Covid-19 miscellany

[repoman]

Melatonin is partially regulated from signal from the melanopsin receptors in the periphery of the retina that are impacted from blue and green light only - UV won't get in - too busy making cataracts...

The melanopsin receptors send signals to the circadian rhythm center, etc...

I think his point was the term should have been melanin. UV without melanin leads to sunburn.

Ah, not getting from context that it was meant to be melanin is a worse error than mistaking melatonin for melanin, lol.

 

[crazyfingers]

I've been pretty pissed off at the school district. They eliminated the mask mandate in March but look what has happened to reported Covid cases in the schools. Top chart is provided on the district website. Reported cases have exceeded January and there is still a month left of school.

There is a daily email that provides counts by school and the second chart is my keeping track of counts only for the high school where my kid goes. And there is still a week before seniors graduate. My kid is super anxious when he is in the school. He wears N95's but few others do. He knows his mom is immune compromised. The board of health is strongly recommended that everyone wear masks but almost no one does. My repeated emails to the superintendent go unanswered.

 

[TSwizzle]

If your kid is wearing a mask he won’t catch covid I’m told.

 

[bilby]

If your kid is wearing a mask he won’t catch covid I’m told.

Yeah, but that’s because you rely on idiots to tell you things.

If your kid wears a mask, he is slightly less likely to catch covid, and dramatically less likely to pass it on to others, if he does catch it.

Apparently such subtle and complex information is beyond both you and your sources.

It must be very odd to go through life thinking that absolutes exist, and that anything that isn’t perfect must be completely useless.

It must be even weirder to think that doing something mostly to protect others, rather than oneself, is pointless or valueless.

 

[Metaphor]

If your kid is wearing a mask he won’t catch covid I’m told.

Yeah, but that’s because you rely on idiots to tell you things.

If your kid wears a mask, he is slightly less likely to catch covid,

That is false. Masks protect the wearer from COVID to a large extent.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If your kid is wearing a mask he won’t catch covid I’m told.

Yeah, but that’s because you rely on idiots to tell you things.

If your kid wears a mask, he is slightly less likely to catch covid,

That is false. Masks protect the wearer from COVID to a large extent.

All day without a fit-tested N95 it's not going to give nearly the protection it does for the medical people.

 

[Metaphor]

If your kid is wearing a mask he won’t catch covid I’m told.

Yeah, but that’s because you rely on idiots to tell you things.

If your kid wears a mask, he is slightly less likely to catch covid,

That is false. Masks protect the wearer from COVID to a large extent.

All day without a fit-tested N95 it's not going to give nearly the protection it does for the medical people.

Then don't wear one. But, given you wear one in situations that do not warrant it at all, I doubt you'll do so.

 

[TSwizzle]

This shows that the science the lockdown authoritarians were following was entirely made up;

A study of nearly 30,000 people has found asymptomatic carriers are about 68 per cent less likely to pass the virus on than those who get sick.

No10 used concerns about asymptomatic spread to justify forcing Britons to obey lockdowns and wear masks.

They were thought to account for up to a third of all infections and many scientists claimed asymptomatic patients were just as infectious as the sick. But a new global study spanning 42 countries, including the UK and US, found they were only responsible for as little as 14 per cent of cases.

Daily Mail

 

[bilby]

This shows that the science the lockdown authoritarians were following was entirely made up;

A study of nearly 30,000 people has found asymptomatic carriers are about 68 per cent less likely to pass the virus on than those who get sick.

No10 used concerns about asymptomatic spread to justify forcing Britons to obey lockdowns and wear masks.

They were thought to account for up to a third of all infections and many scientists claimed asymptomatic patients were just as infectious as the sick. But a new global study spanning 42 countries, including the UK and US, found they were only responsible for as little as 14 per cent of cases.

Daily Mail

The Daily Mail has yet to show any interest in science.

To present a newspaper article as a refutation of science is to make a category error; It’s not the kind of thing that can do the thing you are claiming.

And the quote you provided doesn’t even say what you are claiming it says, so even if it could, it wouldn’t.

