|
Post by frets on May 3, 2021 13:55:21 GMT -5
Guys💉💉😺😺, I found this very succinct explanation on what the actual vaccine does. It seems pretty innocuous to the body from a systemic perspective. It’s from a Q & A on www.ucsf.edu/news/2021/01/419691/covid-19-vaccine-fact-vs-fiction-expert-weighs-common-fears“Do the mRNA vaccines change your DNA? Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are mRNA vaccines, which means they contain messenger ribonucleic acid. “It’s basically a piece of material that contains instructions,” said Boslett. “Once it’s injected, it’s taken up by your cells, but it never enters the cell nucleus where all of your DNA exists within your cells.” The mRNA contains instructions for your cells to make spike proteins that match the ones found on the surface of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes COVID-19. When your cells present these spike proteins on their surface, your body recognizes them as foreign and develops an immune response, including antibodies specific to the spike protein.” That clear statement seems to reveal that the vaccine is not that scary. As Ash stated, we usually veer from political or religious topics. Which is appropriate. However, we also are a group of individuals dedicated to helping others. I view this discussion as perhaps clarifying some of the myths so that more individuals will take that vaccine. We’d all hate to see someone that frequently visits this forum God forbid get sick and possibly die. For those out there reluctant, just remember your guitar could be in the hands of a stranger if you don’t get jabbed.
|
|
|
Post by newey on May 3, 2021 19:28:39 GMT -5
It is also important to recognize that the vaccine testing shows only that it is 90+ percent effective at preventing severe symptoms of the virus, with "severe" defined for the purposes of the research as meaning that the person required at least one trip to an emergency room.
We do not (yet) know for sure that the vaccine prevents someone from contracting COVID-19 or, if contracted, prevents its transmission to others. Virologists suspect that it does in fact do both those things, but we do not yet have enough data to make either of those conclusions. Hence the need to continue to mask up and socially distance oneself even after vaccination.
In a little over a year, we have already learned much more about this virus than we know about others that have been around for years. The efforts made across the world to understand this virus are unprecedented, and a true scientific "miracle". But there is still much to be learned.
Ideally, one would research a vaccine by using two test groups, one that got the vaccine and a non-vaccinated control group, then exposing both groups to the virus and seeing who got COVID. But it's medically unethical to purposely expose people to a potentially deadly disease for research purposes, so the only thing that could actually be shown was whether there was a difference in severe symptoms among the two groups for those people who contracted the disease naturally.
|
|
|
Post by roadtonever on May 3, 2021 20:18:06 GMT -5
Most efficiency analyses have been in the mid 90s percent. On par or higher efficiency than vaccines for Bird Flue, SARS, Zika and Ebola.
|
|
|
Post by unreg on May 3, 2021 21:05:41 GMT -5
Hence the need to continue to mask up and socially distance oneself even after vaccination. Hmmm… so this could go on forever? Or, at least until a comparison is made with a group of people who have both received the vaccine and have also, since, contracted COVID-19 naturally? How can that happen if the vaccine works? If the vaccine creator people think the vaccine should work, and many are vaccinated, then maybe return life to personal social distancing and personal mask wearing and see how it turns out. Honestly, no one knows how life will turn out tomorrow. If you scare a group of ants so they never build ant hills bc they “need” social distancing and mask wearing, then the ant population becomes ineffective. 😢
|
|
|
Post by newey on May 4, 2021 6:58:25 GMT -5
How can that happen if the vaccine works? The question is, what do we mean by "works"? The vaccine manufacturers/researchers define "works" as keeping you out of the hospital. That's not nothing, that's important. Research is ongoing. It may eventually be shown that (as they suspect is the case) that the vaccine does,in fact, prevent infection and/or transmission. We just don't know that yet.
|
|
|
Post by roadtonever on May 4, 2021 9:42:23 GMT -5
We just don't know that yet. Earlier you implied we can't know, based on a the claim the only a certain type of test is the valid way of determining efficiency. It's easy to make a claim seem truthful by using vague terms. That's how politics works. Medicine works with defining mechanics of transmission and pathology and developing test protocols to reach a level of certainty.
|
|
|
Post by unreg on May 4, 2021 10:27:49 GMT -5
How can that happen if the vaccine works? The question is, what do we mean by "works"? The vaccine manufacturers/researchers define "works" as keeping you out of the hospital. newey sir, that’s exactly what my “works” is meant to convey.
