Cartuse wrote:Since you are qualified to answer these questions, I need you to clarify some things.
1) You say +people vaxxed, -spread, covid ends faster:
So when you say it reduces the spread, do you mean among both the vaxxed and unvaxxed? If so, does that mean the unvaxxed spreading it to the vaxxed is dangerous for the vaxxed and/or potential deadlier mutations? If so, why is it exactly that those mutations are more deadly and not less? What factors determines if a virus becomes more or less deadly the more they spread? Was covid a one strain virus for a year or were there other strains from the beginning and now the deadlier ones are starting to emerge due to the people being bad neighbors? If that's the case, again, why is it deadlier?
What were the indications that allowed people to predict far in advance the coming of a deadlier strain?
If you're NOT saying that the vaxxed are at risk, are you implying the problem is about the unvaxxed minority flooding hospitals en masse, making it the same problem we had last year but with a fraction of the population?
In your qualified opinion, are there any other possible treatments for covid? Should we even bother? Are there any emergency authorizations for other kinds of treatment or is it only worth it for vaccines? If so, why? What's the science behind emergency authrized vaccines being the best option? Was there any data to indicate in advance that all resources and political power should be put into vaccines and physical restrictions? Or was that something that was decided and THEN the data showed it was great so we must keep it/enforce it as hard as we can.
How important would you say is the mental and physical wellbeing of people in regards to being immunologically protected from the virus? What's your opinion on how all the measures that you mentioned affect that? Do you think years of social distancing, masking and constant reminding of death and danger have any effect whatsoever in people's immunological system or is that a myth?
Do you believe in the placebo effect? Do you believe in hypocondria? Do you think hypocondria is a health issue? Do you think this pandemic has/is making people hypocondriac? If so, is that an important problem at all? How should we address it, if at all?
A part of the population STILL refuses to take the vaccine, and the more pressure is put on them, the more radicalized they become. What happens if we can't reach the vaccination threshold? Do you think we should take action now and look for alternative treatments just in case we never reach that threshold? Or is it too late for that, and the best solution is to take away entirely those people's capacity to refuse?
What are the risks for society at large if not everyone gets vaccinated? Could it, in the long run, make the situation worse than if we hadn't vaccinated anyone?
Should the emergency mandates adapt to how the people react to them or should the people ultimately always bow down to what the Science State dictates? If the latter, what happens if/when the Science State gets it wrong? Is that even possible or is it always about lack of compliance?
The FDA emergency authorization estipulates that in order for it to be in place, there must be "certain criteria met, including being no no adequate, approved, and available alternatives". Do you think this could possibly have an influence in the acceptance or discrediting of other treatments, which would automatically disable the emergency authorization and force the vaccine manufacturers to follow standard protocols once again? Do you think this constitutes a problem at all?
And my last question, I'm very sorry for the extension:
Are you aware that the FDA consulting board on pfizer booster shots for the general public voted against them 16 to 2? What's your opinion on that. Are those qualified scientists or are they fearful idiots like the rest of us? Do you even listen to the virologists and experts that don't agree with you? There are plenty out there, many of them who might be almost as qualified as you.
Once again, sorry for the extension, but I think it's in the best interest of many of us confused ones to clarify some of these points as to have a better and less disinformed discussion
God this is super long so if I'm short with answers, its because I've answered a lot before.
First: I'm not qualified as a medical authority. I have 15 years in the medical field, I have 5 years in data science (3.5 of them being in medical data science). I'm qualified to interpret medical data, and I speak to many people in the field consistently. I've also worked in hospitals as a transport technician (we're pretty much just extra hands for nurses) from April 2020 - August 2020 because it was the only way I could spend time with my wife (ICU RN) during that time as we didn't want to potentially expose our kids, so we moved to a dingy motel in SF while they stayed with extended family. Just so my situation is clear - not a doctor, not giving medical advice, I'm interpreting medical facts and debunking a lot of nonsense. But the great majority of people talking about COVID are not medical authorities. Virologists and biologists only. Would you give a **** what a dermatologist has to say? I barely would even about the skin. Useless people.. anyways...
1) I want to make sure we're saying same thing. Persons A & C are vaxxed. Persons B & D are unvaxxed.
If person A is dangerously near person C, they represent the lowest chance of transmission
If person A is dangerously near person B or D, they represent the 2nd lowest chance of transmission
If person B is dangerously near person A or C, they represent the 2nd highest chance of transmission
If person B is dangerously near person D, they represent the highest level of transmission.
More transmission = more opportunities = more chances for variants mutations. BTW many mutations are less deadly. They die. Most of them before we're even aware of them. Who cares? They are weak. This is evolution in action, and if we knew how to control evolution at a viral level, we wouldnt be here. As of now, we believe it was caused from one strain. It could have been multiple, but its unlikely because there would have been multiple vectors upon the onset. Unfortunately China's not extremely transparent so its very hard to know for certain, but evidence suggests one onset virus. Based on the amount of time it took for a potent variant to pop up, that reinforces the argument.
Its important to know that while some studies point to this, they need far more sterile conditions for it to be a widely accepted fact. Currently this is the result of several studies that weren't meant to prove transmission, as well as common sense in virology about viral loads and their relation to immunoresponses to vaccines. The reason why this isn't ironclad is because of mRNA not having a history to fall back on. The adenovirus (J&T) does have such history and is more further along re: study-based proof. However because COVID is fairly unique in its behavior, it would be irresponsible to claim it as ironclad. It is however accepted by medical professionals as a truth, but good medical professionals will stop short of saying its medically proven. There is however, no evidence to the contrary, at all, at this time.
