Chink in the Armor - The Vaccinated Are Worried and Scientists Don’t Have Answers

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Zitterbewegung
I do wonder. The second shot seemed to have greater side effects. Sounds like ADE. What will the booster do?

Each booster will be the latest incarnation of the drug. Tweaked to see how it works in a human body.

Some people are going to allow themselves to be filled with all kinds of crap, injected at multi-month intervals.

Well, it's a relatively new treatment, offered under an EUA, for a pathogen rapidly mutates. They are going to need to tweak the treatments constantly, to keep up with variants, as many of us predicted at the start, and that is fine and good.

I'm just not understanding how this is being made mandatory.

I'm also not getting how some people actually believed that the treatments would actually impart multi-year (some said permanent!), 90%+ immunity. We had people arguing that theory here not long ago.

Again, lots of parties have painted themselves into a corner with the mandates for this treatment, and now some are doubling down on that wrong-headed approach. It is going to lead to serious social problems.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

I was under no illusion that I would be 100% safe from infection or hospitalization when I decided to be vaccinated.

And the evidence still shows that those who are vaccinated are far less likely to have severe infection than those who are not, even with the Delta variant. Possibly still less likely of becoming infected.

I am not really "worried" for myself, nor do I regret being vaccinated.

Here's a little math I did as an example when the "terrible" news from Israel started showing up:


We have a population of 1,000. 90% of whom are vaccinated. We have 50 infections in the group (5% of the population). Half of those infected are vaccinated (25 people), half are not vaccinated (25 people).

90% of 1,000 is 900. So 3% of the vaccinated are infected.
10% of 1,000 is 100. So 25% of the unvaccinated are infected.

Which group is doing worse?

a reply to: Phage

I never claimed you should be worried, nor would I question your decision to vax. I'm guessing you're no spring chicken Phage, so such a choice seems sound to me.

I support and don't question your decision.

The same courtesy should be extended to those of us relatively younger and healthy that chose not to vax.

originally posted by: Phage
Here's a little math I did as an example when the "terrible" news from Israel started showing up:


We have a population of 1,000. 90% of whom are vaccinated. We have 50 infections in the group (5% of the population). Half of those infected are vaccinated (25 people), half are not vaccinated (25 people).

90% of 1,000 is 900. So 3% of the vaccinated are infected.
10% of 1,000 is 100. So 25% of the unvaccinated are infected.

Which group is doing worse?

It is funny that last week OR was reporting 900 in the hospital with less than 2% vaccinated. With all the funky numbers like how many have gotten the virus, how many have truly died to the virus, what is the true active cases when many are asymptomatic and don't get tested or see a doctor we can say the confidence is rather low to any true accuracy.

But something we can truly count with a high level of accuracy is how many people are in a hospital and whether they are vaccinated or not.

a reply to: Phage
Just sick, eh?

Frankly? The larger group gaining a longer lasting, more rounded immune response having to deal with the whole virus, and not just a spike.

Probably shouldn't have gone with just sick. Plenty of us are ok with being down for the count for a bit, it's a part of life on this rock.

originally posted by: SleeperHasAwakened

Well, it's a relatively new treatment, offered under an EUA, for a pathogen rapidly mutates. They are going to need to tweak the treatments constantly, to keep up with variants, as many of us predicted at the start, and that is fine and good.

Maybe not so much. Since the vaccine triggers the body on the s protein that is one that all the variants will also have. They picked that protein over others because the body would trigger on it the best, so in the end if you get a variant your body will trigger on its s protein too.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Maybe there is a light at the end of the tunnel with this new assay that the CDC is recommending for COVID testing.

If it turns out that COVID cases were inflated due to flaws with the PCR test, and this new test improves the accuracy, that is great news.

If we see an evening out of COVID and influenza statistics, that would be a sign that serious flaws in the diagnostic apparatus of COVID previously existed, and have been corrected. I do expect and hope this to happen, but we'll see. A drop in COVID cases should lessen the pressure to compel everyone, even non-risk individuals, to continually take the treatment.

If we can address the statistical uncertainty, keep improving the treatments, and start throttling back on the hysteria (and authoritarianism), then a "return to normal" might actually be in the cards.

originally posted by: Nyiah

Frankly? The larger group gaining a longer lasting, more rounded immune response having to deal with the whole virus, and not just a spike.

Probably shouldn't have gone with just sick. Plenty of us are ok with being down for the count for a bit, it's a part of life on this rock.

I have 3 friends in their mid 50s spend weeks in the hospital, also others that got hit pretty hard maybe not at the level to go to the hospital but very hard, so there is sick and then there is sick. One of them said if he got it earlier he most likely would have died. I think the best mix is to have vac anti-bodies and as you get the virus you get more protection over all. If you are young I don't think it matters much either way.

a reply to: Nyiah

The larger group gaining a longer lasting, more rounded immune response having to deal with the whole virus, and not just a spike.

That's not really the way antibodies work. They target specific proteins. That is why, if you get an antibody test, they test for the spike protein. Our immune system hates the spike protein.
testguide.labmed.uw.edu...

originally posted by: SleeperHasAwakened

Maybe there is a light at the end of the tunnel with this new assay that the CDC is recommending for COVID testing.

If it turns out that COVID cases were inflated due to flaws with the PCR test, and this new test improves the accuracy, that is great news.

When did we go from not over whelming the medical system, to no one get it period? Herd immunity is not a bad word and it is what we should have done a while back. And especially now that high risk are vaccinated let it run its course. We had 100 million kids out of schools for a full year that could have easily passed it around like my oldest did in college.

I think they are well under inflated with most not getting tested. I also think the tests are 30%+ unreliable too. In the end its a percent we cant use for much of anything anyways. The true way to tell herd immunity is by daily drops over all not some over all tally.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: SleeperHasAwakened

Well, it's a relatively new treatment, offered under an EUA, for a pathogen rapidly mutates. They are going to need to tweak the treatments constantly, to keep up with variants, as many of us predicted at the start, and that is fine and good.

Maybe not so much. Since the vaccine triggers the body on the s protein that is one that all the variants will also have. They picked that protein over others because the body would trigger on it the best, so in the end if you get a variant your body will trigger on its s protein too.

Time will tell.

Never underestimate mother nature's ability to adapt and circumvent the best laid plans of etc.

I am not a virologist. I don't know to what extent it would be possible for COVID to mutate to a degree that the spike proteins created from the messenger RNA treatments no longer resemble the byproducts of the actual virus. I imagine this will be a constantly shifting pursuit of monitoring the virus' pathology, and adapting to it as it mutates.

I am also hopeful that continued use and study of the treatments will diminish the adverse reactions, and that is something not really up to the virus. It's up to us to examine how the spike proteins react to human biology among the population, and observe the many ways that seemingly healthy people experienced bad side effects, e.g. clotting, myocarditis, excessive bleeding, palsies, neuorpathy, etc.

I believe in the science and that we will make strides in treating this disorder. We just need to not alienate everyone to science and research due to political manipulation of the data.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

If it turns out that COVID cases were inflated due to flaws with the PCR test, and this new test improves the accuracy, that is great news.

It is still a PCR test.

The difference is that it can test for two things (at least) at once. Used to be that if you test for COVID and it came up negative you would then test for flu. No need with this test. One test can determine if it is flu and/or COVID.

originally posted by: SleeperHasAwakened

I believe in the science and that we will make strides in treating this disorder. We just need to not alienate everyone to science and research due to political manipulation of the data.

The reality is it is not going away, but it can get to the point of a common cold, so we have that.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Fair point, it could be that there is a statistical under-representation of COVID cases due to lack of testing.

By the same token, do you agree that the absurd drop in influenza numbers in 2020-21 is likely due to some amount of bleed over into COVID diagnoses, attributable to the lack of precision of the RT-PCR?

Either way you slice it, the data is hard to trust, and that is unfortunate.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

If it turns out that COVID cases were inflated due to flaws with the PCR test, and this new test improves the accuracy, that is great news.

It is still a PCR test.

The difference is that it can test for two things (at least) at once. Used to be that if you test for COVID and it came up negative you would then test for flu. No need with this test. One test can determine if it is flu and/or COVID.

Yes, I did hear that.

I was keenly aware, at the start of the pandemic, of reports of people that had experienced oscillating positive/negative results from the RT-PCR test over numerous iterations, to the point where clinicians had to practically rely on symptomatic diagnosis to determine a case of influenza vs COVID. That is a crap shoot.