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on May 4, 2021 11:49:32 GMT -5
We do not (yet) know for sure that the vaccine prevents someone from contracting COVID-19 or, if contracted, prevents its transmission to others. Virologists suspect that it does in fact do both those things, but we do not yet have enough data to make either of those conclusions. We do know that in the vast majority of cases, the vaccine teaches the recipients immune system to recognize the protein spikes on Covid-19 as being a threat and immediately respond with antibodies. A person who has been vaccinated can still be infected but their immune system will manage the infection such that severe symptoms will not be present. Also, the risk of transmission to others will still exist but since there will be massively fewer units of the virus present in someone who has been (successfully) vaccinated, the risk of infecting others will be extremely small. Of course there will be a very small number of people who have been vaccinated, but the desired effect will not be achieved. Their immune system will not learn to fight the virus. Hence the need to continue to mask up and socially distance oneself even after vaccination. The reason for vaccinated individual to continue to mask-up and observe social distancing protocols is as much about courtesy as it is about reducing the spread. People who have been vaccinated don't wear a V tattoo on their forehead. So it's not apparent someone has been vaccinated, just by looking at them. Others can't know whether or not you present a risk to them.
|
|
|
Post by roadtonever on May 4, 2021 14:50:25 GMT -5
A person who has been vaccinated can still be infected but their immune system will manage the infection such that severe symptoms will not be present. Also, the risk of transmission to others will still exist but since there will be massively fewer units of the virus present in someone who has been (successfully) vaccinated, the risk of infecting others will be extremely small. The role of vaccines isn't necessarily to reduce transmission. Basically like in other viral diseases, such as Hepatitis, HIV or the flu, there will always be some risk of transmission, even from an immunized carrier, as the virus lives on in the body. That's why vaccines are administered large-scale, to reduce disease progression in populations.
|
|
|
Post by frets on May 4, 2021 16:47:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by unreg on May 5, 2021 0:19:20 GMT -5
reTrEaD, great points! People who have been vaccinated don't wear a V tattoo on their forehead. So it's not apparent someone has been vaccinated, just by looking at them. Others can't know whether or not you present a risk to them. Some diseases from history were worse/deadlier than COVID-19. They made it through those; I know this bc I’m alive. Did they wear masks? It is surely kind to think of others; but, it seems to me, being forced to wear masks and socially distance beyond the crucial stage of the disease, after good vaccinations have been available for all, it all becomes like spending time picking up every piece of twig when your boss tells you to gather the big sticks along the long driveway into piles. Pieces of twigs are NOT big sticks and so the boss wouldn’t recognize that kindness.
|
|
|
Post by b4nj0 on May 5, 2021 4:33:05 GMT -5
Like Scrofula perhaps? A demographic disease of "common" folk, much in the way that gout was affected by those in a position to do so as a means of demonstrating such. In Victirian times the physicians wore the most grotesque leather masks you could visualise, so yes masks were worn. I'm guessing that most if not all of those diseases predated the infinite airborne mobility of hoi poloi? In fact, there is a famous village in Derbyshire, England called Eyam where in a world first, the residents figured out that to avoid spreading Bubonic Plague that had broken out amongst themselves, they had to isolate themselves from other villages. They achieved that without the advice of experts who had yet to be born. They sacrificed themselves and showed the world the way forward in controlling infectious diseases at the same time. Although it's far from being the first to do so, it is mobility that this virus has exploited to such good effect, and there's no better conduit than an aluminium alloy tube hurtling along at 40,000 feet. hekint.org/2020/03/11/the-bubonic-plague-in-eyam/e&oe ...
|
|
|
Post by newey on May 5, 2021 5:19:03 GMT -5
Some diseases from history were worse/deadlier than COVID-19. They made it through those; I know this bc I’m alive. Did they wear masks? Masks were worn extensively during the 1918 flu pandemic, so, yes. If we go back further, airborne transmission of diseases was not as well understood. Before Lister and the the germ theory of disease, it was not understood at all. I hear a lot of noise about how a mandate to wear a mask is somehow a violation of some imagined "right". There is no right to infect others with disease. Our Founding Fathers seem to have understood this better than some of us do now. During colonial times, those infected with smallpox were ordered to quarantine, and when needed, quarantine was enforced with an armed guard at the infected person's door (the guards being chosen from among those who had already survived the disease. and were thus immune). Individual rights also come with responsibilities to one's fellow citizens; we are all part of one or more communities in addition to being individual actors. And RT makes a good point, mask-wearing is also a matter of simple concern for one's fellow citizens. We shouldn't need to be ordered to wear one in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on May 5, 2021 9:33:22 GMT -5
Some diseases from history were worse/deadlier than COVID-19. They made it through those; I know this bc I’m alive. Please don't confuse survival of the species with survival of all individuals. 1918-19 Pandemic (H1N1 virus) "It is estimated that about 500 million people or one-third of the world's population became infected with this virus. The number of deaths was estimated to be at least 50 million worldwide with about 675,000 occurring in the United States." That adds up to roughly 3-1/2 percent of the worldwide population DEAD as a result. Those 50 million individuals did NOT survive. I hear a lot of noise about how a mandate to wear a mask is somehow a violation of some imagined "right". There is no right to infect others with disease. Our Founding Fathers seem to have understood this better than some of us do now. During colonial times, those infected with smallpox were ordered to quarantine, and when needed, quarantine was enforced with an armed guard at the infected person's door (the guards being chosen from among those who had already survived the disease. and were thus immune). This is a somewhat precarious position. It's predicated on the assumption the person is infected and contagious. But in the case of an apparently healthy individual who displays no symptoms, it's more likely than not, they are neither infected nor contagious. And RT makes a good point, mask-wearing is also a matter of simple concern for one's fellow citizens. We shouldn't need to be ordered to wear one in the first place. At this point, it's probably useful to examine how masks function. Unlike full headgear with a filtered air supply, a simple cloth mask is only slightly effective in reducing the risk for the mask- wearer. But if the mask-wearer happens to be infected and contagious, the mask is reasonably effective in containing the droplets that would be carrying the virus. This affords some level of protection for others they encounter. Distancing, avoiding others, and frequent hand-washing are prudent steps to take, to protect yourself. In the pre-vax world, wearing masks was an important part of slowing the spread of the disease. You are absolutely correct in your assessment that a mandate shouldn't have been necessary. Anyone with any sense of responsibility to the public would have chosen to wear a mask, even in the absence of a mandate. Also, places of business did (and still do) have the right to demand their staff and customers wear masks while in their establishments. You have the choice of abiding by those demands or not entering their space. After the vast majority of the population has been vaccinated, wearing of masks will become superfluous. But ... we aren't there yet!
|
|
|
Post by newey on May 5, 2021 11:34:45 GMT -5
But in the case of an apparently healthy individual who displays no symptoms, it's more likely than not, they are neither infected nor contagious. True, but since something like 40% of infected individuals do not display symptoms, better to err on the side of caution. Especially since wearing a mask is at worst a minor inconvenience for most otherwise-healthy individuals.
|
|
|
Post by frets on May 5, 2021 12:10:48 GMT -5
I know many of us do not live in the US; however, an article two days ago in The NY Times argued that the US will not reach Herd Immunity.