2) There could be other solutions for everything. We probably have it within our potential to cure cancer, we just havent unlocked how yet.
3) Emergency use authorizations are more typically for medical devices. It is very rare that a medicine is used in that way unless.. well.. emergency! Most medicines (as you described) would not apply unless they were fighting something spreading immensely and had a long-term immuno-effect, which most dont
4) Would masking have a long-term immunological effect? Sure, if we mask for our entire lives. One years, two years.. absolutely nothing in terms of immuno-evolution. Worst case scenario it delays it, but whats the difference? If a new nuisance of a virus (not deadly, but irritating) was going to spread in 2020 but didnt because we masked, why would our immunoresponse be any different in 2025? If the whole cycle takes 2-3 years, instead of being done in 2023 we're done in 2028. But this is a very unlikely scenario, and any "damage" to the immune system is absolutely a myth, and a really poor one to boot. If anyone you know is pushing this, you should doubt their credibility on everything medical.
5) Placebos and hypochrondria is very real. However its damn near impossible at a global scale. BUT, as noted earlier, the "Bear Patrol effect" (I'm sure there's an official name but this is what my MG called it) is a very real thing. Take HCQ - don't really, it doesn't help. It was being pushed as a treatment or even preventative. Truth is, it did neither. But some people who took it were lucky enough to not get sick, so they felt they stumbled ass backwards into a cure. Which would have been great and celebrated. But we tested it, and it wasn't. Google Bear Patrol Simpsons for full context.
6) What alternative treatments do you suggest? Medicine isn't just throwing random chemicals and hoping for the best. The vaccine is the best weapon we have against it, along with personal responsibility (social distancing and masking) - which antivaxxers ALSO dont do, for the most part. We likely won't reach a vaccination threshold (for eradication) because people are way too slow or ignorant. It still remains the best option for slowing the virus and its variants. We will likely reach endemic, hopefully with Delta, but the risk is greater than a new variant will show up the longer people don't get vaccinated, and dont take local mandates seriously. And even if there are no local mandates, wearing a mask and avoiding superspreader areas is still a good idea. Eventually natural immunity + vaccination will eradicate the deadliness by curbing spread, and barring anything unforeseen, COVID shots should be treated the same as flu shots down the road. How far down the road depends on antivaxxers and those who don't take precautions as noted above.
7) There is always a chance that science gets it wrong. The problem is, the anti-science people are NEVER right. Because science evolves and changes with information. Anti-science people change arguments, not conclusions. So if you have a better solution than all the virologists and biologists out there, please share. You don't, YouTube doesn't, religious leaders don't... so those people do far more damage than a wrong scientist ever could. Because science has to be proven, over and over, to make a stand. They did in this case. But because it wasn't 100%, people pretend like denying them is some sort of enlightened take, when it isn't.
Are you aware that the FDA consulting board on pfizer booster shots for the general public voted against them 16 to 2? What's your opinion on that. Are those qualified scientists or are they fearful idiots like the rest of us? Do you even listen to the virologists and experts that don't agree with you? There are plenty out there, many of them who might be almost as qualified as you.
First off, there are not plenty. There are less % of qualified people who think different than the overwhelming majority opinion of virologists and biologists than there are people who think the world is flat. And so far all of them, when presenting any studies, have been unrepeatable. By definition what they do isnt science.
But the underlined part: look in the mirror here. You have the majority of the scientific world saying the vaccine is effective and necessary to stop this faster. And you're asking if I would handwave off experts because they dissent? Science, and especially data science, is all about dissent. You listen, you learn, you understand, and then you make a conclusion. I dont know what their arguments are, both pro or con for a 3rd booster. So until I see them, making a judgement would be what an idiot does. An idiot would take a finite stance on something they don't know about.
And now to close, let me be very clear about your methodology here. I answered all your questions because I've done it before. Its done by ambulance chasing lawyers who have their cases thrown out. Its called the question avalanche, its meant to dissuade responses and, in absence of responses, declare themselves correct. Most of these questions are medicine 101 stuff that anyone with Google and an even basic understanding of biology can answer. But I answered them all because it's time for you to stop now. I've seen your posts, and just being verbose doesn't change the caliber of the ideas you put forth. So now, if you choose to continue pushing bad faith narratives, we can all be 100% certain that it was never about understanding, it was never about being factual, it was always about working backwards from the answer you wanted. And I'm not saying you will do that, I'm in fact playing the odds here and would love to be pleasantly surprised. But as you can see from my background, what I've had to do the past 18 months, and then see in this forum now.. I'm not optimistic. I'll be the first to be aggressively apologetic if I'm wrong here.
And yea, thats not nice to say. I'm not trying to be nice. I'm trying to be right. And I'm also not trying to convince you, or anyone I respond to. Because honestly if you are coming here and pushing a lot of nonsense, the odds of you changing your mind this late in the game are practically nil. I'm responding because there might be someone who understands that they don't know about this kinda thing, but sees a basic, general, but uneducated opinion on COVID and thinks "hey, that makes some sense to me" so they can become another person who's wildly unqualified to speak about the data, yet does at length.
Hope this helped