When we reach a place of better testing, hopefully a lot of the statistical anomalies and argumentative interpretation of the data on what is or isn't a COVID case can be put to rest.

a reply to: visitedbythem

I believe that movie was taken from a short story written by Shirley Jackson, called "The Lottery". It is valid even today, because it talks of the whole of a community which chooses "the Others", to be persecuted and killed.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

experienced oscillating positive/negative results from the RT-PCR test over numerous iterations

You may be confusing RT-antigen tests with PCR tests. Can you provide examples of PCR testing showing these problems?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

experienced oscillating positive/negative results from the RT-PCR test over numerous iterations

You may be confusing RT-antigen tests with PCR tests. Can you provide examples of PCR testing showing these problems?

Lots of instances of mixed results in the NFL's COVID testing regimen last year, and I presume that with the money at stake with games being played, this was not some fly-by-night test operation at a 24/7 walk-in clinic.

The Indianapolis Colts on Friday briefly joined the growing group of N.F.L. teams dealing with a potential outbreak of coronavirus cases. Except hours later, the team announced that it had been wrong: The “four individuals” who had tested positive for the virus were re-tested and found to be negative.

Hours after the Colts said they were closing their practice facility, the New England Patriots — who had just emerged from a virus-inflicted week off — also called off their Friday session after recording at least one new positive. The Patriots said the team also was waiting for the results of a follow-up test for a second player to confirm whether he, too, was positive.

The confusion in Indianapolis, though, mirrored a similar series of events last Friday involving the Jets, who closed and then quickly reopened their training facility after an initial positive result was not confirmed in a second test. But the uncertainty and disruption also cast new doubt on the reliance on rapid testing to spot, and prevent, virus outbreaks as the league plows ahead with its schedule.

ETA:

List of diagnostics used by NFL

Three types of tests are being used:

Molecular tests for COVID-19 diagnosis (PCR tests): To quickly identify active infections in the team environment and help limit the spread of COVID-19, these mandatory tests were used for Intake Testing and are being used for daily Monitoring Testing. These tests have a 24-hour turnaround time for results.
Point-of-care tests (POC): Also used to quickly identify active infections in the team environment and help limit the spread of COVID-19, these tests are part of the confirmatory testing process (after an initial positive PCR test) and are part of the Post-Exposure COVID Procedures for any club that may be experiencing an outbreak or had exposure to a club with an active outbreak.
Antibody tests for COVID-19 exposure: These tests, which are voluntary, are used to indicate prior infection with the COVID-19 virus. Players who are positive for antibodies receive additional cardiac screening.

originally posted by: SleeperHasAwakened
a reply to: Xtrozero

Fair point, it could be that there is a statistical under-representation of COVID cases due to lack of testing.

By the same token, do you agree that the absurd drop in influenza numbers in 2020-21 is likely due to some amount of bleed over into COVID diagnoses, attributable to the lack of precision of the RT-PCR?

Either way you slice it, the data is hard to trust, and that is unfortunate.

I saw a study that said viruses will compete with each other and there are other underlining aspects to how our immune system works that make other viruses harder to get a hold when people are already sick with lets say COVID such as you are already full of mucus and you immune system is already in full swing. Add in we did isolate from each other a good deal, but I had the flu or something 2 times in the past year.

How we figure the flu is kind of strange too. We get information from only 100 hospitals and according to what they report as sick and dead we come up with a sampling that suggests 60 million got it and 60k died, so maybe that reporting was all out of whack too.

I'm from WA and we had the homecare homes hit first and even back then I was saying it must already be going big in the general public to finally get to a care facility. Now they are saying 1 to 2% already had it in some big cities when we thought only 15 people had died and Seattle area most likely was over 2% by that time.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Yes, I had also read but not fully thought through the "competing virus" hypothesis. Could definitely be something to that.

I think we need a comprehensive, detailed study of the interplay between COVID and influenza in the population. I cannot see any way that influenza deaths could drop from 50k to 453 (!) in a single year, even accounting for interactions between viruses. Even inaccuracies in the diagnostics seems like a stretch to drop by several orders of magnitude.

Something doesn't add up.