“lockdown authoritarians” are a figment of your paranoid imagination, but even if they existed, the “evidence” you are presenting wouldn’t say anything useful about them.

Your post is fractally wrong. No matter the scale at which we examine it, it is utter bollocks.

That would be quite an impressive achievement, were it not for the fact that the Daily Mail, who are world renowned experts in the field of being totally wrong about almost everything, hadn’t done most of the work for you.

I know you don’t give a shit about being wrong on this subject - your posting history makes that quite clear - but on the off-chance that you were to want to understand just how badly wrong you are, I would suggest you start by considering whether or not 14% is greater than zero.

 

[TSwizzle]

An update on an earlier study that showed lockdowns were ineffective at stopping the spread of covid;

The first Covid lockdowns saved 10,000 lives in Europe and US and had 'little or no effect' on the virus death rate, updated analysis suggests. A review by an international team of economists found draconian shutdowns only reduced Covid mortality by 3 per cent in the UK, US and Europe in 2020. The experts, from Johns Hopkins University in the US, Lund University in Sweden and the Danish think-tank the Center for Political Studies, said that equates to 6,000 fewer deaths in Europe and 4,000 fewer in the US. This marks a revision from the group's first report last year, which found lockdowns cut Covid deaths by just 0.2 per cent. The team said the updated figure is down to changes in their calculations and new studies. But they still conclude: 'Stricter lockdowns are not an effective way of reducing mortality rates during a pandemic, at least not during the first wave of the Covid pandemic.'

Daily Mail

Bad news for the lockdown authoritarians.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

An update on an earlier study that showed lockdowns were ineffective at stopping the spread of covid;

The first Covid lockdowns saved 10,000 lives in Europe and US and had 'little or no effect' on the virus death rate, updated analysis suggests. A review by an international team of economists found draconian shutdowns only reduced Covid mortality by 3 per cent in the UK, US and Europe in 2020. The experts, from Johns Hopkins University in the US, Lund University in Sweden and the Danish think-tank the Center for Political Studies, said that equates to 6,000 fewer deaths in Europe and 4,000 fewer in the US. This marks a revision from the group's first report last year, which found lockdowns cut Covid deaths by just 0.2 per cent. The team said the updated figure is down to changes in their calculations and new studies. But they still conclude: 'Stricter lockdowns are not an effective way of reducing mortality rates during a pandemic, at least not during the first wave of the Covid pandemic.'

Daily Mail

Bad news for the lockdown authoritarians.

What lockdown?


Oh wait... you are calling no restaurants, bars, or going to The Gap as meaning a "lockdown". Then we can talk about "stopping" verses "slowing", but that'd probably too nuanced for a high brow reader of The Daily Mail.

 

[TSwizzle]

"Two weeks to flatten the curve". Jimmy conveniently omits the schools, universities, dentists, doctors offices etc being closed causing untold (so far) damage. Too nuanced for an intellectual heavyweight such as Jimmy.

 

[Metaphor]

An update on an earlier study that showed lockdowns were ineffective at stopping the spread of covid;

The first Covid lockdowns saved 10,000 lives in Europe and US and had 'little or no effect' on the virus death rate, updated analysis suggests. A review by an international team of economists found draconian shutdowns only reduced Covid mortality by 3 per cent in the UK, US and Europe in 2020. The experts, from Johns Hopkins University in the US, Lund University in Sweden and the Danish think-tank the Center for Political Studies, said that equates to 6,000 fewer deaths in Europe and 4,000 fewer in the US. This marks a revision from the group's first report last year, which found lockdowns cut Covid deaths by just 0.2 per cent. The team said the updated figure is down to changes in their calculations and new studies. But they still conclude: 'Stricter lockdowns are not an effective way of reducing mortality rates during a pandemic, at least not during the first wave of the Covid pandemic.'

Daily Mail

Bad news for the lockdown authoritarians.

What lockdown?


Oh wait... you are calling no restaurants, bars, or going to The Gap as meaning a "lockdown". Then we can talk about "stopping" verses "slowing", but that'd probably too nuanced for a high brow reader of The Daily Mail.

The use of the term 'lockdown' to mean the shuttering of many businesses and the forbidding of many activities is a standard term all over the Anglosphere.

So, TSwizzle is calling that a lockdown because that's what a lockdown means.

 

[lpetrich]

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Authorizes Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccines for Children Down to 6 Months of Age | FDA

Bumping the minimum age for the Pfizer vaccine down from 5 years and for the Moderna vaccine down from 18 years. Seems to me that the FDA is trying to be *very* cautious. But it's good that the FDA now covers all of the population that can move around on its own -- babies start to crawl at 6 to 10 months of age.

The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine is administered as a primary series of two doses, one month apart, to individuals 6 months through 17 years of age. The vaccine is also authorized to provide a third primary series dose at least one month following the second dose for individuals in this age group who have been determined to have certain kinds of immunocompromise.

The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is administered as a primary series of three doses in which the initial two doses are administered three weeks apart followed by a third dose administered at least eight weeks after the second dose in individuals 6 months through 4 years of age.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Authorizes Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccines for Children Down to 6 Months of Age | FDA

Bumping the minimum age for the Pfizer vaccine down from 5 years and for the Moderna vaccine down from 18 years. Seems to me that the FDA is trying to be *very* cautious. But it's good that the FDA now covers all of the population that can move around on its own -- babies start to crawl at 6 to 10 months of age.

The FDA is concerned both with safety and effectiveness. The trial with Pfizer failed the second part of that. Likewise the first attempt at a booster targeted on Omicron.

 

[repoman]

Can someone comment on whether or not there might be some level of "original antigenic sin" with using a two year old recipe for the newer omicron strains?

This video from 53:07 and forward...



Risk myocarditis for an outdated vaccine booster for young healthy people?

Risk/Benefit anyone?

So going back to my old post, what about this twitter thread in posts 8 and 9?

(8/) Multiple recent reports have highlighted the immune imprinting or “original antigenic sin” phenomenon. (Y.J. Park et al. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.08.491108, J. Quandt et al. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciimmunol.abq2427, C.J. Reynolds et al. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abq1841)

(9/) Our results also show that Omicron breakthrough infections mainly recall wildtype vaccine induced memory B cells, which limits its ability to broaden the diversity of antibodies elicited.

 

[repoman]

Thiis video from 53:07 to the end gives me pause for getting the OG vaccine booster when the Omicron vaccine is only a couple months away. Not just poorly effective, but maybe counter effective?

I'm not going to waste my time on the video, but I have heard of the "counter effective" bit--crap extrapolation by the disinformation crowd.

This is part 26 of a professional immunology lecture series given in 2018. It discusses the paradoxical aspects of "original antigenic sin" for influenza.

You should take a look now, Loren.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

(8/) Multiple recent reports have highlighted the immune imprinting or “original antigenic sin” phenomenon. (Y.J. Park et al. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.08.491108, J. Quandt et al. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciimmunol.abq2427, C.J. Reynolds et al. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abq1841)

(9/) Our results also show that Omicron breakthrough infections mainly recall wildtype vaccine induced memory B cells, which limits its ability to broaden the diversity of antibodies elicited.

Note that the same problem with original antigenic sin applies from infection as from vaccination.

As with basically every argument against the vaccine it applies more to infection than to the vaccine. I have yet to hear of a substantial adverse outcome from the vaccine that is not at least equally likely from infection and in general far more likely.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Thiis video from 53:07 to the end gives me pause for getting the OG vaccine booster when the Omicron vaccine is only a couple months away. Not just poorly effective, but maybe counter effective?

I'm not going to waste my time on the video, but I have heard of the "counter effective" bit--crap extrapolation by the disinformation crowd.

This is part 26 of a professional immunology lecture series given in 2018. It discusses the paradoxical aspects of "original antigenic sin" for influenza.

You should take a look now, Loren.

First, it doesn't make the body less able to fight it, just not as able as it could be. Second, it would happen with infection anyway. You're advocating jumping from the frying pan to the fire.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For you deniers: The risk of lasting damage goes up every time you get it: