illness.
The end point appears to be a virus that is vaccine resistant. If those people are wrong, and we should hope they are, then so be it.
There's been literally hundreds of thousands of medical papers being written/published and equally heaps of them even being supposedly peer reviewed. lots of them have been pretty bloody abysmal. Vanden Bossche had better be more qualified by you or me to comment but equally given some of the supposed 'expert' stuff published or cited on covid so far, until or unless it's also been raised as an issue by at least a few other reasonably sensible/reliable covid medical commentators who don't have an obvious axe or agenda to grind, it'll go into the 'possible but as yet unproven' pile of other covid 'expert' opinions.
bodhi said:
In answer to your first question they aren't, in fact assuming neither have ever contracted Covid before, the vaccinated person will still be better off as their immune system will in some way know how to deal with it, for the unvaccinated it will be all new. The only way the scales would be tipped is if the unvaccinated person and already had Covid, as it's looking pretty clear now by the low number of reinfections everywhere natural immunity is pretty robust.
Also, the chances of a variant appearing that can evade the vaccines is vanishingly small - there was a great interview with Sarah Gilbert who headed up the Oxford team, and she said that if SARS 2 mutated enough to evade the protection given by the vaccines, then it would cease to function as a virus.
It would effectively have to be a new strain rather than a variant from what I can tell. Unless Fauci has been pissing about in his lab again I would say SARS 2 mutating into a new strain would, in the context of previous Coronaviruses, be.. unprecedented..
The vaccinated would possibly fare worse than the unvaccinated due to antigenic sin. They would apparently be reliant on the vaccine spike antibody, which would be ineffective against the more infectious virus and suppress the immune system's ability to create a new, more relevant one of its own. Unvaccinated people wouldn't have the vaccine spike antibody, so could develop one of their own that we relevant. Also, the chances of a variant appearing that can evade the vaccines is vanishingly small - there was a great interview with Sarah Gilbert who headed up the Oxford team, and she said that if SARS 2 mutated enough to evade the protection given by the vaccines, then it would cease to function as a virus.
It would effectively have to be a new strain rather than a variant from what I can tell. Unless Fauci has been pissing about in his lab again I would say SARS 2 mutating into a new strain would, in the context of previous Coronaviruses, be.. unprecedented..
isaldiri said:
Well, pick your 'expert' who says whatever you want to believe and constantly repeat it if you like. Doesn't make it any more plausible or likely to be right.
There's been literally hundreds of thousands of medical papers being written/published and equally heaps of them even being supposedly peer reviewed. lots of them have been pretty bloody abysmal. Vanden Bossche had better be more qualified by you or me to comment but equally given some of the supposed 'expert' stuff published or cited on covid so far, until or unless it's also been raised as an issue by at least a few other reasonably sensible/reliable covid medical commentators who don't have an obvious axe or agenda to grind, it'll go into the 'possible but as yet unproven' pile of other covid 'expert' opinions.
I think that's fair comment all round.There's been literally hundreds of thousands of medical papers being written/published and equally heaps of them even being supposedly peer reviewed. lots of them have been pretty bloody abysmal. Vanden Bossche had better be more qualified by you or me to comment but equally given some of the supposed 'expert' stuff published or cited on covid so far, until or unless it's also been raised as an issue by at least a few other reasonably sensible/reliable covid medical commentators who don't have an obvious axe or agenda to grind, it'll go into the 'possible but as yet unproven' pile of other covid 'expert' opinions.
I'm trying very hard to avoid confirmation bias and read opinions with an open mind. We've a few months on from the early days of vaccine delivery, so the predictions made by some can begin to be tested.
At present what's happening in Israel now seem similar to what Vanden Bossche predicted back in May (take a look through the FAQ here
( https://www.geertvandenbossche.org/faq ). Equally Malone's worries appear to have the beginnings of legs with the news coming out of the States.
APontus said:
The vaccinated would possibly fare worse than the unvaccinated due to antigenic sin. They would apparently be reliant on the vaccine spike antibody, which would be ineffective against the more infectious virus and suppress the immune system's ability to create a new, more relevant one of its own. Unvaccinated people wouldn't have the vaccine spike antibody, so could develop one of their own that we relevant.
Ah “original antigenic sin”, that’s the term I was looking for. Thank you!APontus said:
The vaccinated would possibly fare worse than the unvaccinated due to antigenic sin. They would apparently be reliant on the vaccine spike antibody, which would be ineffective against the more infectious virus and suppress the immune system's ability to create a new, more relevant one of its own. Unvaccinated people wouldn't have the vaccine spike antibody, so could develop one of their own that we relevant.
