Support NeoGAF

[Narasumas]

As for the origins of the virus, I still think it's zootic. The lab leak stuff is all built on various suspicions and suppositions, while we know every other coronavirus developed in either humans or some other animal.

Except for the chimeric coronaviruses created through gain of function research and insertion of furin cleavage sites designed to bind to human cell receptors in the lab in the city where the outbreak happened.

What Guileless said. I find the chances of both of these things happening in one location while being unrelated to one another slim to none. Couple that with sealed off records and obfuscation X1000 and you’ve got yourself a developing case IMO.

 

[Rentahamster]

You simplify, but probably unconsciously, the whole situation.

Projection much? Your next sentence is a strawman that oversimplifies the whole situation.

When someone is called an anti-vaxxer, most people, and unfortunately this is intentional, associate this person with being stupid, easily influenced, reckless, aggressive or even right-wing.

Strawman argument that oversimplifies the whole situation. There is a pretty clear definition of someone who is an "anti-vaxxer" - someone who is against taking the vaccine (any vaccine) without any good reason to do so. Saying that it's only this vaccine is a cop out. All that extra stuff is baggage that you are adding yourself.

f you are not vaccinated and you agree with me, then you are an idiot and deserve to die. That's where we are right now. Amazing.

Another strawman. That's not where we are right now. That's where you imagine we are via a persecution complex. Anti-vaxxers don't "deserve" to die anymore than people who leave their front door unlocked "deserve" to be burglarized.

I know that is hard for you and most others.

Are you sure it's not hard for you? Don't be so quick to assume you're right and that it's just the children who are out of touch, when the supporting evidence is not in your favor.

But just imagine you would treat unvaccinated people with respect and accept their decision, no matter if it makes sense or is understandable to you. What would be different then?

Do you not have a problem with people who ignorantly and actively contribute to being a public health threat that was the third leading cause of death in the USA and has now killed more people than the Spanish Flu? Do you care about feelings that much more over facts and public safety? Do you think that making people feel better is actually the better way to ensure a lower death toll?

 

[Rentahamster]

As stated earlier, since the vaccine doesn't 100% reduce transmissibility, I think it's interesting that the UK NHS study one page back shows that almost double the 30-39 year old patients infected with COVID were already vaccinated, as opposed to half of those being unvaccinated. If this is a matter of 'selfishness', and the vaccine doesn't erase transmissibility, then I would argue a case could be made where the packed football stadiums or concert arenas are where the selfish people are--vaxxed or unvaxxed.

You mean this one?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1023849/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_40.pdf

Don't jump to conclusions when they aren't warranted. From the same report:

Effectiveness against infection

Although individuals may not develop symptoms of COVID-19 after vaccination, it is possible that they could still be infected with the virus and could transmit to others. Understanding how effective vaccines are at preventing infection is therefore important to predict the likely impact of the vaccination programme on the wider population. In order to estimate vaccine effectiveness against infection, repeat asymptomatic testing of a defined cohort of individuals is required. Studies have now reported on vaccine effectiveness against infection in healthcare workers, care home residents and the general population (12, 13, 14, 15). With the delta variant, vaccine effectiveness against infection has been estimated at around 65% with Vaxzevria and 80% with Comirnaty (4).

Effectiveness against transmission

As described above, several studies have provided evidence that vaccines are effective at preventing infection. Uninfected individuals cannot transmit; therefore, the vaccines are also effective at preventing transmission. There may be additional benefit, beyond that due to prevention of infection, if some of those individuals who become infected despite vaccination are also at a reduced risk of transmitting (for example, because of reduced duration or level of viral shedding). A household transmission study in England found that household contacts of cases vaccinated with a single dose had approximately 35 to 50% reduced risk of becoming a confirmed case of COVID-19. This study used routine testing data so would only include household contacts that developed symptoms and went on to request a test via pillar 2. It cannot exclude asymptomatic secondary cases or mildly symptomatic cases who chose not to request a COVID-19 test (16). Data from Scotland has also shown that household contacts of vaccinated healthcare workers are at reduced risk of becoming a case, which is in line with the studies on infection (17). Both of these studies relate to a period when the Alpha variant dominated. An analysis from the ONS Community Infection Survey found that contacts of vaccinated index cases had around 65-80% reduced odds of testing positive with the Alpha variant and 35-65% reduced odds of testing positive with the Delta variant compare to contacts of unvaccinated index cases (18).

Interpretation of data

These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different sources and is described earlier in this report. In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease. Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to nonCOVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of COVID-19.

There's a lot of possibilities that those age groups experienced relative high levels of infection. One of them could very well be behavior-related as you suspect, but that is only one out of many other reasons for that, which are most likely sample biased in nature.

 

[Rentahamster]

Vaccination protects very well against severe courses. In the UK, which distinguishes between vaccinated and unvaccinated in the statistics, there are demonstrably more infections among vaccinated than unvaccinated persons (see page 13, https://assets.publishing.service.g...849/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_40.pdf). Most of the vaccinated are probably infected by people who have also been vaccinated.
So what danger do unvaccinated people pose? It's time to stop beating this dead horse.

Don't cherry pick your data like that, especially when in the very same report you're quoting, it says to not do the thing you just did.

 

[Rentahamster]

Except for the chimeric coronaviruses created through gain of function research and insertion of furin cleavage sites designed to bind to human cell receptors in the lab in the city where the outbreak happened.

The circumstances around Wuhan and its lab is fishy, but the furin factor isn't that strong. They're not necessarily designed, and can be found in nature.

From the guy who originally called it a "smoking gun":

The Debate over Origins of SARS-CoV-2

Nobel Laureate David Baltimore discusses theories about the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

www.caltech.edu

Caltech's David Baltimore, president emeritus and Distinguished Professor of Biology, is a virologist who received the Nobel Prize for his research into viral genetics. Baltimore was an organizer of the first Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA held in 1975 to discuss ethics and regulation of biotechnology. We sat down with him to discuss the debate over the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

Recently you were quoted as saying: "When I first saw the furin cleavage site in the viral sequence, with its arginine codons, I said to my wife it was the smoking gun for the origin of the virus. These features make a powerful challenge to the idea of a natural origin for SARS2." Can you unpack this quote for us?

Let me be clear, even though I used the phrase "smoking gun," I don't really think there's a smoking gun in the genome itself.

Now, within the SARS-CoV-2 genome there is an insertion of 12 nucleotides that is entirely foreign to the beta-coronavirus class of virus that SARS-CoV-2 is in. There are many other viruses in this class, including the closest relative of SARS-CoV-2 by sequence, and none of them have this sequence. The sequence is called the furin cleavage site.

To back up a little bit: In order to infect a cell, the spike protein on the surface of viruses like SARS-CoV-2 needs to first be cut, or cleaved. The cut needn't be terribly exact, but it needs to be cut. Different viruses attract different kinds of cellular "scissors," so to speak, to make this cut; the furin cleavage site attracts the furin protein providing the most efficient way to make a cut. You don't need a furin cleavage site to cut the protein, but it makes the virus more efficiently infectious.

So where did it come from in SARS-CoV-2? There are other viruses that have furin cleavage sites, other coronaviruses, though not the family of beta-coronaviruses. So this sequence's nucleotides could have hopped from some other virus. No one has identified a virus that has exactly this sequence, but it could have come from something close, then evolved into the sequence that we see today.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that happened, but I don't think it's the only way that that sequence could have appeared. The other way is that somebody could have put it in there. You can't distinguish between the two origins from just looking at the sequence. So, naturally, you want to know were there people in the virology laboratory in Wuhan who were manipulating viral genetic sequences? It's really a question of history: What happened?

When I first saw the sequence of the furin cleavage site—as I've said, other beta coronaviruses don't have that site—it seemed to me a reasonable hypothesis that somebody had put it in there. Now, I don't know if that's true or not, but I do know that it's a hypothesis that must be taken seriously.

Column: A Nobel laureate backs off from claiming a 'smoking gun' for the COVID-19 lab-leak theory

David Baltimore was quoted as finding a 'smoking gun' for the lab-leak theory of COVID-19's origins. He wishes he hadn't said that.

www.latimes.com

Other virologists challenge the assumption by Wade and the assertion by Baltimore that there’s anything unique or especially unusual about the furin cleavage site on SARS2. Such sites have been found in similar viruses, and natural mechanisms for their appearance have been identified.

In other words, the furin cleavage site on SARS2 does nothing to validate the lab-leak theory. Baltimore plainly recognizes this, which is why he regrets calling it a “smoking gun.” If he really believed it was, then he wouldn’t say that he hasn’t ruled out either theory for the virus’ origin, as he told me by email.

 

[Guileless]

The circumstances around Wuhan and its lab is fishy, but the furin factor isn't that strong. They're not necessarily designed, and can be found in nature.

I agree that they can be found in nature, but that doesn't mean zoonotic spillover is the most likely explanation for Covid's origins. Jim Geraghty puts it like this:

The natural-origin scenario requires us to believe that EcoHealth and its partners in China had proposed genetically altering naturally occurring coronaviruses found in bats through gain-of-function research to be conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that visiting scientists had already determined was at considerable risk for an accident, and that they wanted to take an existing virus and create a new version that was more contagious among human beings but about 95 percent similar to naturally occurring viruses . . . and entirely coincidentally, about a year later, a novel coronavirus that deadly and really contagious among human beings, that is 96.1 percent similar to a sample that we know was taken to the Wuhan Institute of Virology a few years earlier, just happens to emerge in the city of Wuhan, not far from the lab?

I agree with the other point he makes in that article that none of the institutional actors that you would expect to be the driving force to find the origin appear to be trying to actually figure it out.

 

[Rentahamster]

I agree that they can be found in nature, but that doesn't mean zoonotic spillover is the most likely explanation for Covid's origins.

I wasn't quoting that to support the claim that the zoonotic origin is the most likely explanation. I was quoting that to show that either one is plausible, but the furin stuff isn't inherently a thing that supports the lab-origin. There are many potential reasons for its existence, but without anything tying it to the lab, there's no strong reason to bring it up as a support of any of the non-zoonotic hypotheses.

 

[FunkMiller]

I wasn't quoting that to support the claim that the zoonotic origin is the most likely explanation. I was quoting that to show that either one is plausible, but the furin stuff isn't inherently a thing that supports the lab-origin. There are many potential reasons for its existence, but without anything tying it to the lab, there's no strong reason to bring it up as a support of any of the non-zoonotic hypotheses.

The strongest argument against the lab leak theory is that if you’re going to build a lab that studies coronaviruses, where are you going to put it so that you have the easiest access to them?

You wouldn’t build a marine biology lab in a desert. You wouldn’t build a virus lab where there wasn’t high potential for viruses to exist in nature.

I get the desire to see the causation based on geography, but it’s coming at the question from the wrong position.

The CCP are guilty of much, but not sure causing covid via lab leak is correct, once you look at it objectively - though it’s hard to dismiss out of hand, either.

We’ll never know the truth though, unfortunately.

 

[poppabk]

I agree that they can be found in nature, but that doesn't mean zoonotic spillover is the most likely explanation for Covid's origins. Jim Geraghty puts it like this:

The natural-origin scenario requires us to believe that EcoHealth and its partners in China had proposed genetically altering naturally occurring coronaviruses found in bats through gain-of-function research to be conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that visiting scientists had already determined was at considerable risk for an accident, and that they wanted to take an existing virus and create a new version that was more contagious among human beings but about 95 percent similar to naturally occurring viruses . . . and entirely coincidentally, about a year later, a novel coronavirus that deadly and really contagious among human beings, that is 96.1 percent similar to a sample that we know was taken to the Wuhan Institute of Virology a few years earlier, just happens to emerge in the city of Wuhan, not far from the lab?

I agree with the other point he makes in that article that none of the institutional actors that you would expect to be the driving force to find the origin appear to be trying to actually figure it out.

It's not as implausible as it might first seem. The reason they wanted to create such a virus is so that they could investigate and determine potential treatments to a virus they were afraid would appear naturally.
Plus I don't think that project actually went ahead?

 

[Guileless]

The grant application was rejected by DARPA because it was deemed too dangerous. Because of the detailed nature of the proposal, its likely that some of the research was already being done in Wuhan, but we don't know for sure and China is not talking.

The only reason we know about it at all is that someone leaked the grant proposal almost two years after the pandemic. No official investigation ever found out about it.

 

[Guileless]

I wasn't quoting that to support the claim that the zoonotic origin is the most likely explanation. I was quoting that to show that either one is plausible, but the furin stuff isn't inherently a thing that supports the lab-origin. There are many potential reasons for its existence, but without anything tying it to the lab, there's no strong reason to bring it up as a support of any of the non-zoonotic hypotheses.

The DARPA grant does tie the Wuhan lab to the manufacture of chimeric coronaviruses with cleavage sites designed to increase transmission in humans that was occurring shortly before a novel coronavirus highly adapted to human cells appeared in Wuhan and for which no zoonotic source has been identified despite a massive search.

 

[Narasumas]

You mean this one?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1023849/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_40.pdf

Don't jump to conclusions when they aren't warranted. From the same report:







There's a lot of possibilities that those age groups experienced relative high levels of infection. One of them could very well be behavior-related as you suspect, but that is only one out of many other reasons for that, which are most likely sample biased in nature.

Nothing I said was incorrect nor was a conclusion jumped to. I understand vaccines reduce transmissibility but neither do they erase the chance. I did draw a speculation as to why we see these numbers and chalked it up to behavior changes which you point out.

if we are concerned about selfishness and protecting those who can’t get vaccinated…then why are we not taking about these numbers and that social distancing is now longer a thing we enforce at equal value?

I read not all, but a good chunk of the report. Nothing you noted is new to me and I did read that. Let’s all stop with the gotcha stuff please. You’ve been one of the worst with this hamster.

 

[Narasumas]

The DARPA grant does tie the Wuhan lab to the manufacture of chimeric coronaviruses with cleavage sites designed to increase transmission in humans that was occurring shortly before a novel coronavirus highly adapted to human cells appeared in Wuhan and for which no zoonotic source has been identified despite a massive search.

Sure there’s no “bloody glove” at the moment. But thats because we can’t look in the wardrobe. At this point all signs lead to China, whether lab or zoonotic, and you’d figure they would play ball with the rest of the world. I feel it’s pretty telling that they don’t or won’t.

I find it highly suspicious both the timing, the grants, the research, the location….almost EVERYTHING points towards Wuhan, but we aren’t getting a lick of cooperation. Even from our NIH regarding funding history. It’s definitely bothersome.

 

[poppabk]

The DARPA grant does tie the Wuhan lab to the manufacture of chimeric coronaviruses with cleavage sites designed to increase transmission in humans that was occurring shortly before a novel coronavirus highly adapted to human cells appeared in Wuhan and for which no zoonotic source has been identified despite a massive search.

But a massive search by Chinese authorities. That's the main sticking point for me. They could have easily fabricated a source, the lack of an animal source is what makes the lab leak a possible cause, but then why didn't the Chinese government just manufacture a source if they were trying to cover up a lab leak?

 

[Rentahamster]

The DARPA grant does tie the Wuhan lab to the manufacture of chimeric coronaviruses with cleavage sites designed to increase transmission in humans that was occurring shortly before a novel coronavirus highly adapted to human cells appeared in Wuhan

The DARPA grant that was proposed but never happened (according to them). The amount of what looks like CYA going on by the people involved has bad optics, but it doesn't necessarily indicate that this was actually going on, in that specific way, which necessarily leads to the current version of SARSCOV2 that we see now. It's enough evidence to move the theory from "unsupported crazy talk" to "plausible and worth looking in to", but until we find out more information, there's a limited amount of conclusions we can draw from that aside from "it looks sus". There are other alternative explanations that are equally plausible and have the advantage of historical precedent, and those don't get overridden by the DARPA stuff.

and for which no zoonotic source has been identified despite a massive search.

How long do you think is a reasonable timetable to figure this out? Do you know how long it took to find the zoonotic source for SARS1? For MERS? For HIV? How many years of no results does it take for this argument to have weight? only one?

edit: I also want to mention that the 96.1% similarity that Jim talks about isn't necessarily something that is worthy of suspicion in the realm of DNA. My DNA is 96.1% similar to a chimpanzee.

 

[Narasumas]

But a massive search by Chinese authorities. That's the main sticking point for me. They could have easily fabricated a source, the lack of an animal source is what makes the lab leak a possible cause, but then why didn't the Chinese government just manufacture a source if they were trying to cover up a lab leak?

Because that source could then be scrutinized. If there’s no supposed source, there’s nothing to scrutinize.

 

[Rentahamster]

But a massive search by Chinese authorities. That's the main sticking point for me. They could have easily fabricated a source, the lack of an animal source is what makes the lab leak a possible cause, but then why didn't the Chinese government just manufacture a source if they were trying to cover up a lab leak?

That's really hard to do. You'd have to fake a population out in the wild that looks like it has had a natural looking population level distribution of those specific antibodies.

 

[Rentahamster]

States have mandated vaccinations since long before COVID-19

Republican- and Democratic-led states alike already require hundreds of thousands of citizens to be vaccinated against various diseases.

www.pewresearch.org

In fact, mandatory childhood immunizations have been a feature of American society since the 19th century.

Currently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends routine vaccination against 16 diseases from birth through age 18. The CDC recommendations, in turn, inform individual states’ vaccine mandates: Typically, children who haven’t received the required shots for their age can’t attend school (public, private or parochial) or enroll in child care programs, though there are exemptions for religious, medical or other reasons.

Some states already mandate certain vaccinations for specific categories of adults. New York, for example, requires that all workers in hospitals, nursing homes and other health care facilities be immunized against measles and rubella. Rhode Island requires child care workers to not only be immunized against several common childhood diseases, but to get an annual flu shot, too. Several states have specific vaccination mandates for college students.

But in the main, most vaccine mandates apply to children and teens. We studied state laws, regulations and information from state health departments to assess how widely mandated the CDC’s vaccine recommendations are.

Of the 16 immunizations the CDC recommends for children and teens, all 50 states (plus the District of Columbia) mandate diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough), polio, measles, rubella and chickenpox. In addition, every state except Iowa mandates immunization against mumps. (The diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccines usually are given as a single combined shot, as are the measles, mumps and rubella vaccines.) Except for the chickenpox vaccine, which became available in the United States in 1995, all those vaccines have been around for 50 years or more.

 

[poppabk]

That's really hard to do. You'd have to fake a population out in the wild that looks like it has had a natural looking population level distribution of those specific antibodies.

The original SARS was only sort of traced to bats -
"However, no specific source has been identified. Today we still do not know where the SARS virus came from and how it disappeared."

Ten years after SARS: where was the virus from?

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

It would be easy to fake on paper a natural source.

 

[BadBurger]

Except for the chimeric coronaviruses created through gain of function research and insertion of furin cleavage sites designed to bind to human cell receptors in the lab in the city where the outbreak happened.

It looks like someone already answered you, but that trait being present in other families of coronaviruses and not the one SARS-CoV-2 is in isn't persuasive to me, and it certainly doesn't lead to a conclusion that it was created in a lab.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Worlds greatest retraction?

 

[BouncyFrag]

Worlds greatest retraction?

Scratch out ‘mistakes’ and replace it with ‘lies’.

 

[funkygunther]

Worlds greatest retraction?

 

[MisterFalcon]

Worlds greatest retraction?

I thought children had a virtually zero chance of getting serious covid ? 63 Thousand is a lot less then that 900 thousand number but still quite a lot when you have 30 thousands pediatric hospital beds that are needed for normal usage as well.

Shit on NYT all you want but the 'see, there is no problem at all !' response is really dumb and harmful as kids with serious illness are presented to exist only as media conjecture.

 

[WoJ]

I thought children had a virtually zero chance of getting serious covid ? 63 Thousand is a lot less then that 900 thousand number but still quite a lot when you have 30 thousands pediatric hospital beds that are needed for normal usage as well.

Shit on NYT all you want but the 'see, there is no problem at all !' response is really dumb and harmful as kids with serious illness are presented to exist only as media conjecture.

When you factor in the population of children under 18 in the US is 73,000,000, 63,000 over a 14 month period is pretty darn low. Risk assessment is hard.

 

[Chaplain]

 

[DragoonKain]

Got the booster yesterday and for me, man this one has packed a wallop. Far worse symptoms than the first two shots for me. My head is absolutely killing me and body aches and chills all over.

Hope it passes soon. Probably will just nap all day.

 

[Aesius]

Got the booster yesterday and for me, man this one has packed a wallop. Far worse symptoms than the first two shots for me. My head is absolutely killing me and body aches and chills all over.

Hope it passes soon. Probably will just nap all day.

Hope companies start giving people booster related PTO if/once they become part of the vaccine passports and requirements. Gonna be an issue with a lot of people feeling like shit a few days out of the year.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I thought children had a virtually zero chance of getting serious covid ? 63 Thousand is a lot less then that 900 thousand number but still quite a lot when you have 30 thousands pediatric hospital beds that are needed for normal usage as well.

Shit on NYT all you want but the 'see, there is no problem at all !' response is really dumb and harmful as kids with serious illness are presented to exist only as media conjecture.

63,000 hospitalizations (not deaths)
74,000,000 American children.
=
.00085

"Virtually zero" can be interpreted reasonably in different ways.