“ The goal over “a generation or two” would be to transition the coronavirus into a cold-like virus that is easier to control, experts told the newspaper.”
|
|
|
Post by roadtonever on May 5, 2021 14:18:36 GMT -5
I hear a lot of noise about how a mandate to wear a mask is somehow a violation of some imagined "right". There is no right to infect others with disease. Our Founding Fathers seem to have understood this better than some of us do now. During colonial times, those infected with smallpox were ordered to quarantine, and when needed, quarantine was enforced with an armed guard at the infected person's door (the guards being chosen from among those who had already survived the disease. and were thus immune). Individual rights also come with responsibilities to one's fellow citizens; we are all part of one or more communities in addition to being individual actors. That's because no one really wins in a battle of rights these days. Lets look at a country where people follow restrictions in spite of the government rather than because of it. Switzerland. Enforcement has almost not been required. The country has a long history of self reliance and the idea of the government fighting the peoples battles remains an unpopular concept. Meanwhile in other countries the ruling class decided to erode their trust by promoting discourse that questions civil the institutions that they themselves govern, just because it's the hip new thing. Also meanwhile countries with the highest rates of transmission keep borders open further eroding trust. Under these conditions selfish self preservation starts looking like a more efficient way to reach restriction compliance. The founding farther would probably agree with that too.
|
|
|
Post by newey on May 5, 2021 14:29:59 GMT -5
an article two days ago in The NY Times argued that the US will not reach Herd Immunity Some diseases, like measles and smallpox, generate such a strong immune response that, once an individual either contracts the disease or is vaccinated against it, immunity is life-long. With diseases such as those, "herd immunity" is a hard-and-fast line which can be achieved. Once the number of susceptible individuals is low enough, anyone becoming infected is highly unlikely to infect another, and the disease cannot sustain itself for lack of hosts. But for viruses which(as COVID-19 seems to be)readily mutate, or where immunity does not last for a lifetime, the scenario of the Times article is indeed the likely one. "Herd Immunity" in such situations can only be a relative concept - periodic outbreaks, but no severe outbreaks, unless a new mutation comes along that the vaccines can't deal with. And that presupposes periodic vaccine booster shots that are given to significant numbers of folks. Infectious disease experts have foreseen the "perfect storm" for pandemic disease for years (because of factors such as global travel and shipping, human encroachment on animal habitat, greater population density). COVID-19 is the first global pandemic in a century, but I would not lay odds that it will be the last we see during our collective lifetimes.
|
|
|
Post by roadtonever on May 5, 2021 18:09:00 GMT -5
BTW speaking of rights. Let's look at the most well known document of rights in the world. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In particular the first sentence of #20 And my personal favorite #30 How did countries around the world get away with their transgressions during this pandemic? Did they have to apply for special exemptions? Nope, none of the articles were ever legally binding.
|
|
|
Post by solderburn on May 6, 2021 0:08:06 GMT -5
I live in southern California, I got my first Moderna shot on April 24th, just waiting for my follow up shot. I live such a hermetic lifestyle that having the vaccine doesn't impact my daily life, but it feels good to do my part and be as safe as possible.
I hope everyone stays safe and well.
|
|
|
Post by b4nj0 on May 6, 2021 4:22:00 GMT -5
The International Declaration of Human Rights is just that- a declaration. So far as I'm aware it has no international legal standing. As a radio "ham", I committed #38 (I think it was #38!) which goes along the lines of "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. That right extends to include the freedom to seek, impart and retrieve information regardless of ..." and my memory runs out! But how many countries fully and truly acknowledge that right? I'm guessing none. Nada. Zilch. I stand to be corrected though, because it's one of those things that you keep in mind for so long that it could benefit from a current re-appraisal, but the fun goes away if everyone just repeats Google search results.
e&oe ...
|
|
|
Post by newey on May 6, 2021 5:39:04 GMT -5
I guess I'm not seeing how requiring someone to wear a mask, or to stand 6 feet apart, meaningfully impacts their rights to peaceably assemble or to associate.
All rights come with certain limitations. There's that old saw about not having the right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater, for example.
You can organize a peaceful assembly of a few dozen people with no problem, but if you're planning for 10,000, you're probably going to need a parade permit or to arrange for police to direct traffic, etc. The pandemic caused bars and restaurants to be ordered closed, or to operate at a reduced capacity, but fire codes already limit the capacity of those establishments, and health inspectors can order those businesses closed entirely for health code violations. None of that violates anyone's "rights".
|
|
|
Post by unreg on May 6, 2021 10:19:52 GMT -5
I guess I'm not seeing how requiring someone to wear a mask, or to stand 6 feet apart, meaningfully impacts their rights to peaceably assemble or to associate. How can you honestly type this newey sir? Most of facial expressions are covered by a mask. Facial expressions are an important part of associating with others. Human touch is healthy for your mind and soul. Requiring 6 feet distance between people reduces human touch.
|
|
|
Post by b4nj0 on May 6, 2021 10:35:05 GMT -5
All those sentiments vapourise once any individuals are dead. I dislike masks (I dislike seat belts too but that's irrational.) However I'll follow the rules to wear them without a second thought. There is no conferred right to infect other folk when a simple mask may reduce the chance of infection by perhaps 90% or even more.
As I understand it, knowingly to infect others with HIV is a crime (and it's probably murder) yet no one calls foul ball if they are expected to take appropriate steps to remove the possibility of such an infection occurring from such a close contact sport.
e&oe ...
|
|
|
Post by newey on May 6, 2021 11:30:16 GMT -5
Facial expressions are an important part of associating with others. So, we just have to communicate more verbally than by expressions. Actually, I've become pretty good over the past year at being able to tell someone's expressions even with a mask, whether they're angry, sad, etc. I expect we all have become pretty good at that. As far as human touch goes, I can touch those with whom I have isolated- my wife and family. I don't want strangers touching me, pandemic or not.
|
|
|
Post by unreg on May 6, 2021 11:37:15 GMT -5
b4nj0, I totally agree. However, it’s healthy to realize that wearing masks and social distancing does meaningfully impact association with others. Little kids are missing out on learning facial expressions. Learning facial expressions is an important part of early learning. 🙂
|
|
|
Post by unreg on May 6, 2021 11:43:11 GMT -5
newey, yes, strangers touching each other can seem hazardous… but handshaking is good right? Earlier this week, an elderly man/friend at my church held out his hand and offered a greeting shake saying, “Matthew, it’s alright to shake hands again”. That made me so happy inside! 😀
|
|
|
Post by roadtonever on May 6, 2021 13:19:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by newey on May 6, 2021 13:59:06 GMT -5
The statement about Justice Holmes is correct, but many jurisdictions in the US (probably most) do have laws against "inciting a public panic" or "causing a public disturbance" or similar wording, and someone who actually did shout "fire" in a crowded theater could potentially be prosecuted under those laws. Those statutes used to be used to prosecute people who would call in a bomb scare, but nowadays most of that sort of thing gets charged as "making terroristic threats".
These sorts of things can be seen as retrictions on the right of free speech, or alternatively, are viewed as crossing the line between mere speech and conduct- the "incitement" is thus viewed more as conduct than speech.
|
|
|
Post by roadtonever on May 8, 2021 22:34:15 GMT -5
Emphasis mine. See, that's my point. Most rights that laymen discuss are not legally binding. What happens is that people conflate laws that aren't more that tangentially related in order make a narrative. It doesn't give rights any legal power per se. Guys like Martin Luther King Jr understood this distinction well, that's why he was able to make a huge impact on systematic racism way back in the 1960s, before the civil rights movement got traction. You see people arguing for rights on behalf of a protected groups all the time, in this case citizens following Covid restrictions. Little do they know that they're coming from a very milk toast position, by basing it on the idea of rights. Arguing for rights means leaving decisions up to individuals and organizations. That's how rights are treated, in contrast to laws.
|
|