Dude, you have no idea how tempted I am to edit your post, and between every sentence insert the word "Parklife" because it would actually make more sense than that word salad you've just posted. If you don't want to get the jab for good enough reasons that's absolutely fine in my book - be it medical, youth, previous infections, even wanting more data - and I don't think your participation in society should be restricted based upon that decision. I'd just ask you make that decision based on actual sound reasoning, not....well reading your post again I'd just say not that.
bodhi said:
Dude, you have no idea how tempted I am to edit your post, and between every sentence insert the word "Parklife" because it would actually make more sense than that word salad you've just posted.
If you don't want to get the jab for good enough reasons that's absolutely fine in my book - be it medical, youth, previous infections, even wanting more data - and I don't think your participation in society should be restricted based upon that decision. I'd just ask you make that decision based on actual sound reasoning, not....well reading your post again I'd just say not that.
Cool. No issues from me. If you don't want to get the jab for good enough reasons that's absolutely fine in my book - be it medical, youth, previous infections, even wanting more data - and I don't think your participation in society should be restricted based upon that decision. I'd just ask you make that decision based on actual sound reasoning, not....well reading your post again I'd just say not that.
It would help if you could explain in layman's terms how I've misunderstood what I've read (or if the author should be ignored).
Starting point here; https://www.geertvandenbossche.org/faq
Help me out here. I know in Malarial areas of the globe that cheap, fake anti-malarial drugs that don't actually kill malaria allow the disease to learn to survive and beat normal dose anti-malarials. Is Boscche talking of a similar process for the vaccine against Covid-19 resulting in more dangerous, vaccine evading variants?
APontus said:
bodhi said:
Dude, you have no idea how tempted I am to edit your post, and between every sentence insert the word "Parklife" because it would actually make more sense than that word salad you've just posted.
If you don't want to get the jab for good enough reasons that's absolutely fine in my book - be it medical, youth, previous infections, even wanting more data - and I don't think your participation in society should be restricted based upon that decision. I'd just ask you make that decision based on actual sound reasoning, not....well reading your post again I'd just say not that.
Cool. No issues from me. If you don't want to get the jab for good enough reasons that's absolutely fine in my book - be it medical, youth, previous infections, even wanting more data - and I don't think your participation in society should be restricted based upon that decision. I'd just ask you make that decision based on actual sound reasoning, not....well reading your post again I'd just say not that.
It would help if you could explain in layman's terms how I've misunderstood what I've read (or if the author should be ignored).
Starting point here; https://www.geertvandenbossche.org/faq
MikeT66 said:
An American view, but Ted Cruz is bang on here...
It's interesting how the same battles regarding civil liberty, freedom of choice and freedom of speech are being fought across much of the West.
sadly i dont see it being fought in the UK - its not being published that it is anyway.It's interesting how the same battles regarding civil liberty, freedom of choice and freedom of speech are being fought across much of the West.
tangerine_sedge said:
APontus said:
bodhi said:
Dude, you have no idea how tempted I am to edit your post, and between every sentence insert the word "Parklife" because it would actually make more sense than that word salad you've just posted.
If you don't want to get the jab for good enough reasons that's absolutely fine in my book - be it medical, youth, previous infections, even wanting more data - and I don't think your participation in society should be restricted based upon that decision. I'd just ask you make that decision based on actual sound reasoning, not....well reading your post again I'd just say not that.
Cool. No issues from me. If you don't want to get the jab for good enough reasons that's absolutely fine in my book - be it medical, youth, previous infections, even wanting more data - and I don't think your participation in society should be restricted based upon that decision. I'd just ask you make that decision based on actual sound reasoning, not....well reading your post again I'd just say not that.
It would help if you could explain in layman's terms how I've misunderstood what I've read (or if the author should be ignored).
Starting point here; https://www.geertvandenbossche.org/faq
PurplePangolin said:
Nonsense that is easily disproved by the science
I did a bit of reading of the 'debunking' articles this morning. The easily googled ones appear to coincide with an open letter Bossche wrote in March. The debunking seems to be mainly discrediting his assumptions that the vaccines allow infection/transmission and immunity will wane in a relatively short time frame.The emerging evidence appears to support both these things as now happening, however.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff