Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on October 16, 2021, 08:33:30 AM
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/10/what_happened_to_the_pilot.html
Post by: Steingar on October 19, 2021, 09:29:32 AM
As far as the guy in Santee, sure sounded like spatial D.
Post by: Lucifer on October 19, 2021, 10:07:15 AM
I almost didn't go to the latest Oshkosh. I was on the fence about it. My fear was that I would contract the virus from one of the numerous unvaccinated, and succumb to the virus just as I was getting ready to leave.
So you're not vaccinated????
Post by: Steingar on October 19, 2021, 10:14:11 AM
So you're not vaccinated????
Have been for awhile. But the virus can jump the vaccine. They call them breakout infections. Good news is I'd probably stay out of the hospital. Better news is I'd almost certainly stay out of the morgue. Still, I'd be stuck with a bad illness in a field in Wisconsin. Probably couldn't fly back for a few days or a week. That'd suck pretty hard.
Post by: Rush on October 19, 2021, 10:22:12 AM
Have been for awhile. But the virus can jump the vaccine. They call them breakout infections. Good news is I'd probably stay out of the hospital. Better news is I'd almost certainly stay out of the morgue. Still, I'd be stuck with a bad illness in a field in Wisconsin. Probably couldn't fly back for a few days or a week. That'd suck pretty hard.
If breakout infections are true why did you fear the unvaccinated but not the vaccinated?
Post by: Steingar on October 19, 2021, 11:26:01 AM
If breakout infections are true why did you fear the unvaccinated but not the vaccinated?
Because the unvaccinated contract the illness at a far greater rate, suffer worse disease, and give off far more infectious particles.
Post by: Lucifer on October 19, 2021, 11:30:22 AM
Because the unvaccinated contract the illness at a far greater rate, suffer worse disease, and give off far more infectious particles.
BULLSHIT
Post by: Rush on October 19, 2021, 12:07:14 PM
Because the unvaccinated contract the illness at a far greater rate, suffer worse disease, and give off far more infectious particles.
But they also are more likely to stay in bed if they’re that sick whereas the vaccinated have milder disease and are out in the crowd. They may be shedding less particles but they’re still shedding some. So shouldn’t you be afraid of everybody?
Post by: Steingar on October 19, 2021, 12:33:54 PM
BULLSHIT
Try learning just a bit of biology. The vaccine attenuates the illness because your immune system is already primed with memory B and T cells. True, the cellular immune response doesn't ramp up until these are recruited by dendritic cells, but that happens far more quickly in vaccinated that unvaccinated people. As a result there is a far smaller viral titer for a shorter time, and less virus is spread. Less illness too.
Post by: Lucifer on October 19, 2021, 12:38:14 PM
Try learning just a bit of biology. The vaccine attenuates the illness because your immune system is already primed with memory B and T cells. True, the cellular immune response doesn't ramp up until these are recruited by dendritic cells, but that happens far more quickly in vaccinated that unvaccinated people. As a result there is a far smaller viral titer for a shorter time, and less virus is spread. Less illness too.
Look idiot, I know biology. You are purposely twisting items here to follow a narrative, and intelligent people aren't buying your pseudo science.
It's people such as yourself holding out to be so called experts, then manipulating "the science" in order to run a narrative. This is why the pushback, and why people are sick and tired of being lied to and manipulated.
My cat is more of a scientist than you will ever be.
Post by: Rush on October 19, 2021, 12:50:37 PM
Post by: Rush on October 19, 2021, 12:52:59 PM
Post by: Steingar on October 19, 2021, 12:56:00 PM
Look idiot, I know biology.
Then explain to us in your own words why you think I'm mistaken.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on October 19, 2021, 12:59:59 PM
Post by: Lucifer on October 19, 2021, 01:05:02 PM
seems a lot of people are making the mistake of thinking about covid-19 and vaccines as all or nothing.
The problem is a government that won't be upfront with it's citizens. Then you have flakes like Pope Tony and the perfesser pumping out "the science" in order to steer a fucked up narrative.
We are now under medical tyranny.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on October 19, 2021, 01:25:55 PM
Then explain to us in your own words why you think I'm mistaken.
Why not actually see what the peer-reviewed literature on this says? I don't know but a quick PubMed search might be informative.
Intuition and qualitative arguments are often wrong in the real world of biomedicine.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on October 19, 2021, 01:34:16 PM
Post by: Lucifer on October 19, 2021, 01:52:42 PM
Why not actually see what the peer-reviewed literature on this says? I don't know but a quick PubMed search might be informative.
Intuition and qualitative arguments are often wrong in the real world of biomedicine.
Thank you for that.
Post by: Rush on October 19, 2021, 02:13:56 PM
The problem is a government that won't be upfront with it's citizens. Then you have flakes like Pope Tony and the perfesser pumping out "the science" in order to steer a fucked up narrative.
We are now under medical tyranny.
It's just a regular tyranny. They're not limiting it to medicine.
Post by: Lucifer on October 19, 2021, 02:35:46 PM
It's just a regular tyranny. They're not limiting it to medicine.
Agreed. It's not limited to medicine. But anything to do with the scamdemic is indeed medical tyranny.
Remember when the democrat communist were chanting about "healthcare is a universal right!". Now, all of the sudden, they want healthcare segregation. They want (demand) that the unvaccinated be left to die and denied ANY healthcare.
We now have medical providers cutting off life saving procedures for those they disagree. We have quack scientist and doctors twisting "the science" and calling out anyone who disagrees with their new wisdom "conspiracy theorist" or "anti-vaxxers".
Post by: Rush on October 19, 2021, 03:13:06 PM
Agreed. It's not limited to medicine. But anything to do with the scamdemic is indeed medical tyranny.
Remember when the democrat communist were chanting about "healthcare is a universal right!". Now, all of the sudden, they want healthcare segregation. They want (demand) that the unvaccinated be left to die and denied ANY healthcare.
We now have medical providers cutting off life saving procedures for those they disagree. We have quack scientist and doctors twisting "the science" and calling out anyone who disagrees with their new wisdom "conspiracy theorist" or "anti-vaxxers".
The Democrat communists are hypocrites and corrupt control freaks. What about “my body my choice”?
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on October 19, 2021, 03:34:23 PM
The Democrat communists are hypocrites and corrupt control freaks. What about “my body my choice”?
It's still true. "my body my choice", but they appended "your body my choice."
Post by: Steingar on October 19, 2021, 05:51:20 PM
Post by: Lucifer on October 19, 2021, 06:12:24 PM
Once again Luciferase claims to know everything it won’t answer a question. Color me surprised.
You’re laughable. And a complete fraud.
No wonder you’re still an associate perfesser.
Post by: Steingar on October 20, 2021, 05:05:55 AM
Why not actually see what the peer-reviewed literature on this says? I don't know but a quick PubMed search might be informative.
Peter, even the quickest Pubmed search will confirm everything I've said. It's really basic immunology. Luciferase claimed it was all BS, I asked why. Seems reasonable to me.
Post by: Lucifer on October 20, 2021, 05:41:37 AM
Peter, even the quickest Pubmed search will confirm everything I've said. It's really basic immunology.
Except you are taking the situation in discussion out of context to support your narrative. Only a faux scientist would stoop to such tactics.
And Peter is a real MD and a PhD to boot. He's not a failed academic that's ideology driven like you, and it's refreshing to see his honest perspectives here.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on October 20, 2021, 08:03:51 AM
Peter, even the quickest Pubmed search will confirm everything I've said. It's really basic immunology. Luciferase claimed it was all BS, I asked why. Seems reasonable to me.
I believe this thread of the discussion arose when someone asked why you would fear the unvaccinated more than the vaccinated and you responded "Because the unvaccinated contract the illness at a far greater rate, suffer worse disease, and give off far more infectious particles."
Let's see if we can understand this question and answer a bit better.
In defense of this position, I will note that it does seem "reasonable" on the face of it and that calling such a position "BS" is probably not conducive to informative discussion. Where I think a question arises is particularly in regard to the 3rd assertion, that the unvaccinated give off more virions.
I agree this is no doubt true for many previously used more effective vaccines. In those cases, the disease is almost completely suppressed in the vaccinated and they just don't get the illness anymore (or at least with very low probability, say less than 0.5%).
The difference with the present batch of Covid-19 vaccines is that they are of course a new technology and are not as effective as many classic vaccines in common use. For example, even the Pfizer against the alpha variant was only 95% and there are reliable reports that this rate of effectiveness is considerably lower against newer variants.
These differences imply that qualitative reasoning that may have worked for prior vaccines may not work so well here. One can again intuit a number of possible mechanisms that might give rise to the vaccinated giving off, on average in a population, far more virions than with prior illnesses and vaccines. Amongst them:
More vaccinated people being infected with a variant and thus being infectious and shedding virions.
Vaccinated people giving off more virions when infected because of the virus needing to have a higher viral load to overcome the partial immunity provided by the vaccination.
Vaccinated people being unaware of being ill and therefore less cautious in how they interact with others when ill.
Which of these dominates in a particular situation or whether any of these possible mechanisms is actually important in real life cannot be determined by qualitative reasoning because none of the fractions involved in the case of Covid-19 are close enough to 0 or 1 for that to work. Rather, one must measure what is happening in the real world. Biological systems are complex and it is often the case that many possible pathways and mechanisms push and pull against each other in the real world. Measurement is necessary to understand the outcome in these systems.
This is where a Pubmed search looking for the most recent findings of actual studies in the real world can be very helpful.
I don't presently know what the answer to this is. It is entirely possible that there are no good current studies which would answer this in a meaningful quantitative way. In which case really the honest answer is - we don't know if one should be more concerned about the vaccinated or unvaccinated.
Post by: Lucifer on October 20, 2021, 08:08:26 AM
I believe this thread of the discussion arose when someone asked why you would fear the unvaccinated more than the vaccinated and you responded "Because the unvaccinated contract the illness at a far greater rate, suffer worse disease, and give off far more infectious particles."
Let's see if we can understand this question and answer a bit better.
In defense of this position, I will note that it does seem "reasonable" on the face of it and that calling such a position "BS" is probably not conducive to informative discussion. Where I think a question arises is particularly in regard to the 3rd assertion, that the unvaccinated give off more virions.
I agree this is no doubt true for many previously used more effective vaccines. In those cases, the disease is almost completely suppressed in the vaccinated and they just don't get the illness anymore (or at least with very low probability, say less than 0.5%).
The difference with the present batch of Covid-19 vaccines is that they are of course a new technology and are not as effective as many classic vaccines in common use. For example, even the Pfizer against the alpha variant was only 95% and there are reliable reports that this rate of effectiveness is considerably lower against newer variants.
These differences imply that qualitative reasoning that may have worked for prior vaccines may not work so well here. One can again intuit a number of possible mechanisms that might give rise to the vaccinated giving off, on average in a population, far more virions than with prior illnesses and vaccines. Amongst them:
More vaccinated people being infected with a variant and thus being infectious and shedding virions.
Vaccinated people giving off more virions when infected because of the virus needing to have a higher viral load to overcome the partial immunity provided by the vaccination.
Vaccinated people being unaware of being ill and therefore less cautious in how they interact with others when ill.
Which of these dominates in a particular situation or whether any of these possible mechanisms is actually important in real life cannot be determined by qualitative reasoning because none of the fractions involved in the case of Covid-19 are close enough to 0 or 1 for that to work. Rather, one must measure what is happening in the real world. Biological systems are complex and it is often the case that many possible pathways and mechanisms push and pull against each other in the real world. Measurement is necessary to understand the outcome in these systems.
This is where a Pubmed search looking for the most recent findings of actual studies in the real world can be very helpful.
I don't presently know what the answer to this is. It is entirely possible that there are no good current studies which would answer this in a meaningful quantitative way. In which case really the honest answer is - we don't know if one should be more concerned about the vaccinated or unvaccinated.
Thanks again for your response. It's refreshing to have answers not based upon ideology.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on October 20, 2021, 08:20:07 AM
More vaccinated people being infected with a variant and thus being infectious and shedding virions.
Vaccinated people giving off more virions when infected because of the virus needing to have a higher viral load to overcome the partial immunity provided by the vaccination.
are you assuming that virions shed by a vaccinated person are capable of replication?
and what evidence is there that vaccinated people give off more virions (and are those replication capable)?
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on October 20, 2021, 08:30:35 AM
are you assuming that virions shed by a vaccinated person are capable of replication?Good questions and I don’t know the answers. The virions not being capable of replication would definitely reduce their danger. Another possible mechanism that may interact here. Need to measure these to know he answer.
and what evidence is there that vaccinated people give off more virions (and are those replication capable)?
