Patterico's Pontifications

12/20/2021

Compare And Contrast: Trump And DeSantis On Booster Shot

Filed under: General — Dana @ 9:33 am



[guest post by Dana]

Hopefully, Donald Trump’s public acknowledgment of having had both the vaccine and booster shot will result in persuading more of his supporters to get vaccinated and boosted:

Donald Trump was met with boos when he revealed he had received a booster shot of the coronavirus vaccine on Sunday. Trump made the revelation after telling a mostly unmasked crowd at the American Airlines Center in Dallas that they should “take credit” for the coronavirus vaccines developed during his presidency. Trump was on the final stop of “The History Tour” with former Fox host Bill O’Reilly.

“Look, we did something that was historic, we saved tens of millions of lives worldwide when we, together, all of us, we got a vaccine done,” Trump said. “This was going to ravage the country far beyond what it is right now, take credit for it… it’s great, what we’ve done is historic. Don’t let them take it away.”

“You’re playing right into their hands” when you doubt the vaccine, Trump added.

While the reception to those comments appeared lukewarm, the crowd cheered when Trump expressed his opposition to vaccine mandates. “If you don’t want to take it, you shouldn’t be forced to take it, no mandates but take credit… don’t let them take that away from you,” he said.

O’Reilly proceeded to tell the audience that “both the president and I are vaxxed.”

“Did you get the booster?” O’Reilly then asked Trump. “Yes,” Trump replied. “I got it too,” O’Reilly added

Given that there is a lot of speculation that both Trump and Gov. Ron De Santis of Florida might run in 2024, it’s interesting to see that DeSantis refused to directly answer when asked whether he had received a booster shot:

During an appearance on the Fox News Channel Sunday morning, Gov. Ron DeSantis suggested he had not received a COVID-19 booster shot.

DeSantis, for his part, continues to warn that the definition of fully vaccinated will shift to include receiving a booster shot. His latest comments suggest that his “one shot” Johnson and Johnson “jab” from earlier this year was the only vaccination he’s received.

“I’ve done whatever I did, the normal shot, and that at the end of the day is people’s individual decisions about what they want to do,” DeSantis said when he was asked if he had received a booster shot by host Maria Bartiromo on Sunday Morning Futures.

If both of these men make a bid for the White House in 2024 and given that they share the same supporters to a great degree, will Trump’s acknowledgment that he received the booster and DeSantis didn’t be a factor in who they would support? Or is it irrelevant?

–Dana

142 Responses to “Compare And Contrast: Trump And DeSantis On Booster Shot”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (5395f9)

  2. There’s a 50/50 chance that by the end of this comment thread someone will still say Trump is anti-vax.

    Because we know what he really means.

    frosty (f27e97)

  3. Good for Trump! DeSantis is still eying the wind vane.

    nk (1d9030)

  4. T’was a busy day in The Land Of The Living.

    And what did Wilmington Joe do Sunday?

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  5. Before we say which is the more “anti-vax” we should specify, and pin down for at least the duration of this particular thread, the definition of that term. Is “anti-vax” against one of the company’s offerings; against vaccines generally; against only the COVID vaccine; against privileging vaccines by forbidding the right to prescribe horse manure — er, wormer; against national mandates but okay with state-by-state mandates; against mandates on children but okay with essential workers … ?

    The term is loaded to be used against anybody who dares question authority in any capacity.

    As to preferences between Trump and DeSantis — I like governors over celebrities. Though celebrity-governors like Arnuld and Jesse Ventura complicate the question. Still, which would be more effective at reforming the FBI — require them to video interviews, for instance, or which will punish agents who seem to selectively lose evidence? Which will help overturn asset-forfeiture and qualified immunity police abuses? Which will best apply Teddy Roosevelt’s “Trust Busting” attitude toward the Google-plex/Metaverse/Disney … giants? Can we PLEASE talk about policy over personality?

    pouncer (6c33cf)

  6. Good. I’m glad that Trump said it, hopefully some of the people he was talking to who have not yet been vaccinated will listen and get vaccinated.

    Nic (896fdf)

  7. MAGAWorld(TM) not amused.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  8. 2. Like I said in the Liz Cheney texts thread:

    NB: Donald Trump was not behind the anti-vaccine movement, but the anti-vaccine movement was behind him.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  9. I still do not get this whole “It’s a TRAP!!!” mentality.

    I can understand pushing back against bullying, but not at the risk of one’s health, or the health of one’s family. “Cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face” has always been seen as ridiculous, but that’s where some people are.

    For those who won’t get the shot until they understand complex molecular biochemistry, well, you never will so get on with it.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  10. Because we know what he really means.

    Just like we know he was so upset about the attack on Congress because his words carefully evaded calling for that directly. Nudge nudge.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  11. What a cowardly response from Desantis. Good for Trump in his statements. I hope he pushes it harder and finds a way to get through to the MAGA types who have made opposition to the vaccine part of their identity.

    Desantis is hurting himself. Looking at the data it seems clear that increased vaccination rate would reduce mortality among his supporters

    https://twitter.com/charles_gaba/status/1465384106313850880?s=21

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  12. https://www.wsj.com/articles/lockdown-science-pandemic-imperial-college-london-quarantine-social-distance-covid-fauci-omicron-11639930605?mod=trending_now_opn_3

    Using data from a 1927 analysis of the Spanish flu in the U.S., the study concluded that lockdowns were “not demonstrably effective in urban areas.” Only in isolated rural areas, “where group contacts are less numerous,” did this strategy become theoretically viable, but the hypothesis wasn’t tested. While the study found some benefits from smaller-scale quarantines of patients and their families during the 2003 SARS outbreak, it concluded that a fast-spreading disease, combined with “the presence of mild cases and possibility of transmission without symptoms,” would make these measures “considerably less successful.”

    Medical historian John Barry, who wrote the standard account of the 1918 Spanish flu, concurred about the ineffectiveness of lockdowns. “Historical data clearly demonstrate that quarantine does not work unless it is absolutely rigid and complete,” he wrote in 2009, summarizing the results of a study of influenza outbreaks on U.S. Army bases during World War I. Of 120 training camps that experienced outbreaks, 99 imposed on-base quarantines and 21 didn’t. Case rates between the two categories of camps showed “no statistical difference.” “If a military camp cannot be successfully quarantined in wartime,” Mr. Barry concluded, “it is highly unlikely a civilian community can be quarantined during peacetime.”

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  13. According to FDOH, of the eligible population in Florida, age group vaccination rates across the state are:

    Ages 5-11, 8% vaccinated
    Ages 12-19, 57% vaccinated.
    Ages 20-29, 57% vaccinated.
    Ages 30-39, 67% vaccinated.
    Ages 40-49, 75% vaccinated.
    Ages 50-59, 80% vaccinated.
    Ages 60-64, 86% vaccinated.
    Ages 65+, 89% vaccinated.

    https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/2021/11/30/florida-vaccinations-rates-creep-up-amid-continued-drop-covid-19-cases/8808309002/

    (New Mexico for comparison)
    Age…..1+ shot…2+ shots
    5-11…..24.6%….13.2%
    12-15….63.7%….54.4%
    16-17….70.4%….61.2%
    18-24….70.0%….58.0%
    25-39….76.2%….64.1%
    40-64….91.0%….78.5%
    65+……99.0%…91.9%

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  14. Today’s xkcd cartoon: Immunity

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  15. President Psaki is addressing the nation; insists her Sunday statement on Manchin’s torpedo was ‘factual.’

    Joe remembers voting for her, too.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  16. If defeating an infection gives on immunity, then there are two paths:

    1. Getting the disease with a high risk of serious disease or long-term disability.
    2. Getting vaccinated, then getting the disease with a much reduced risk of serious disease or long-term disability.

    For some, this is a difficult choice.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  17. Most boosters

    [ ] Biden Administration, 2021-22

    [ ] National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1961-1967

    [ ] New York Mets, 1969

    Choose.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  18. Trump was booed when he admitted he had been boosted. Last time that happened was when he endorsed getting vaxed — and he quickly seged into saying he wouldn’t get boosted. (this was back in September)

    I have no great faith Trump is going to push the booster aggressively. It might make him unpopular among the people he values. But we will see.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  19. Another antivaxxer trumpster dies of covid. Washington (R) state senator doug eriksen.

    asset (196066)

  20. If desantis runs in 2024 campaigning in blue state primaries should be interesting as mr. spock says.

    asset (196066)

  21. @18, anything helps. Better this then the wink and nudge act he was doing last spring. If this convinces 1% of the hold outs it’s worth it.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  22. Good for Trump.

    Probably the best thing he could do for our country right now is go on a “get people vaccinated” campaign tour.

    Not often he does something good for the country, but this was a good statement.

    nate_w (1f1d55)

  23. My money is on Trump going back to being mum on the vaccine. You know, leadership.

    norcal (3d2db9)

  24. Classic maneuver by DeSantis.
    I would say that DeSantis out-trumped Trump, but Trump is sotto voce pro-vax.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  25. #19 Trumpista Washington state senator Doug Eriksen was not — publicly — opposed to COVID vaccines, but to mandates.

    (Did he die because he made a “personal choice” not to be vaccinated? That seem likely to me, given what we know, now. And we should all extend our sympathy to his wife, Tasha, and their daughters, Addi and Elsa.)

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  26. Omicron sweeps across nation, now 73% of US COVID-19 cases
    ……….
    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention numbers showed nearly a six-fold increase in omicron’s share of infections in only one week.

    In much of the country, it’s even higher. Omicron is responsible for an estimated 90% or more of new infections in the New York area, the Southeast, the industrial Midwest and the Pacific Northwest. The national rate suggests that more than 650,000 omicron infections occurred in the U.S. last week.
    ………
    “All of us have a date with omicron,” said Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. “If you’re going to interact with society, if you’re going to have any type of life, omicron will be something you encounter, and the best way you can encounter this is to be fully vaccinated.”
    ……..
    My GF and I are both boosted. Our plan is to avoid crowds to avoid our date with omicron.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  27. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/20/2021 @ 12:18 pm

    It’s true that of the people who have gotten seriously ill there is a higher likelihood of being unvaxxed but that’s not the same as everyone who gets covid has a high risk of serious disease or long-term disability. It’s also true that the chances of getting seriously ill are higher for the unvaxxed group over the vaxxed but that is a relative difference.

    You’ve shown an ability to understand that difference on other occasions but you’ve also made this same misstatement before. It’s a version of your parachute analogy which is flawed. This is a relatively simple mistake. Why do you keep making it?

    frosty (f27e97)

  28. I think you’ve misread Kevin’s comment.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  29. Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 12/20/2021 @ 3:49 pm

    What are you defining as a crowd? I’ve seen R estimates as high as 5 and I think that’s an underestimate. With numbers like that you may need to avoid all personal contacts to avoid it.

    frosty (f27e97)

  30. Why do we care?
    Best thing that could happen to me today might just be to get the Omicron variant.
    Big chance I’d get all of the immunity and very little of the symptoms.
    If I get very very very unlucky and get very sick, they have all kinds of drugs therapies.
    I’ll be up and around in 2 weeks, and its supposed to rain most of that time anyway

    steveg (e81d76)

  31. @25 Jim Miller, tsk tsk, you’re not keeping up with official newspeak

    anti-vaxxer
    noun
    an·​ti-vax·​xer | \ ˌan-tē-ˈvak-sər , ˌan-ˌtī- \
    plural anti-vaxxers
    Definition of anti-vaxxer
    : a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination

    JF (3cfbca)

  32. Time123 (9f42ee) — 12/20/2021 @ 3:51 pm

    Do you have any more details than that? Something less vague?

    frosty (f27e97)

  33. The Cleveland Browns have 18 players out on the Covid list today.

    The pandemic protocols are looking more like a joke every day. Covid/Omicron is or soon will be everywhere, people. Get vaccinated/boosted, get used to the virus being around, and get on with your life.

    norcal (3d2db9)

  34. #31 JF – It is kind of you to offer sympathy to Eriksen’s wife and daughters, whatever the cause of his death was.

    (I generally avoid newspeak, and would suggest that everyone do so, for their mental health.)

    Jim Miller (edcec1)

  35. What are you defining as a crowd?

    More than three people. I am only slightly joking. We rarely go out anyway, so avoiding the masses is pretty easy. I did all of my Christmas shopping online, and we both don’t like crowds anyway. The most crowded situation we get into is going to movie theaters (yesterday we saw three films in three different theaters, thirty miles apart). You go to where the movies are.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  36. Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 12/20/2021 @ 4:12 pm

    Movies are all about picking the time of day. If you’ve got the freedom pick an uncommon time and you’ll have a better chance of getting it to yourself.

    frosty (f27e97)

  37. @34 i’m sorry, Jim Miller, was i the one dancing on his grave?

    i think that was you and asset, so kind words from you both will certainly make amends

    JF (3cfbca)

  38. Movies are all about picking the time of day. If you’ve got the freedom pick an uncommon time and you’ll have a better chance of getting it to yourself.

    Which is why we go on off-hours and during the week. However, sometimes you don’t have a choice, the theater may schedule a film to show only once a day (this frequently happens at the local art house chain). There have been times that we are only ones in the theater.

    As I said, I was half joking. The local jurisdictions require masks and sometimes proof of vaccination.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  39. does desantaclaus have a golden escalator?

    mg (8cbc69)

  40. JF,

    Whence your penchant for snark?

    norcal (3d2db9)

  41. Let’s see… the Rockettes crater their Radio City holiday revue [a must see if you’re ever in Rock Center t the holidays BTW;] NBC cancels SNL’s live Xmas telecast; a dozen Broadway shows have shuttered… and Mayor De Blasio still can decide whether or not to curtail NYE Times Square events w/a million people expected to crowd into Broadway & 42nd St.,? Yeah. That’s leadership.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  42. Frosty, what wasn’t clear about that?

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  43. More unamused members of MAGAWorld(tm).

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  44. And more.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  45. Time123, almost everything.

    frosty (f27e97)

  46. What is the comparative for Q-orthodoxy?

    People say, “more Catholic than the Pope”, “cooler than X” (fill in your own), “goofier than a $3 bill”. But how does one pithily assert that Ron is more Q than Don (or the reverse)?

    john (cd2753)

  47. Sarah Palin’s anti-vax talk shows Republicans have become a death cult
    …….
    …….By discouraging vaccination, she and Tucker Carlson and the rest of the anti-science right are quite literally getting people killed. Studies show that those living in the most pro-Trump counties in the United States are dying from covid-19 at a rate more than five times higher than in the most anti-Trump counties.
    ………
    Blogger Charles Gaba, who has been tracking coronavirus death rates by county, reported Monday that since June 30, there have been about 117 deaths per 100,000 people in the reddest 10 percent of the United States (as measured by counties’ vote share for Donald Trump in 2020) — nearly six times the death rate of about 21 per 100,000 in the bluest decile. Likewise, the 100 million people who live in the most pro-Trump 30 percent of the United States had a death rate of about 98 per 100,000 since June 30 — more than triple the 30 per 100,000 among the people who live in the least pro-Trump 30 percent.

    ……..In August, there were more than 7 deaths per 100,000 in the reddest counties for every 1 death per 100,000 in the bluest. This month, Gaba projects there will be 5.62 deaths per 100,000 in the Trumpiest 10 percent for every 1 death per 100,000 in the least-Trumpy decile of America. (Gaba’s data is consistent with other recent studies.)

    The cause of the disparity, which persists when accounting for age and health-care access of the different populations, is obvious: As of Dec. 20, among the bluest 10 percent of the population, 68.8 percent are fully vaccinated. In the reddest 10 percent, only 41.9 percent are fully vaccinated. The pattern is consistent through all deciles of the population: the more pro-Trump, the less vaccinated the population — and the higher the death rate.
    ………

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  48. Best thing that could happen to me today might just be to get the Omicron variant.

    steveg (e81d76) — 12/20/2021 @ 3:57 pm

    See Kevin’s comment #14.

    lurker (59504c)

  49. Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 12/20/2021 @ 5:48 pm

    I can’t get past the paywall there with the usual tricks. Is there a quote in there that Palin is advocating for a death cult? I know there’s one going around where she makes an anti-mandate statement that’s been turned into an anti-vax statement with some selective quoting. Is it one of those sorts of things?

    frosty (f27e97)

  50. norcal (3d2db9) — 12/20/2021 @ 4:00 pm

    Covid/Omicron is or soon will be everywhere, people. Get vaccinated/boosted, get used to the virus being around, and get on with your life.

    Omicron will cause delta to disappear, possibly by the New Year, and then Omicron will itself disappear, sometime around March or April, having vaccinated nearly everybody in sight against any form of the coronavirus.

    Although it may take a year or two more to completely taper off. And of course you have to worry about the possibility of it coming back through lab leaks of virus samples.

    Like Bret Stephens of the New York Times said:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/06/opinion/michigan-roe-dole.html

    I’m struggling to see good news these days, except for a hope that the new Omicron variant of the coronavirus might end up proving more transmissible but less deadly than past variants. The result could be that it will, in essence, vaccinate the unvaccinated world by infecting them, and help bring the most deadly part of the pandemic to an end. But that might just be my wishful thinking getting ahead of the facts.

    Like Donald Trump said: (paraphrasing)

    One day, like a miracle, it will disappear, with or without a vaccine.

    Now Trump is saying that before it disappeared it would kill tens of millions of lives worldwide or would have killed that many if not for the vaccines.

    But not that it won’t disappear, like the “Spanish flu.”

    There’s no infectious disease that has not disappeared, at least temporarily. Not even the bubonic plague, which disappeared from Europe for about 800 years till it came back as the Black Death.

    And then it would come and go.

    Some diseases, like the plague of Athens or the English sweating sickness, come once and after that no more.

    Some stayed for possibly generations, and then disappeared, like scarlet fever did in the 1940s. It was not stopped by a vaccine.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  51. I prefer this definition:

    a person who distrusts or is against vaccination, especially a parent who refuses to have a young child vaccinated.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  52. I’m afraid I can’t make; “I think you misunderstood” much simpler.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  53. What is the comparative for Q-orthodoxy?…how does one pithily assert that Ron is more Q than Don (or the reverse)?

    john (cd2753) — 12/20/2021 @ 5:38 pm

    How about, “Ron is a REAL fan of de Lancie.”

    Demosthenes (3fd56e)

  54. lurker (59504c) — 12/20/2021 @ 6:04 pm

    Comics are funny. Remember?

    “You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations,” and “If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, you’re not going to be in the ICU unit, and you’re not going to die.” – Joe Biden

    I’m told no one said things like this since people with the vaccine get COVID, can be hospitalized, and have died.

    frosty (f27e97)

  55. 30. steveg (e81d76) — 12/20/2021 @ 3:57 pm

    If I get very very very unlucky and get very sick, they have all kinds of drugs therapies.

    There’s a gap now. The GSK antibody treatment, the only one on the market that works against Omicron, is in extremely short supply, and will be that through most of February, and the Pfizer and Merck antivirals haven’t yet been authorized.

    And attempting to get vaccinated make things worse for the first few days if you get infected just then because you’ve increased the workload for the immune systen, and where are you more likely to encounter an infected person than at a Covid testing or vaccination site?

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  56. #54. He was wrong. He shouldn’t have exaggerated. Sue him. The advice was still right.

    lurker (59504c)

  57. 50/ Actually serious diseases have remained endemic, but the worse it is, the more likely it is ti disappear.

    Measles cannot last in a population of less than about 200,000 unvaccinated people. But that’s not really good, because that creates serious disease and death when it returns because people didn’t get exposed as children

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  58. I’m afraid I can’t make; “I think you misunderstood” much simpler.

    Time123 (9f42ee) — 12/20/2021 @ 6:19 pm

    The problem isn’t with it being simple. The problem is with it being vague. You could explain what you think is misunderstood. You could, for example, point to something I said, point to something Kevin M said, and explain what you think is the misunderstanding.

    I understand your problem though. That’s a lot of work and there’s a chance you don’t really understand what he said or what I said.

    frosty (f27e97)

  59. @54 He was mostly right when he made that statement (circumstances changed) and is still mostly right about the hospitalization part. But it would be better if he’d been more precise in his language and included the relevant caveats.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  60. Re: Sarah Palin quote: Sarah Palin is quoted as saying: “It will be over my dead body that I’ll have to get a shot.” That’s all that’s being quoted. It probably sounded cute to her.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  61. @58, sorry, I don’t care enough to do that. I did care enough to point out I think you misunderstood him. But that’s about all I got on this one.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  62. Lurker said it better in his comment at 56.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  63. ……….The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention numbers showed nearly a six-fold increase in omicron’s share of infections in only one week.

    In much of the country, it’s even higher. Omicron is responsible for an estimated 90% or more of new infections in the New York area, the Southeast, the industrial Midwest and the Pacific Northwest. The national rate suggests that more than 650,000 omicron infections occurred in the U.S. last week.

    So that corrects me about 3% and doubling every 2 to 3 days.

    Its 90% of all new cases in New York. Only three states have not reported cases of Omicron but that would not be because there are no cases of Omicron there.

    Omicron is 80% of new cases in Houston, Texas, and one person who was previously identified as having Omicron has died.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  64. @59

    He was mostly right when he made that statement

    Also, Time123

    I don’t recall a lot of assertions that any of them offered perfect immunity. If people were making that argument they were disagreeing with the information released by the CDC and FDA.

    That “mostly” and “perfect immunity” verbiage is doing a lot of heavy lifting. He was wrong when he made those statements based on the science and data we had at the time.

    @61 That was clear from the original comment. It seemed rude to point it out though.

    frosty (f27e97)

  65. Sammy Finkelman (c49738) — 12/20/2021 @ 6:52 pm

    I’ve seen it cut into something like “It will be over my dead body that I’ll get a shot”. But debating over changing quotes is now normal and pointing it out is just annoying.

    frosty (f27e97)

  66. I can’t get past the paywall there with the usual tricks. Is there a quote in there that Palin is advocating for a death cult? I know there’s one going around where she makes an anti-mandate statement that’s been turned into an anti-vax statement with some selective quoting. Is it one of those sorts of things?

    Here is a video of her speaking. The phrase “death cult” comes from the writer, who points out that she and Tucker are advocating policies that will lead to more deaths, particularly of their own supporters. Ergo a death cult.

    Rip Murdock (d73ab8)

  67. Frosty, Biden should have stuck with the statement he made later at the same event. It’s more accurate.

    If you’re vaccinated, even if you do ‘catch the virus,’ quote, unquote, like people talk about it in normal terms, you’re — not many people do. If you do, you’re not likely to get sick. You’re probably going to be symptomless. You’re not going to be in a position where your life is in danger.”

    I’ll leave it to you to decide if his remarks in context sum up to. Seems like a bit of a muddled message to me. But Biden never was a very good speaker.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  68. Oops, meant “what his remarks sum up to”

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  69. Rip Murdock (d73ab8) — 12/20/2021 @ 7:27 pm

    If the writer is using that misquote as foundation for the death cult they’re being dishonest. If they’re using the original quote they’re also being hyperbolic.

    I don’t see the association between being anti-mandate and death cult. That’s just a poor rhetorical device used for some clickbait.

    frosty (f27e97)

  70. frosty (f27e97) — 12/20/2021 @ 7:12 pm

    He was wrong when he made those statements based on the science and data we had at the time.

    Biden was wrong when he said

    “You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations,” and “If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, you’re not going to be in the ICU unit, and you’re not going to die.”

    but he wasn’t terribly wrong, and he apparently said something more precise later, although it sounds like he didn’t believe it, or at least thought that positive test result doesn’t mean you can be said to get Covid (have a disease.)

    Joe Biden pointedly said: “catch the virus, quote unquote”

    If you’re vaccinated, even if you do ‘catch the virus,’ quote, unquote, like people talk about it in normal terms, you’re — not many people do. If you do, you’re not likely to get sick. You’re probably going to be symptomless. You’re not going to be in a position where your life is in danger.”

    Of course, you/re also nit likely to die if you do nothing, or even to go into the ICU or be hospitalized, and there are ways to evaluate, and also to affect, your chances.

    The trouble is, Biden may actually believe he was accurate the first time, at least with his definition of “getting Covid” (which he may have picked up from one of his medical advisers)

    and who knows what he’s going to say today?

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  71. Time123 (9f42ee) — 12/20/2021 @ 7:27 pm

    Time123, Biden, the administration, and the media message at that point was best typified by the first quote.

    Yes, if you listened closely, reviewed the data, and looked at written information from the CDC and other places you’d have a more accurate picture. But “you won’t get sick and covid will die out if you get the vaccine” was the message. That’s why there was so much push back against the delta numbers and break through infections. We’re playing a similar game now with omicron.

    But we’ve always been at war with east asia.

    frosty (324edf)

  72. Quote formatting bad.

    Here is part of it corrected:

    Joe Biden said the second time:

    If you’re vaccinated, even if you do ‘catch the virus,’ quote, unquote, like people talk about it in normal terms, you’re — not many people do. If you do, you’re not likely to get sick. You’re probably going to be symptomless. You’re not going to be in a position where your life is in danger.”

    Of course, you’re also not likely to die if you do nothing, or even to go into the ICU or be hospitalized, and there are ways to evaluate, and also to affect, your chances.

    Biden may be distinguishing between testing positive and “getting Covid” (which he may have picked up from one of his medical advisers)

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  73. Sammy, Great addition. In the context of this thread Frosty is saying Biden’s statement is evidence the vaccine was asserted to keep you from getting covid and reduce transmission. In this context Biden’s statement from this summer doesn’t really support frosty’s point, unless you cheery pick one quote and ignore the rest of his remarks. Which is exactly what Frosty is doing here.

    I maintain my assertion that known limitations of the vaccine were publicly shared at the time and discussed freely. Further, while changes in circumstances have shown the vaccine to be less effective at reducing transmission then was hoped based on the clinical trials, it’s still extremely effective at reducing severe outcomes.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  74. The companies developed more particularly targeted vaccines (and they can modify it in a week but soo far the public health authorities say the one targeted against the original variant (and I’m not sure what that is – I’m not sure if it is Wuhan or pre-Wuhan) is still good enough so they’ll stick with it.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  75. Time123:

    The original belief was that the vaccines would likely reduce transmission. That’s the major basis for mandates, particularly the OSHA regulations. If all the vax does is allow the employee to protect himself, that’s good, but I think it reduces the argument for mandates and much of the way the Democrats prefer to manage the situation. I know this has been studied, but the result keep getting buried in the hysteria from the left (We’re all gonna die!) and the hostility from the right (f— you, I can die if I want to!)

    A lot of messaging has been muddled by Biden, who has the Democrat’s mindset that the government is in the business of making you do the things that are good for you and why can’t you accept that. The Colorado governor’s messaging (we’ve done what we can to get you vaxed; if you get really sick –that’s on you) is better.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  76. TThe vaccins, I think, are based on this genome:

    https://www.science.org/content/article/chinese-researchers-reveal-draft-genome-virus-implicated-wuhan-pneumonia-outbreak (dated January 11, 2020)

    The question I have is that the genome of the Wuhan variant, or from the first lab leak, which spread throughout China?

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  77. China has not allowed people from outside to look at genome sequences from early cases and even got the U.S> government to delete some (on grounds of error or something like that)

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01731-3

    Partial SARS-CoV-2 sequences from early outbreaks in Wuhan were removed from a US government database by the scientists who deposited them.

    ….Efforts to study the early stages of the coronavirus pandemic have received help from a surprising source. A biologist in the United States has ‘excavated’ partial SARS-CoV-2 genome sequences from the beginnings of the pandemic’s probable epicentre in Wuhan, China, that were deposited — but later removed — from a US government database.

    The partial genome sequences address an evolutionary conundrum about the early genetic diversity of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, although scientists emphasize that they do not shed light on its origins. Nor is it fully clear why researchers at Wuhan University asked for the sequences to be removed from the Sequence Read Archive (SRA), a repository for raw sequencing data maintained by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), part of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH).

    What I’m interested here right now is if the D614G mutation is not a later mutation, but was the Wuhan variant and is incorrectly dated to late January, 2020. And if the vaccines are based on the less serious all-China variant known as the S strain.