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on October 20, 2021, 08:32:09 AM
Good questions and I don’t know the answers. The virions not being capable of replication would definitely reduce their danger. Another possible mechanism that may interact here. Need to measure these to know he answer.
and doesn't the nRNA vaccine work by disabling the ability of virus to replicate? (or rather, by causing the body to produce antibodies that disable the virus replication ability)
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on October 20, 2021, 08:37:53 AM
and doesn't the nRNA vaccine work by disabling the ability of virus to replicate? (or rather, by causing the body to produce antibodies that disable the virus replication ability)Not an expert on that, but I believe the Pfizer and Moderna work by causing the host cells to produce the spike protein of the virus and then the host mounts an immune response to that spike protein.
This is one reason that natural immunity may be more robust. It exposes the host to all possible parts of the virus which the hosts immune system can react to rather than just the spike protein.
Some treatments of rna viruses do suppress the ability of the virus to replicate. Not sure if those are used in some of the other treatments for COVID-19.
Post by: Steingar on October 20, 2021, 10:32:45 AM
I believe this thread of the discussion arose when someone asked why you would fear the unvaccinated more than the vaccinated and you responded "Because the unvaccinated contract the illness at a far greater rate, suffer worse disease, and give off far more infectious particles."
Let's see if we can understand this question and answer a bit better.
In defense of this position, I will note that it does seem "reasonable" on the face of it and that calling such a position "BS" is probably not conducive to informative discussion. Where I think a question arises is particularly in regard to the 3rd assertion, that the unvaccinated give off more virions.
I agree this is no doubt true for many previously used more effective vaccines. In those cases, the disease is almost completely suppressed in the vaccinated and they just don't get the illness anymore (or at least with very low probability, say less than 0.5%).
The difference with the present batch of Covid-19 vaccines is that they are of course a new technology and are not as effective as many classic vaccines in common use. For example, even the Pfizer against the alpha variant was only 95% and there are reliable reports that this rate of effectiveness is considerably lower against newer variants.
It is my understanding that an efficacy of 95% is shocking compared to the legacy vaccines. I remember when the HPV vaccine was considered shockingly efficacious at 93%. If I am mistaken in this I'd like to know.
These differences imply that qualitative reasoning that may have worked for prior vaccines may not work so well here. One can again intuit a number of possible mechanisms that might give rise to the vaccinated giving off, on average in a population, far more virions than with prior illnesses and vaccines. Amongst them:
More vaccinated people being infected with a variant and thus being infectious and shedding virions.
Vaccinated people giving off more virions when infected because of the virus needing to have a higher viral load to overcome the partial immunity provided by the vaccination.
Vaccinated people being unaware of being ill and therefore less cautious in how they interact with others when ill.
First, I've no evidence that the vaccinated are succumbing to COVID at a rate greater than the unvaccinated. Indeed the opposite seems to be true if hospital admissions are any guide. Again, if you have information in this regard I'd be happy to hear it. You are closer to the medical side of this than I.
Second, my understanding of immunology suggests to me that vaccinated people will have a far lighter viral load than unvaccinated. Less virus causes milder symptoms. That said, I am unaware of any data showing this, I just consider it out of basic common sense. If you have a source indicating I am mistaken, I am again interested.
The third point is a non sequitur. No one knows whether or not they're infected with COVID until they exhibit symptoms, and everyone can shed virus before that point. As far as people acting in an incautious manner, I think the unvaccinated have been wholly less cautious in behavior than the vaccinated, who might have the education to take COVID seriously and not label it a mild flu like the folks here.
Which of these dominates in a particular situation or whether any of these possible mechanisms is actually important in real life cannot be determined by qualitative reasoning because none of the fractions involved in the case of Covid-19 are close enough to 0 or 1 for that to work. Rather, one must measure what is happening in the real world. Biological systems are complex and it is often the case that many possible pathways and mechanisms push and pull against each other in the real world. Measurement is necessary to understand the outcome in these systems.
This is where a Pubmed search looking for the most recent findings of actual studies in the real world can be very helpful.
I don't presently know what the answer to this is. It is entirely possible that there are no good current studies which would answer this in a meaningful quantitative way. In which case really the honest answer is - we don't know if one should be more concerned about the vaccinated or unvaccinated.
But we can reason. A vaccine means a person is less likely to be infected, and after they're infected they have an illness reduced in severity and duration. Both those facts suggest reduce viral titers. I admit I don't know any data showing myself to be correct, but we are allowed reasonable speculation.
And please please don't leave. I might not agree, but it is such a pleasure to have a reasoned discourse instead of puerile insults. We desperately need folks like you around here.
Post by: Rush on October 20, 2021, 11:22:34 AM
I think the unvaccinated have been wholly less cautious in behavior than the vaccinated, who might have the education to take COVID seriously and not label it a mild flu like the folks here.
I can say the same thing another way. The vaccinated have been wholly paranoid in behavior, becoming terrified hermits because they have been urged to take a disease with a 99+% survival rate seriously and behave as if it were the bubonic plague.
Actually most people are probably on a spectrum between the two. But the point you and I probably agree on is that nobody really knows to what extent the vaccinated might be shedding virus.
Quote
And please please don't leave. I might not agree, but it is such a pleasure to have a reasoned discourse instead of puerile insults. We desperately need folks like you around here.
Agree completely!
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on October 20, 2021, 11:40:21 AM
It is my understanding that an efficacy of 95% is shocking compared to the legacy vaccines. I remember when the HPV vaccine was considered shockingly efficacious at 93%. If I am mistaken in this I'd like to know.
I would not say mistaken. Just that here is where numbers are superior to qualitative descriptions. These vaccines are considerably less effective than something like the polio vaccine, which is 99+% and was used successfully to suppress polio in the US. You are correct that somewhere in the low to mid 90s is typical for many others.
Quote
First, I've no evidence that the vaccinated are succumbing to COVID at a rate greater than the unvaccinated. Indeed the opposite seems to be true if hospital admissions are any guide.
I think that is largely correct. There is reasonably good evidence that the current Covid vaccinations substantially reduce the likelihood of serious adverse events or death from Covid-19.
Of course, how that is reflected in the actual numbers of people hospitalized will depend on other things, like the fraction of the population vaccinated. That difference seems to have caused some of the contention here.
Quote
Second, my understanding of immunology suggests to me that vaccinated people will have a far lighter viral load than unvaccinated. Less virus causes milder symptoms. That said, I am unaware of any data showing this, I just consider it out of basic common sense.
I can imagine some immunological mechanisms which might counteract that effect. So while I consider what you say reasonable, I would not draw a firm conclusion on that.
Quote
who might have the education to take COVID seriously and not label it a mild flu like the folks here.
Again a place where numbers may be superior to qualitative descriptions. The alpha form of Covid-19 appears to be about 2-3 times more lethal than the normal seasonal flu. On an absolute level, if you are under 65 and catch Covid-19, your odds of dying from it are on the order of the chances of dying in a car wreck driving to and from work 17 miles each day for a year.
This is a risk level that people are really bad at reasoning about. They tend to either ignore the risk completely or treat it all out of proportion to the actual risk level. I would not label it a "mild flu". It is considerably more dangerous as your age rises above 65.
Quote
But we can reason. A vaccine means a person is less likely to be infected, and after they're infected they have an illness reduced in severity and duration. Both those facts suggest reduce viral titers. I admit I don't know any data showing myself to be correct, but we are allowed reasonable speculation.
Agreed it is a reasonable speculation. Though again I would not draw a firm conclusion about it based on current data. Just too many other things that can go on in the real world of biomedicine that can negate this sort of reasoning.
I think the safest policy is likely what you did at Osh. Avoid crowds, especially in indoor spaces. I don't think I would be willing to bet my health on going into a crowded indoor space of people who are known to be vaccinated. But if someone chooses to do so, I wouldn't say they are insane.
Post by: Steingar on October 20, 2021, 12:27:41 PM
Sadly, this is what our nation will be moving forward. Thankfully we shouldn't have another major pandemic until I'm safely dead. Seems like a hundred year kind of thing.
Post by: Lucifer on October 20, 2021, 12:36:58 PM
Not everyone has a PhD in bioscience, not everyone can distinguish between truth from falsehood.
It's statements like this that you just can't seem to help yourself. And it makes you look all the more foolish.
Post by: Rush on October 20, 2021, 01:49:03 PM
I had a long discussion at Osh with an antivaxxer. I very calmly asked his reasons for not being vaccinated. They were of course complete hogwash, but I wouldn't regard the fellow as an idiot at all. Not everyone has a PhD in bioscience, not everyone can distinguish between truth from falsehood. Moreover, our current mode of media output tends to reinforce the world views already held by the media consumers, the media purveyors do this on purpose to maximize their profits.
Sadly, this is what our nation will be moving forward. Thankfully we shouldn't have another major pandemic until I'm safely dead. Seems like a hundred year kind of thing.
YES. Did you watch this video? http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?topic=5883.0 It talks about mainstream media which mostly reinforces current views of the left, Democrats, and globalism but he says exactly what you do above about profits.
But social media reinforces your views no matter where you are on the political spectrum. If I watch a few conservative YouTubes, my YouTube suggested feed is full of conservative suggestions. I won't get any liberal ones. Conversely if I watch something liberal, the suggestions move left. It is extremely insidious, it drives a person more and more to extremism because it weeds out opposing viewpoints. We've talked about how social media is biased against conservatives and it is in many ways but maybe it is more accurate to say it is actually apolitical and is biased only to further its own monetary interests, meaning it wants clicks, so if you're a conservative it will feed you more opportunities to click.
Post by: nddons on October 20, 2021, 03:40:49 PM
I had a long discussion at Osh with an antivaxxer.
And there goes your bias and intentionally misleading language.
For a century or more an “anti-vaxxer” would be someone who eschewed getting any vaccinations for themselves or their family.
In 2021 the Left changed the English language to imply, falsely, that someone who questions taking an experimental vaccine for which there are significant and recorded risks, for a virus with a 99.7% recovery rate, as someone who would rather allow their kids to die from measles, polio, rubella, or any other such disease because they are a true “anti-vaxxer.”
You are a fraud and a willing tool of the left. It’s pathetic that they allow you to teach our young people.
Post by: Steingar on October 21, 2021, 05:49:10 AM
Not an expert on that, but I believe the Pfizer and Moderna work by causing the host cells to produce the spike protein of the virus and then the host mounts an immune response to that spike protein.
That is my understanding as well
This is one reason that natural immunity may be more robust. It exposes the host to all possible parts of the virus which the hosts immune system can react to rather than just the spike protein.
I would counter that having the immune response focused on the viral surface is far better, since the viral surface is the main thing seen by the immune system. Indeed subunit vaccines have always shown greater efficacy than legacy vaccines, and mRNA vaccines are in essence subunit vaccines.
Some treatments of rna viruses do suppress the ability of the virus to replicate. Not sure if those are used in some of the other treatments for COVID-19.
I was surprised that Remdesivir didn't work, it seemed to have a good mechanism, but I am hopeful that Molnupiravir will show efficacy. Antivirual drugs are actually quite rare, since viruses use our own cellular machinery to replicate.
Post by: Rush on October 21, 2021, 07:13:04 AM
That is my understanding as well
I would counter that having the immune response focused on the viral surface is far better, since the viral surface is the main thing seen by the immune system. Indeed subunit vaccines have always shown greater efficacy than legacy vaccines, and mRNA vaccines are in essence subunit vaccines.
I was surprised that Remdesivir didn't work, it seemed to have a good mechanism, but I am hopeful that Molnupiravir will show efficacy. Antivirual drugs are actually quite rare, since viruses use our own cellular machinery to replicate.
Acyclovir and valcyclovir work really great against viral cold sores. My understanding is they somehow interfere with the virus’s ability to reproduce but I’ve no idea exactly how. Do either of you know anything about that or whether they could work against covid? Maybe famcyclovir is in that same category?
Post by: jb1842 on October 21, 2021, 07:51:02 AM
I had a long discussion at Osh with an antivaxxer. I very calmly asked his reasons for not being vaccinated. They were of course complete hogwash, but I wouldn't regard the fellow as an idiot at all. Not everyone has a PhD in bioscience, not everyone can distinguish between truth from falsehood. Moreover, our current mode of media output tends to reinforce the world views already held by the media consumers, the media purveyors do this on purpose to maximize their profits.
Sadly, this is what our nation will be moving forward. Thankfully we shouldn't have another major pandemic until I'm safely dead. Seems like a hundred year kind of thing.
In other words, you didn't agree with his oponion, so he is wrong.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on October 21, 2021, 09:40:16 AM
I would counter that having the immune response focused on the viral surface is far better, since the viral surface is the main thing seen by the immune system. Indeed subunit vaccines have always shown greater efficacy than legacy vaccines, and mRNA vaccines are in essence subunit vaccines.
This is another one of those cases where that is not an unreasonable initial impression. But it is important to remember that the immune system not only has a great deal of genetic diversity in a population but that it is also actually a system that evolves in response to antigenic challenges.
Thus while seeing the surface presentation of a virus is likely good, there are a lot of multiple pathways that be activated or deactivated depending on items other than the pieces of the virus (epitopes) which are the primary targets. Thus many vaccines have adjuvants added to generally stimulate the immune response which have nothing to do with the specific targets.
So the actual effectiveness of a vaccine and the durability of that response again need to be measured. It is hard to predict from either qualitative reasoning or quantitative modeling. We can make some good guesses, but it is subject to empirical trial and error.
In the case of the Covid-19 vaccines, I have been looking at bit at the peer-reviewed literature. Hoping to see if there is a graph or set of graphs of the effectiveness of them in preventing initial infection and reinfection as a function of time after inoculation.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on October 21, 2021, 10:07:28 AM
Acyclovir and valcyclovir work really great against viral cold sores. My understanding is they somehow interfere with the virus’s ability to reproduce but I’ve no idea exactly how. Do either of you know anything about that or whether they could work against covid? Maybe famcyclovir is in that same category?
One of my go to sites for this sort of question is http://medscape.com. You may have to sign up for an account. Then go to their Drugs Reference and type in the name, like 'acyclovir'. In the pharmacology section of the page will be a brief description of mechanism of action. In this case "Interferes with DNA polymerase to inhibit DNA replication via chain termination".
A bit more expanded. This means that the drug itself interferes with the enzyme which is involved in replicating DNA, DNA polymerase. Thus causing the copying of the new chains of viral DNA to be terminated.
Post by: Rush on October 21, 2021, 10:42:58 AM
One of my go to sites for this sort of question is http://medscape.com. You may have to sign up for an account. Then go to their Drugs Reference and type in the name, like 'acyclovir'. In the pharmacology section of the page will be a brief description of mechanism of action. In this case "Interferes with DNA polymerase to inhibit DNA replication via chain termination".
A bit more expanded. This means that the drug itself interferes with the enzyme which is involved in replicating DNA, DNA polymerase. Thus causing the copying of the new chains of viral DNA to be terminated.
Forgive my ignorance, does it only interfere in viral DNA only or does it interfere in all one’s other DNA trying to replicate?
Post by: Steingar on October 21, 2021, 10:48:56 AM
Acyclovir and valcyclovir work really great against viral cold sores. My understanding is they somehow interfere with the virus’s ability to reproduce but I’ve no idea exactly how. Do either of you know anything about that or whether they could work against covid? Maybe famcyclovir is in that same category?
They're a class of drugs called base analogs. Acycloguanosine, or acyclovir, is converted by a viral enzyme called thymidine kinase to a form that can bind the viral DNA polymerase. It can't be put into a DNA molecule, so it gums up the DNA polymerase and like Peter said, terminates DNA synthesis preventing the virus from replicating itself. Thymidine Kinase is only found in Herpes viruses, so the drugs only work for Herpes virus infections. Thymidine Kinase is a frequent target of drug interactions, Fialouracil (FIAU), gancyclovir and their derivatives all target the thymidine kinase gene.
Forgive my ignorance, does it only interfere in viral DNA only or does it interfere in all one’s other DNA trying to replicate?
Because of the involvement of the thymidine kinase enzyme the action of these drugs is specific to the herpesvirus infected cells.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on October 21, 2021, 10:50:12 AM
Forgive my ignorance, does it only interfere in viral DNA only or does it interfere in all one’s other DNA trying to replicate?
Nothing to forgive as that is a very good question! It only inhibits the viruses DNA polymerase per this article
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6359082/
Post by: Rush on October 21, 2021, 11:07:49 AM