    The Wuhan variant was known as the L strain and was said to be first, but that’s impossible. The variant that spread throughout China had to be the first one.

    (They are hiding the fact that there were (at least) two separate lab leaks of not quite identical versions of the virus and the second one came from the Wuhan enter for Disease Control and Prevention when it moved near the seafood market December 2, 2019 and the fact that they at first tried to keep the existence of the novel SARS-like virus secret. I mean from late August or early September through December 31.)

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  78. 75. Appalled (1a17de) — 12/21/2021 @ 6:17 am

    The original belief was that the vaccines would likely reduce transmission.

    Reduce has two meanings. Reduce the total or reduce it in particular cases. The basis was that mandates would reduce transmission so that it faded away.

    They had no basis for establishing what level of vaccination, if any, would eliminate </i? the virus but that's what they wanted to do. It was a gigantic experiment.

    If all the vax does is allow the employee to protect himself, that’s good,

    If it does that, it has to reduce transmission, too.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  79. Hi Sammy
    #55
    Disclaimer; If any of the below sounds mocking, I’m not mocking you or anyone else individually, the broader media yes, you guys no.

    DeSantis is double vaxxed no booster. I’m double with booster and I was referring to therapeutic drugs which are in “short supply” but seem to be available.

    The contrast between the vax stubborn wing of the GOP and the super vax left is less and less relevant to me as time goes on and it was always a political tool.
    In August it was non stop “Record high COVID” news about red FLA swampbillies poaching gators in MAGA hats while unvaxxed and now that NY is hitting record highs… well, its not news.
    Which is weird because its not much of a news, never really was, because humans and viruses do this. They interact cyclically, the humans develop immunity or die (or invent drugs and vacccines), the virus mutates, usually the variants that survive and flourish get weaker. Periodically over time, a stronger variant will “breakthrough” and kill some people, breakthrough now being a word that has come to mean “the vaccine doesn’t completely effing work”.

    steveg (e81d76)

  80. I think you’ve misread Kevin’s comment.

    He has.

    An immunization will decrease the severity of a later infection, without itself causing an infection. Then, if you do get infected, you get all the benefit of the actual virus anti-bodies without the risk of serious illness.

    If you do it in the other order, it may not matter much if you get the shot later.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  81. Of course, you’re also not likely to die if you do nothing, or even to go into the ICU or be hospitalized, and there are ways to evaluate, and also to affect, your chances.

    Most people who go into an ICU, particularly those put on respirators, do not survive. Last I looked was that 4 out of 5 respirator patients died. Maybe it’s a bit better now, but it isn’t a good thing to be there. Pretty much a Hail Mary.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  82. I’m told no one said things like this since people with the vaccine get COVID, can be hospitalized, and have died.

    Do you wear seatbelts? Why? People have died wearing seatbelts.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  83. Ooops. Sorry, frosty, I should have read on. Yes, Biden isn’t the sharpest president we’ve had. OF course anyone who gets their medical advice from a politician deserves what they get.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  84. I see my last post was late to the party.
    Normal.

    Good morning appalled,
    I’m resonding to this snippet.
    “The original belief was that the vaccines would likely reduce transmission.” Which they did. But as variants occur that are less virulent, is the lack of natural immunity its own danger for the future?
    For that reason, I’m happy that Omicron “breaks through” the vaccine. It gives most people a chance at the best of all worlds. Vaccinated with natural immunity. But it also protects everyone from the unvaccinated because they’ll get COVID in its least virulent form to date, they’ll get natural immunity they same way we survived past viruses thousand years past. That way when highly virulent variant XYZ mutates and burns through some bodies, if we are unfortunate enough to live close to that cluster, we may survive.

    The coronavirus vaccines have been over compared to vaccines like the one for polio. It started out as a way to illustrate that we have to vaccinate ourselves from certain viruses, to attend school or when we join the military, which were very good points. But polio virus can 99.999% be eradicated using a vaccine, but coronaviruses will probably not be, particularly if we keep doing “gain of function” research on coronaviruses. Simple lab accidents are dangerous enough, Marburg virus 88% fatal to humans is a good example of good research backfiring as the green monkeys being used to develop polio vaccine passed Marburg, Ebola’s evil cousin, on to lab workers.

    Somewhere, someone is probably doing “loss of function” on a hemorrhagic fever, trying to hit that sweet spot of certain death with a long, highly transmissible buildup

    steveg (e81d76)

  85. I’m looking forward to little rocket man’s “Pyongyang virus”

    steveg (e81d76)

  86. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/21/2021 @ 8:51 am

    The clarification you add here isn’t related to the mistake I pointed out.

    The problem with your original comment was that not getting the vaccine creates a high risk of serious illness or death. It does not. The chances of a given individual getting seriously ill or dying from covid is very low.

    It doesn’t have anything to do with the order. It has to do with your conflating a relative difference with an absolute. And it’s not a simple typo because you frequently make this assertion, ie that not getting vaccinated creates a high risk of death.

    frosty (f27e97)

  87. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/21/2021 @ 8:58 am

    You’re making the same conflation here. I read Sammy’s comment as you’re not likely to die or to go into the hospital or into ICU or be put on a respirator if you aren’t vaccinated. While it’s true that if you are put on a respirator your chances of living is low you can’t back that into the idea that not getting the vaccine means you’re going on a respirator and have a 4 out of 5 chance of dying.

    frosty (f27e97)

  88. frosty (f27e97) — 12/21/2021 @ 10:48 am

    The problem with your original comment was that not getting the vaccine creates a high risk of serious illness or death. It does not.

    But Biden didn’t say that it did. He merely implied it, and so has most of the vaccination campaign.

    The chances of a given individual getting seriously ill or dying from covid is very low.

    depends on age and on what you mean by low. The virus killed approximately 1% of the U.SW. population. That’s low (and acceptable) in combat.

    … conflating a relative difference with an absolute. And it’s not a simple typo because you frequently make this assertion, ie that not getting vaccinated creates a high risk of death.

    They’re all doing it.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  89. Wait. it’s 1% of all those over age 65.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/15/us/covid-deaths-united-states.html

    …More than 1,200 people in the United States are dying from Covid-19 each day…Some 75 percent of the 800,000 Covid-19 deaths have involved people 65 or older. One in 100 older Americans has died. Countless others have found themselves isolated.

    A little more than 1/5 of 1% overall.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  90. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/21/2021 @ 9:06 am

    This isn’t an out. My original point was that the false and misleading messaging creates more problems than it solves. This messaging has started at the top and it’s pervasive.

    frosty (df5248)

  91. A point you’ve continually failed to substantiate. Your most recent attempt being a quote from July that was contradicted by other statements in the same speech.

    If you were confused about what the vaccine would do that’s on you. The data was published discussed.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  92. My original point was that the false and misleading messaging creates more problems than it solves.

    Cue President Plagiarist- speaking to the nation.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  93. Time123 (9f42ee) — 12/21/2021 @ 11:44 am

    I understand your need to retcon the recent past. I also understand you’ve got a personal axe to grind. Good luck with both of those.

    frosty (f27e97)

  94. I’m watching a dementia patient lecture us on a virus and as an American am very proud of all the Doctors, nurses, speechwriters, teleprompter technicians whose backs we have and those who are still yet to give us their backs for all the work they put in to get Joe ready today so he can lecture us on one of the weakest variants of one of the worlds least deadly pandemics ever.

    steveg (e81d76)

  95. That was some type of leadership there.

    steveg (e81d76)

  96. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/history-of-pandemics-deadliest/

    Scroll down to death toll by percent of population
    Black death checks in at killing 51% of the worlds population
    Covid sits at 0.06%

    steveg (e81d76)

  97. Frosty, So that would be nothing to substantiate your assertion. I didn’t think so.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  98. Steve, that’s a really cool visualization!

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  99. Time123 (9f42ee) — 12/21/2021 @ 12:38 pm

    It’s a little sad to see you devolve to simple trolling. You aren’t very good at it.

    frosty (f27e97)

  100. Pointing out you’re not substantiating your claims isn’t trolling. But for the length of time you’ve been saying this I’m surprised you don’t have even weak evidence to point to.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  101. That site is fun and enlightening
    A recent favorite infographic is this one.
    https://www.visualcapitalist.com/50-cognitive-biases-in-the-modern-world/
    I was stunned to find out that none of the 50 apply to me!
    OK. Several. OK, more than several but less than half.
    I looked at this one again after Elon Musk said this should be taught in elementary school

    steveg (e81d76)

  102. This is one that could be used give a new excuse for non masking…. saving sea life
    https://www.visualcapitalist.com/1-6-billion-disposable-masks-entered-our-oceans-in-2020/

    steveg (e81d76)

  103. Time123 (9f42ee) — 12/21/2021 @ 1:00 pm

    Here’s an open thread in the vicinity of Biden’s comment.

    The post begins with an article saying basically what I’m saying.

    But the eight item is the WH being upset at messaging. It makes the claim

    Vaccinated Americans still have a far lower chance of becoming infected with the coronavirus and, thus, they are responsible for far less spread of the disease.

    which we knew wasn’t backed by data then and we know isn’t true now unless we play word games with “far lower”. The correct version is that vaccinated people have a lower chance of becoming ill. It continues:

    The biggest problem we have is unvaccinated people getting and spreading the virus.

    Which is just scapegoating before we get to what the WH thinks is the real problem:

    As the Biden officials explained to me, the administration is worried that the media’s focus on these instances of breakthrough infections might lead to people being more hesitant to get a vaccine

    This is the WH worried that facts are a problem for the vaccine as the only solution policy.

    Here’s you agreeing with my take then which is also my take now:

    all of the mixed messages and political games have absolutely eroded trust.

    This is pretty easy to agree with.

    Time123 (9f42ee) — 7/31/2021 @ 7:20 am

    My position isn’t any different. Why was this easy to agree with then but now you’re going to extra effort to pick a fight?

    frosty (f27e97)

  104. @103,
    First you’re wrong on the facts.

    But the eight item is the WH being upset at messaging. It makes the claim

    Vaccinated Americans still have a far lower chance of becoming infected with the coronavirus and, thus, they are responsible for far less spread of the disease.

    which we knew wasn’t backed by data then and we know isn’t true now unless we play word games with “far lower”

    The bolded section is wrong.

    Today we know that an unvaccinated case rates are 5X higher than vaccinated case rates. See the link. Do you really feel that being 5 times lower isn’t “far lower”? And that’s based on today’s data. I assume in July they were working with older studies that showed a higher rate of protection.

    Second, your interpretation of the comment is just weird. The white house is saying that, explicitly, that too much focus on specific breakthrough cases might overshadow the data on how effective the vaccine actually is. Sort of like how people think air travel is more dangerous then it really is because the news stories about typically about the infrequent crashes.

    I still think that people playing political games (such as highlighting breakthrough cases out of context, minimizing the data on effectiveness, and pretending that challenging questions don’t have good, data driven answers) is a problem.

    Finally, the post you claim shows the vaccine’s effectiveness was overstated starts by asserting the vaccine provides limited protection. With as near as I can tell, no one claiming such an assertions was sending an anti-vax message.

    Yes, if you’ve been vaccinated, you can still die from COVID-19, but the odds are infinitesimally small

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  105. Time123 (9f42ee) — 12/22/2021 @ 8:05 am

    Today we know that an unvaccinated case rates are 5X higher than vaccinated case rates.

    This isn’t the same thing. Case rates are not infection rates. This is a very easy thing to confuse. You’re basically making the case that unvaccinated people have a higher chance of getting sick. I agree with that and it’s not what I suggested.

    Sort of like how people think air travel is more dangerous then it really is because the news stories about typically about the infrequent crashes.

    That may be their concern. Again, I’m not saying the vaccine doesn’t reduce the chance of getting sick. You are arguing against something I’m not saying.

    Let’s try this again with a review. There are several claims made of the vaccine; 1) it reduces your chance of getting ill (this can be measured by case rates), 2) it reduces the rate of transmission, aka infected (not a direct function of case rates), and 3) it reduces the mutation pool (not a direct function of case rates).

    When someone says “far lower chance of becoming infected” what exactly are they saying. If taken literally they are talking about (2). But in order to track (2) we’d need a more a comprehensive testing regime. One that tracked across a larger population and included enough people that were not sick to be significant. As far as I know we don’t do that. We test people who are sick and then make estimates of the population stats from that. Now, your first reaction might be that we can back out the infection rates from the case rates after vaccinating people. The problem is the vaccine alters the case rates and we’re dealing with a more complex problem than just relying on estimates could cover. Your second reaction might be that this isn’t a significant number and we’ve got no evidence that the vaccine is allowing transmission and mutation. But we do have evidence for that. We’ve seen continued transmission in populations with significant vaccine uptake. It’s reasonable to presume the virus is infecting a much larger group of people but that they are just not becoming sick thanks to the vaccine. This pool of people is also a potential source of mutation. But my underlying point is that we don’t actually have concrete evidence for (2) and (3). There seems to be a belief that if you get infected with the virus you get sick (not true) and that only sick people can transmit the virus (not true) so that you only have to measure the sick people. This belief seems to be driving the logic that less sick people means less transmission and less rate of mutation. I’m willing to agree that the vaccine should reduce transmission and the mutation pool. The problem is we really don’t know how much less and we’ve got policy makers making significant decisions without anything better than “less”.

    Now, if your argument is “far lower chance of becoming infected” actually means “far lower chance of becoming ill” and that we should have automatically changed the words as we heard them then, or we should change them now based on new data, then good luck with that. Biden and others are clearly using vague language for exactly that reason. So, that they can imply multiple things that may or may not be supportable. Doing that is causing harm.

    I don’t say this to say the vaccine is useless. I’ve never said that. I really don’t know why this is so triggering for you and some of the other commenters here. I don’t even understand the airplane analogy. Why would weakening the argument for (2) and (3) discourage people from getting the vaccine? It might weaken the argument for mandates, which I think is the triggering element, but (1) is argument enough to get the vaccine. Why isn’t it enough to say “get the vaccine because it will reduce the severity of a covid infection”?

    Finally, the post you claim shows the vaccine’s effectiveness was overstated starts by asserting the vaccine provides limited protection. With as near as I can tell, no one claiming such an assertions was sending an anti-vax message.

    I’m not sure I’m parsing this but this seems to be a return to “no one is having an issue with questioning the vaccine” after

    I still think that people playing political games (such as highlighting breakthrough cases out of context, minimizing the data on effectiveness, and pretending that challenging questions don’t have good, data driven answers) is a problem.

    I’m still not tracking your end-game here. We all have lived through this. We’ve all seen “you must get vaccinated and anything that might discourage that must be criticized”. Are you saying that we haven’t had months of anything remotely not pro-vax getting flagged and/or removed from youtube and social media? There was a time when you couldn’t talk about breakthrough cases without getting flagged and removed. You’re saying that wasn’t a thing? You’re saying that politician’s not being sufficiently pro-vax wasn’t/isn’t transcoded by the decoders as coded anti-vax messaging?

    frosty (f27e97)

  106. frosty (f27e97) — 12/22/2021 @ 9:56 am

    . There seems to be a belief that if you get infected with the virus you get sick (not true)

    There seems to be a tendency in the medi to treat all infections as alike, and maybe to think that differences in the outcome between different people depend on a person’s immune system, when the initial viral dose is probably extremely important. But it is truly unknown, and at best can only be estimated, so that factor is ignored.

    and that only sick people can transmit the virus (not true)

    It’s obviously not true, because when the virus hits a new population, it seems to circulate underground for a while. Now what that means is that people who are not sick can transmit the disease but can’t easily make people sick, and the virus is beaten back before it multiplies too much in the body, but as it goes through a few iterations of that, or people tend to get multiple exposures, the AVERAGE initial and early viral doses gets bigger and bigger, and people do get sick, and eventually, many people get very sick because there is a lot of virus circulating and accumulating in the air people are breathing.

    A new variant of Covid doesn’t even get discovered till it’s been around a while because small doses of virus almost never make anybody sick, and even from a sick person, more people get a small exposure than a big one.

    so that you only have to measure the sick people. This belief seems to be driving the logic that less sick people means less transmission and less rate of mutation. I’m willing to agree that the vaccine should reduce transmission and the mutation pool.

    Many mutations do not matter. A few do. And Omicron almost certainly came from someone who had a weak immune system (and was probably HIV positive) and the virus was active in this person’s body for months. They didn’t detect any intermediate stages so it all happened in one person. (of course they need to speculate that maybe it was gradually mutating in some unknown population where nobody;s virus was being sequenced, or that it somehow infected some animals, butt that;s grasping for straws)

    A new variant can arise anywhere in the world.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  107. I’m willing to agree that the vaccine should reduce transmission and the mutation pool. The problem is we really don’t know how much less and we’ve got policy makers making significant decisions without anything better than “less”.

    To a lot of these people, how much less doesn’t matter.

    But anyway, what matters is not just transmission, but transmission of severe illness, and to give someone severe illness, an unvaccinated person older than 12 must be exposed to a big viral dose which can only come from a sick person, or multiple less sick people. And even then the immune system must probably have a problem,

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  108. https://www.newser.com/story/314822/south-africa-shares-cautiously-optimistic-omicron-news.html

    The study, which appeared Tuesday in the preprint medical publication MedRxiv, found that South Africans who came down with the omicron variant were 80% less likely to be hospitalized compared to those infected with other strains. (This echoes earlier reports.) But Bloomberg reports on that asterisk: The study compared current numbers with delta infections between April and November, and it’s not clear if the reduction in hospitalizations is because the variant behaves differently or because more of the population is vaccinated now as compared to during that time frame. Indeed, the study itself—which hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed—notes “some of this reduction [in risk of hospitalization] is likely a result of high population immunity.”

    But the rate didn’t drop gradually, but suddenly,with the emergence of Omicron.

    This is what Heather MacDonald (also the author of “The War Against Cops”) described in the New York Post today as manufactured epistemological uncertainty.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  109. Frosty, It looks like the link didn’t work correctly. Cases = infection, not hospitalization. Hospitalizations and deaths are tracked separately. Can I assume now that this is cleared up you understand why I’m saying your assertions are wrong?

    https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  110. Time123 (9f42ee) — 12/22/2021 @ 2:36 pm

    Cases are not equal to infections. If this is what your arguing a) you are wrong and b) it’s not what I’m arguing. Cases are a subset of infections, ie are less than or equal to infections. In practice it should be safe to say infections are always greater than cases.

    I think what you’ve shown is that you do not understand the assertion I made. If you are interested I can explain this but if you step back, put aside your emotions, and think about it this should make sense. Everyone that gets infected with covid doesn’t become a case that is tracked.

    You shouldn’t try so hard to score points. You’re flailing on a topic I don’t disagree with you on. This is the usual spot where you blame me for that. You can choose another option though. You can either find out for yourself why cases are equal to infections or we can discuss it more. Or you can decide the troll isn’t worth the effort and you can’t learn anything you don’t already know.

    frosty (f27e97)

  111. I, for one, am hoping that Time actually gets up to speed on this topic.

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  112. steveg (e81d76) — 12/21/2021 @ 8:39 am

    DeSantis is double vaxxed no booster.

    No, he’s probably “fully vaccinated” but he got only one shot – the J&J. You can determine this by listening between the lines of what he says.

    I’m double with booster and I was referring to therapeutic drugs which are in “short supply” but seem to be available.

    At the time you wrote there was only the two monoclonal antibodies, which – we ave to be careful here – (mostly or entirely) didn’t work against Omicron and the GSK, which did, but was extremely scarce. An infusion treatment costs a little over $2,000 and the hospitals and doctors administering it may not be getting enough enough, when all costs are factored in, so they weren’t using it as much as they should have.

    The two pill treatments, for the record, Pfizer and Merck (Merck partnered with the true discoverer) had not yet been approved by the FDA at the time you wrote #30, which I referred to in #55,

    The Pfizer pill treatment (like Tamiflu, not like aspirin) was authorized yesterday and Merck should be very soon. Merck is nowhere near as good as Pfizer, but Pfizer has side effects or counter-indications. Merck manufactured more of it in advance so it gets ahead start but is expected to fade. Merck also has counterindication and scare tactics used against it.

    The Pfizer regimen consists of 30 pills, which you take three at a time twice a day over five days. Two of the three pills are the new drug and the third is the anti-HIV medication ristonavir which I think is mainly supposed to delay the removal of the Pfizer pill from the bloodstream or that’s maybe the on;y value they found, besides complicating the manufacture, and it was intended as insurance to get it approved.

    The ristonavir is known to have some counter-indications, like one type of statin, because it makes the body retain it longer than usual, so it should be stopped for those five days, or a reduced or less frequent dosage of the statin or whatever taken. They really need to take into account diet and liver enzymes. There’s experience with ristonavir so doctors should inform themselves of it.

    We don’t know how well each element of this drug cocktail would have worked by itself, or even which is more important, because Pfizer didn’t test that, but the combination, dubbed Paxlovid by Pfizer, reduces by 88% the proportion of people who got admitted to a hospital or died outside of a hospital from any cause (Covid causes clots) who had had symptomatic COVID-19 who started the pills within five days of symptoms (which means the average wait time was less) who did not receive any monoclonal antibody treatment.

    Half the people got these pills; half got placebos, and none got the proven antibody treatment (in the spirit of the Tuskegee syphilis study, per FDA clinical trial standards, because the results might not have been statistically significant, or as remarkable, had they allowed the people enrolled in the clinical trial to get the antibody treatment/Of course a lot of people weren’t going to get the antibody treatment anyway because of were they went for treatment)

    Since the criterion was getting symptoms they probably took vaccinated and unvaccinated alike into their trial.

    In other words we have no idea what the best dosage is in each category, for vaccinated or unvaccinated people, or the degree of progression of the disease. In clinical trials, everybody gets the same dose and general treatment, no matter what common sense may tell you in an individual case, except that half. whose identities are unknown both to the doctors and the patients, get a placebo.

    The course of treatment sells for $530. Pfizer only made a little of this on spec. By next Tuesday or Wednesday Pfizer should have enough packages for 65,000 people, which is actually less than one days supply if it were given to half the people who test positive for the virus.

    But it is not supposed to be given to everyone who tests positive, but only within five days of symptoms if you get a prescription and it is recommended for people in more danger which means older people or people with preexisting conditions that would make them less likely to beat back an infection at home.

    Now some people won’t take a test until after they develop symptoms and there’s now a shortage of tests, and you have public health authorities encouraging all sorts of people to get tested, which will use up the tests, not to mention infecting themselves if they stand in line to get tested.

    Pfizer expects to deliver 200,000 pill kits in January and 120 million over the course of the entire year 2022, much of which will be sold to other countries. It was already approved in the EU. (Pfizer has also arranged for licensing for manufacturing and sale at a lower price to some poorer countries.) They expect it could reach 155 million people in wealthier countries and 95 million people in poorer countries by the end f 2022 so they told stock analysts, so they could make a windfall: $24 billion in 2022 and $33 billion in 2023.

    Well, if Covid lasts that long and nothing better comes along, like use of antibodies targeted to Omicron for prophylaxis..

    Merck, on the other hand. while their pill treatment, which it dubbed mulnupiravir (no brand name yet maybe) has only a 30% or 50% effectiveness rate according to some protocols, manufactured and prepared to manufacture a lot in advance. It expects to deliver enough pills for 3.1 million people by the end of January and 378,000 treatment courses within two weeks after they get the go ahead, in contrast to Pfizer’s Paxlovid which will have only 200,000 or 65,000 in the same or similar time frame.

    Merck’s poll is expected to possibly cause birth defects in pregnant women and could increase the rate of the mutation of the virus because it works by causing errors in virus replication (most mutations make the virus less deadly and even ineffective)

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  113. steveg:

    the humans develop immunity or die (or invent drugs and vacccines), the virus mutates, usually the variants that survive and flourish get weaker. Periodically over time, a stronger variant will “breakthrough” and kill some people, breakthrough now being a word that has come to mean “the vaccine doesn’t completely effing work”.

    Omicron is:

    1. more transmissible, because it survives longer in the air within droplets or aerosols because its stronger electrical charge keeps it away from the surface of the saliva bubble where it is more likely to be destroyed than delta and even more so than earlier versions.

    And this means it travels better through whatever channels Covid travels through.

    2. Slightly more infectious within the body

    3) But causes something more like bronchitis rather than pneumonia, and this type of infection gives the body more time to rev up its immune system and is less serious.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  114. Sammy Finkelman (c49738) — 12/23/2021 @ 11:12 am

    The current data also shows that omicron replicates at a much higher rate in the upper respiratory tract and therefore an infected person is emitting a higher viral load.

    It also shows that it replicates at a lower rate in the lower respiratory tract and therefore has a reduced impact on the infected person.

    So, a little bit of yes/no for #2. It depends on what “in the body” means. But it explains #3.

    frosty (f27e97)

  115. Frosty, you said this

    Let’s try this again with a review. There are several claims made of the vaccine; 1) it reduces your chance of getting ill (this can be measured by case rates), 2) it reduces the rate of transmission, aka infected (not a direct function of case rates), and 3) it reduces the mutation pool (not a direct function of case rates).

    In the data I linked cases are people who have been confirmed to have covid. Not just those who presented symptoms, serious or otherwise. You’re correct that there will some number people who are infected but not not confirmed as having covid. This number is usually estimated from the number of positive cases, as well as other factors. That said, case rate is the best measure we have for the spread of the virus.

    Your original point (in comment 90) was My original point was that the false and misleading messaging creates more problems than it solves. This messaging has started at the top and it’s pervasive.

    To which i responded that you’ve been claiming that happened, but not substantiating it.

    Then you provided what you felt was evidence to support your claim (comment 103) and I pointed out that the statements you were pointing to as false and misleading were in fact accurate; Vaccinated people are far less likely then unvaccinated to contract and test positive for Covid. Here’s a link to the data https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status

    How am I not understanding or addressing your point?

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  116. Time123 (9f42ee) — 12/23/2021 @ 11:30 am

    That said, case rate is the best measure we have for the spread of the virus.

    It is not a good measure of the spread. It is a good measure of the impact. This is an important difference.

    To which i responded that you’ve been claiming that happened, but not substantiating it.

    A bit of that is because you argued a different point that diverted the discussion. You’re still thinking this is an argument about whether getting the vaccine is better than not getting the vaccine.

    A bit of that is because I lost track of whether we’re arguing about the Biden comments or Kevin M’s idea that everyone not getting the vaccine is at a high risk of death.

    The reason that the false messaging does more harm than good is because it focuses on and re-enforces the vaccine only plan. The vaccine will not reduce transmission enough to stop covid and the single solution plan doesn’t acknowledge that. This should have been clear to everyone when herd immunity was silently dropped from the conversation.

    In order to protect the vaccine only plan there has been a comprehensive campaign against anything in addition to the vaccine and it shuts down any discussion of an everything on the table approach out of fear that it will reduce vaccine uptake. But this very campaign is one of the things causing skepticism of the vaccine and reducing uptake. Additionally, multiple cycles of questionable messaging that is simply denied as new messaging is required further erodes trust and confidence.

    Biden recently told us that omicron will cause of winter of death for the unvaccinated. So far there’s every indication of the opposite. Do you think that’s productive? I think most people know we’re being fed bs.

    You’re thinking all of the mixed messaging and in some cases known falsehoods is actually helping? Or you think it’s not happening?

    frosty (f27e97)

  117. Frosty, What about the messaging around the vaccine do you feel has been false?

    -We know it reduces the spread as measured by case counts. You do understand that a case = a positive test for covid? It’s not just people who have become ill? If you want to get deep into it there are estimates on the vaccine’s impact to transmissibility but those projections start with measured case counts.
    -We know it has an even bigger impact on outcomes related to death and hospitalization.

    What we know has changed over time, both as we’ve gotten more data and as new variants have developed. Most people seem to understand that we’re dealing with a natural phenomenon, like a tropical storm, and while we need to make decisions based on what we think is going to happen the storm can become better or worse and we’ll have to adjust. For instance with Delta we learned that a some of what we hoped to get from the vaccine wasn’t going to come true. That doesn’t mean pre-delta statements were lies. It means the situation changed. Pre-Delta the data said Pfizer would reduce your chances of contracting Covid by 95%. Now it’s down to 80% and you need a booster. But that’s wasn’t known in January of last year.

    So again, what statements about the vaccine do you feel were “grossly false and misleading”? Because I think when you lay them out you’re going to find there was a lot less there then you think.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  118. Time123 (9f42ee) — 12/23/2021 @ 12:20 pm

    What about the messaging around the vaccine do you feel has been false?

    I’m not sure how you’re missing this. The initial messaging on the vaccine was the it would prevent infection enough to reduce the spread and contain mutations. This was a hope at best when it was first said and this is still an idea that we can’t shake. We now know it was false, we’ve had reason to know it was false for some time, and the best I keep seeing is this “we’ve got new data” argument while we still push the mandates. The follow on is/was that discussions in contradiction to that idea are/were counterproductive and must be suppressed.

    You do understand that a case = a positive test for covid?

    Obviously, I explained that above after you wrongly asserted that infections and cases are equal. Do you understand that we don’t have reliable data on the gap between infections and cases? Do you understand why it’s important to not use those interchangeably? If you do why are you?

    That doesn’t mean pre-delta statements were lies.

    This depends a lot on which pre-delta statements and the definition of lies. Am I to take from this that, yes, you do think the messaging has been productive? And that yes the vaccine only plan was, and is, the most optimal?

    Where did I say “grossly false and misleading”?

    Because I think when you lay them out you’re going to find there was a lot less there then you think.

    This comes down to a subjective judgment. If you’re convinced, or have been convinced, that the vaccine is the only answer and you’re willing to set aside accuracy and truthful information in an ends justifies the means sort of situation then yes, there is a lot less there than I think.

    On the other hand, what happens when covid isn’t a political tool anymore and we find out some of the options we’ve been mocking would have cut 10% off the death toll? We’ll, the easy answer is we went with the best data we had. Except we haven’t. We just have a lot of people telling us we have.

    frosty (f27e97)

  119. I would block Time if this eviscerating wasn’t so much fun to watch.

    BuDuh (677bf4)

  120. BuDuh (677bf4) — 12/23/2021 @ 1:32 pm

    The block script always seemed like a waste of time. Won’t the comments show up in other comments and you’re only seeing one side of the conversation?

    Anyway, what happens if I say something stupid, Time123 catches it, and I don’t clean up my mess?

    frosty (f27e97)

  121. Sorry, should have just said “false and misleading.” You never said “grossly” my bad.

    Same question. Which statements do you feel were false and misleading?

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  122. If you block NK, your viewing pleasure increases dramatically. I think that is universal. Every now and then someone quotes him, but not that often. I blocked Paul as well. That relationship just wasn’t working out.

    Time has become a novelty and his insults are pretty much of the “jerk store” variety, which does make me snicker. I have no intention of blocking him. I read his every word and I read your every word during your debates. I think he is acting like he doesn’t understand. Every now and then I let my kids read one of these exchanges so they can get better at fleshing out the truth in conversation.

    It really is teachable stuff.

    BuDuh (1166f7)

  123. Also, you keep asserting that we’re not looking at other options. I’ve seen a lot lately about treatments and the covid pill Pfizer is developing. Those are both being heavily invested in.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  124. Also; Epidemiologists use statistical models to estimate the number of undetected cases. But, as I’ve said repeatedly, actual cases are the input to that.

    Time123 (97645e)

  125. The 81 million have reason to cheer:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1474049649220763652

    Finally a serious administration.

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  126. Time123 (9f42ee) — 12/23/2021 @ 2:04 pm.

    I’ve seen a lot lately about treatments and the covid pill Pfizer is developing. Those are both being heavily invested in.

    Much less and much later than they should have been. But frosty isn’t wrong about much of the messaging being only about accines.

    Tonight I heard on the CBS Evening News =a doctor correspondent says that the CDC says that booster shots start to have an effect as soon as 48 hours afterwards.

    Note that’s start , and nothing till 48 hours. And logically actually before 48 hours it might make things worse if someone got infected just when they went for a booster shot or just before. The turning point for unvaccinated people is probably even later than 48 hours. Nobody feeling sick should get a vaccine, just like they don’t do it for the flu..

    Time123 (97645e) — 12/23/2021 @ 2:22 pm

    Also; Epidemiologists use statistical models to estimate the number of undetected cases. But, as I’ve said repeatedly, actual cases are the input to that.

    No, it’s more than just looking at how fast cases are detected. You couldn’t use that as an input if you tried. I think it’s antibody tests – not the kind given in CVS, though.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  127. https://www.newser.com/story/314865/trump-stops-anti-vaccine-talk-during-interview.html

    Donald Trump is keeping up his public comments in support of COVID vaccines, despite pushback from his own supporters. The latest example came during a back-and-forth between the former president and conservative media personality Candace Owens on a Wednesday episode of Candace from the Daily Wire. When Owens questioned why more Americans have died of COVID-19 in 2021 than in 2020, despite the vaccines on offer, Trump shut her down.

    “Oh no, the vaccines work,” Trump told Owens, per the Hill. “The ones who get very sick and go to the hospital are the ones that don’t take the vaccine. But it’s still their choice. And if you take the vaccine, you’re protected,” Trump said. “Look, the results of the vaccine are very good, and if you do get it, it’s a very minor form. … People aren’t dying when they take the vaccine.” Owens has been vocal in her opposition to the shots: In August, she tweeted that a COVID-19 vaccine “will NEVER enter my arm.”

    But Trump said the COVID-19 vaccine was “one of the greatest achievements of mankind,” per Insider. “I came up with a vaccine, with three vaccines,” he told Owens. “All are very, very good. Came up with three of them in less than nine months. It was supposed to take five to 12 years.” Trump—who doubled down on his support for vaccines after he was booed by his own supporters for revealing that he’d received a third COVID-19 vaccine dose—did say that he’s against vaccine and mask mandates. “People have to have their freedom,” he said.

    Trump didn’t come up with it. Trump supported it and his people picked vaccines to back.

    Five to twelve years was perhaps the normal pace – or what it had gotten to. But he didn’t make that big a difference.

    vaccines also are still a cumbersome solution. You have to inject everyone to protect everyone.
    If you’ve got a therapeutic, you only have to give it to the people who are infected.

    And you give yourself more time to act because a therapeutic helps people who were infected in the past and a vaccine can only help those who will be infected in the future. Now, with a treatment, you won’t detect or get to every one of the persons affected and perhaps a vaccine is more thorough.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  128. Re: Trump vaccine comments: MAGAWorld(tm) not amused.

    Rip Murdock (a9a78d)

  129. Sorry, should have just said “false and misleading.” You never said “grossly” my bad.

    Same question. Which statements do you feel were false and misleading?

    Time123 (9f42ee) — 12/23/2021 @ 1:54 pm

    I’ve answered this several times and I think I’ve been more than generous given what I’m starting to suspect is intentional “misunderstanding” and “misquoting” to strawman my position.

    How about you answer some of mine. The vaccine only policy is a political solution. It’s not based on science or evidence. Do you disagree? What happens when we find out there were a number of cheap and easy things that would have generally improved people’s immune system and improved outcomes, eg Zinc, D, K, outside activity? I’m not even talking about the fancy stuff. We know that D deficiency lowers immune response. Why hasn’t anyone even suggested we do a study to check it? Why do a study? Why not just tell people to take a minimum amount per day?

    You’re thinking all of that is anti-vax propaganda? We could easily do those in addition to vaccines.

    Any thoughts? Or is that just crackpot crazy?

    frosty (1e6b9e)

  130. Frosty, You’ve been making statements pretty similar to your comment in 90 for while and in this thread I’ve been asking you to substantiate it. You haven’t, and have now restated your point as “We’re putting too much focus on the vaccine and not enough on other things.” Which is a much milder assertion.

    Can I assume from this that you no longer assert your statement in comment 90?

    On to your questions

    The vaccine only policy is a political solution. It’s not based on science or evidence. Do you disagree?

    Our public heath policy hasn’t been vaccine only. It’s also included masks and forms of social distancing. Based on the data I’m aware of Vaccines are the most effective countermeasure. If you have data that shows something else is more effective please share it.

    What happens when we find out there were a number of cheap and easy things that would have generally improved people’s immune system and improved outcomes, eg Zinc, D, K, outside activity? I’m not even talking about the fancy stuff. We know that D deficiency lowers immune response. Why hasn’t anyone even suggested we do a study to check it? Why do a study? Why not just tell people to take a minimum amount per day?

    If you’re proposing this as an alternative to vaccination it’s a dumb suggestion. If you’re proposing it in addition to vaccination it can’t hurt. We should also add in 40 minutes of exercise, reading a book for 30 minutes a day, and 2 servings of veggies. None of that would hurt. But none of that would be expected to have a large impact on case count or severe outcomes. Do you have evidence that it would?

    You’re thinking all of that is anti-vax propaganda?

    Not as presented.

    Any thoughts?

    Seems very different from what you’ve been saying.

    Or is that just crackpot crazy?

    Not as presented here.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  131. I’ve seen a lot lately about treatments and the covid pill Pfizer is developing. Those are both being heavily invested in.

    Much less and much later than they should have been. But frosty isn’t wrong about much of the messaging being only about accines.

    Sammy, Do you have the details on how much and when we’ve been investing?

    The messaging statement is interesting. Our discourse favors things we fight about, so contentious policies get more airtime. Also, messaging != investment. We talked very little about the vaccine I I 2020 but spent a lot of money on it.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  132. @130 I’ve been consistent in my comments. On the other hand you’ve consistently tried to straw-man them one way or the other.

    If you’re proposing this as an alternative to vaccination it’s a dumb suggestion.

    Here’s another example of the game your trying to play. I’ve been clear that this isn’t what I’m saying but it’s the argument you really want to have.

    If you have data that shows something else is more effective please share it.

    Here’s another one. How do you get this from my comments? I’ve never said there’s something “more effective” than vaccines.

    In fairness, I’m honestly not sure if you’re doing this on purpose or if really don’t understand. I’m starting to lean towards on purpose given the consistency.

    Do you have evidence that it would?

    Google rains it services down on the righteous and the wicked. If you’re going to troll don’t also expect other people to do your research for you.

    Seems very different from what you’ve been saying.

    It’s no different.

    frosty (1e6b9e)

  133. Frosty, you haven’t been consistent in your comments. You started at “They’re misleading us about about the effectiveness of vaccine .” and now you seems to have walked back to a weaker claim of “No one is allowed to talk about limitations of the vaccine or their speech is suppressed and we’re putting too much focus on the vaccine.”

    My response to that was; “If you want to focus our public health policy on something other than or in addition to the vaccine what is it and why do you feel that would be more effective than our current policy?” If you have evidence that Zinc supplements lower the risk of Covid I’d love to read it. When i searched google I didn’t find any. But maybe it’s out there.

    You keep accusing me of trolling but in this entire exchange all I’ve been doing is asking you to substantiate the factual basis for the things you claim and showing you where you claimed them when you denied that you did. I’m doing this because I don’t think there is a factual basis for what you’re claiming, but am not going to try and prove a negative. I think you’re exaggerating and misrepresenting what was said. I’ve tried to keep my comments focused on this part of it.

    Now, Since you’re right that I’ve been asking you questions you can’t answer and I’m sure that frustrating I’ll make a couple assertions;

    I think initial statements about the vaccine were mostly in line with known facts, and showed you that in the one example you specified from. This summer. I think public discussion of changes to vaccine effectiveness based on the data has happened. And I’m able to point specific examples.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  134. Time123 (9f42ee) — 12/24/2021 @ 6:43 am

    You started at “They’re misleading us about about the effectiveness of vaccine”

    Again, this isn’t accurate. Either you’re unwilling or unable to understand the distinction. I’m still thinking it’s intentional.

    Since you’re right that I’ve been asking you questions you can’t answer

    Where did I say I can’t answer your questions? I’ve said the opposite. It’s this sort of thing that marks you as a troll. You’re asking questions to divert or deflect to a different discussion and you claim I say things I’m not saying. I think you think this is clever but you aren’t subtle enough to be clever. I’ve answered your questions. The truth is part of your game is to just claim an answer you don’t like isn’t an answer.

    frosty (1e6b9e)

  135. Me @113.

    Omicron is:

    1. more transmissible, because it survives longer in the air within droplets or aerosols because its stronger electrical charge keeps it away from the surface of the saliva bubble where it is more likely to be destroyed than delta and even more so than earlier versions.

    And this means it travels better through whatever channels Covid travels through.

    2. Slightly more infectious within the body

    frosty @114:

    The current data also shows that omicron replicates at a much higher rate in the upper respiratory tract and therefore an infected person is emitting a higher viral load.

    I didn’t read anywhere that more is emitted but that could make sense and I don’t come across everything.

    I was a little bit to ready to pick up on something I read that said it was more electrically charged than delta and delta was more electrically charged than previous variants and said that could be the reason it was more transmissible. And I wanted it to be almoost the only difference in transmissibility. Not that that idea pf a difference depending on the electrical charge of the virus is wrong – it sounds very true – but surviving outside the body longer doesn’t have to be the only factor that makes it more transmissible.

    It could also replicate faster (which I considered) and replicate more in places where a lower viral load in the body could result in more virus being emitted than the same viral load of another variant. (which I didn’t consider the possibility of)

    I understand it’s got to get into the saliva, or maybe some other semi liquid, like mucus, in order to survive long outside the body. It is also said to replicate in the saliva – I don’t know in what cells that would be.

    frosty:

    It also shows that it replicates at a lower rate in the lower respiratory tract and therefore has a reduced impact on the infected person.

    then the other variants.

    One tenth the rate in the lungs, and 70 times the rate in the bronchi. (maybe that could be because a part of coronavirus cold virus 229E seems to have been acquired by Omicron.)

    As a result, it causes bronchitis long before it can cause more serious pneumonia. I wasn’t figuring on it being more transmissible because of where in the body it infects more.

    frosty:

    So, a little bit of yes/no for #2. It depends on what “in the body” means. But it explains #3.

    Which was:

    3) But causes something more like bronchitis rather than pneumonia, and this type of infection gives the body more time to rev up its immune system and is less serious.

    With regard to #2 I was thinking that less serious = less infectitious. Now it could also be less infectitious because it takes longer to get near cells to infect. It could infect them more readily once finds them, but have more trouble travelling. (the tests for infectitivioty are probably made in vitro.)

    Anyway what makes it into the major news media is half explanations

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  136. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01296-8

    …Using integrated cell normalization and annotation, we classified 34 unique cell subpopulations between glands and gingiva. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral entry factors such as ACE2 and TMPRSS members were broadly enriched in epithelial cells of the glands and oral mucosae. Using orthogonal RNA and protein expression assessments, we confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in the glands and mucosae. Saliva from SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals harbored epithelial cells exhibiting ACE2 and TMPRSS expression and sustained SARS-CoV-2 infection. Acellular and cellular salivary fractions from asymptomatic individuals were found to transmit SARS-CoV-2 ex vivo…

    ….Overall, the oral cavity represents a robust and underappreciated site for SARS-CoV-2 infection, and its direct role in viral transmission requires further exploration.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  137. Sammy Finkelman (c49738) — 12/24/2021 @ 9:09 am

    Is this saliva thing new? Because

    Acellular and cellular salivary fractions from asymptomatic individuals were found to transmit SARS-CoV-2 ex vivo

    Seems new.

    frosty (1e6b9e)

  138. Re: saliva thing

    The Nature article is from March 25 this year. I knew to look for something like that because the idea that the virus multiplies in saliva (maybe that should really be multiplies near saliva and gets into it) was mentioned somewhere else.

    A lot even of what is published in scientific periodicals doesn’t make it into the mainstream.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  139. A word about zinc: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7844651

    Smell/Taste alteration in COVID-19 may reflect zinc deficiency

    …Missing from discussion of COVID-19-induced anosmia/ageusia is reference to older literature demonstrating associations between [other] viral infection and altered taste/smell, and between these variables and Zn deficiency.

    In a sample of 35 individuals reporting taste/smell dysfunction, 51% reported it occurred immediately prior to/concurrent with, respiratory illness. Zn mitigated symptoms, though administration protocol was not described.(3) ..

    Probably very little zinc is needed. But it has to get into the blood and maybe be the right compound.

    I recall hydroxyhloriquine was supposed to increase the absorption of zinc by cells.

    Also:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7781367

    …Here, we focus on zinc deficiency symptoms, symptom overlap with other conditions, as well as zinc effects on immune health and mechanistic zinc deficiency risk groups. There are well-studied beneficial effects of zinc on the immune system including a decreased susceptibility to and improved clinical outcomes for infectious pathogens including multiple viruses. Zinc is also an anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidative stress agent, relevant to some severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms. Unfortunately, zinc deficiency is common worldwide and not exclusive to the developing world…

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  140. A couple of Christmas wishes…

    1. Peace on Earth

    2. That Time123 becomes even half as intelligent as he thinks he is

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  141. Vitamin D:

    Well, we have this:

    https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/study-shows-how-vitamin-d-could-halt-lung-inflammation-in-covid-19

    A special form of Vitamin D — not found over the counter (OTC)

    I wonder why, and please describe.

    — may be able to combat lung inflammation caused by immune cells, a new study suggests.

    The research shows vitamin D has a “switch-off” mechanism for inflammation, which could work in severe COVID-19.

    They use a steroid for that now.

    However, clinical trials are needed before vitamin D is adopted to treat COVID-19 or other respiratory diseases.

    And who is going to do that?

    The researchers warn against people taking more than the recommended amount of vitamin D in hopes of staving off COVID-19 infection.

    Very high levels of Vitamins A and D are poisonous.

    A new joint study by Purdue University and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) demonstrates how an active metabolite of vitamin D — not a form sold OTC — is involved in “switching off” inflammation in the body during infections such as COVID-19.

    I think there’s another way Vitamin D3 helps too. And I also IIRC think it actually has to do with calcium.

    And then there’s this:

    https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12937-021-00744-y

    Low vitamin D levels do not aggravate COVID-19 risk or death, and vitamin D supplementation does not improve outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a meta-analysis and GRADE assessment of cohort studies and RCTs

    ..Vitamin D supplements did not significantly improve clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. The overall GRADE evidence quality was low, we suggest that vitamin D supplementation was not recommended for patients with COVID-19.

    Thee key words here are “significsntly
    and “outcomes” and “hospitalized”

    In other words:

    It helps some in some patients but not that much when other things are being done, and while maybe it might shorten hospital stays – this report does not deny that – ultimate outcomes (recovery vs death) are not much affected.

    But

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  142. A lot of these “don’t affect the outcome” studies are the equivalent of starting a longitudinal study with a group of end stage lung cancer patients, telling half of them to stop smoking, letting the other half continue, and concluding that smoking didn’t substantially change the ultimate outcome.

    frosty (8bb357)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3146 secs.