 

[QSD]

Got the booster yesterday and for me, man this one has packed a wallop. Far worse symptoms than the first two shots for me. My head is absolutely killing me and body aches and chills all over.

Hope it passes soon. Probably will just nap all day.

I'd post the "you are already dead" meme but it's probably a bit past its prime

anyway I heard that the boosters contain more virus/stuff than the original 2 injections so it's not unexpected that the sides would be worse.

 

[Rentahamster]

I thought children had a virtually zero chance of getting serious covid ? 63 Thousand is a lot less then that 900 thousand number but still quite a lot when you have 30 thousands pediatric hospital beds that are needed for normal usage as well.

Shit on NYT all you want but the 'see, there is no problem at all !' response is really dumb and harmful as kids with serious illness are presented to exist only as media conjecture.

"Virtually zero" is a very imprecise descriptor when talking about a small chance of something that affects a very large population. Yes, on an individual assessment basis, the risk is very low (but higher than the flu, to give some perspective). However, in a population of millions, that still works out to be a lot of children in the hospital. We don't want even one child hospitalized for anything, let alone 63,000 of them.

How does this compare to other "mundane" diseases like the flu?

Estimated Flu-Related Illnesses, Medical visits, Hospitalizations, and Deaths in the United States — 2018–2019 Flu Season | CDC

CDC calculates estimates of disease burden in the United States using surveillance data and modeling to adjust for sources of under-detection. Burden estimates for the 2018-2019 season found here.

www.cdc.gov

We estimate, overall, there were 380,000 hospitalizations and 28,000 deaths during the 2018–2019 season. More than 39,000 hospitalizations occurred in children (aged <18 years)

During the 2018–2019 season, 144 deaths in children with laboratory–confirmed flu virus infection were reported in the United States8. However, flu-related pediatric deaths are likely under-reported as not all children whose death was related to an flu virus infection may have been tested for flu9,10. By combining data on hospitalization rates, flu testing practices, and the frequency of death in and out of the hospital from death certificates, we estimate that there were approximately 372 deaths associated with flu in children during 2018–2019.

To put that into perspective, there have been 587 child deaths due to COVID19 since the pandemic began.

Provisional COVID-19 Deaths: Focus on Ages 0-18 Years | Data | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

data.cdc.gov

Does that mean we should not be worried about our children or incorporate disease mitigation strategies in schools and other gathering places for children? No, not really. Children don't experience as much bad effects as older adults, but they are still contagious and can pass the infection on to their parents, grandparents, older relatives, older teachers, etc, which makes curbing the disease among children a very important aspect in maintaining the health of the overall community too.

We are all interconnected in many different ways, and COVID19 affects children in other ways besides having a direct assault on their bodily health.

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/early/2021/10/06/peds.2021-053760.full.pdf

Results: We found that from April 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, over 140,000 children in the US experienced the death of a parent or grandparent caregiver.

This study was done pre-delta too, so the number is even worse now.

These numbers, while not the worst thing in the world, are still troubling and unacceptable, given how easily preventable they are.

 

[Rentahamster]

I'd post the "you are already dead" meme but it's probably a bit past its prime

anyway I heard that the boosters contain more virus/stuff than the original 2 injections so it's not unexpected that the sides would be worse.

The Pfizer booster is the same formula as the first two.

 

[poppabk]

The Pfizer booster is the same formula as the first two.

Yeah you can't just change a vaccine without a while mess of paperwork and studies.

 

[QSD]

The Pfizer booster is the same formula as the first two.

Yeah you can't just change a vaccine without a while mess of paperwork and studies.

What I heard (but maybe I misunderstood) was that the dose was higher (that doesn't make it a different vaccine/formula, right?)

 

[funkygunther]

What I heard (but maybe I misunderstood) was that the dose was higher (that doesn't make it a different vaccine/formula, right?)

it’s just a third dose

COVID-19 Vaccine: What You Need to Know

Now that COVID-19 vaccines are authorized, here are the facts you need now.

www.hopkinsmedicine.org

 

[QSD]

it’s just a third dose

COVID-19 Vaccine: What You Need to Know

Now that COVID-19 vaccines are authorized, here are the facts you need now.

www.hopkinsmedicine.org

Yeah I probably misheard, I can't find anything about a higher dose while googling

 

[12Goblins]

Got the booster yesterday and for me, man this one has packed a wallop. Far worse symptoms than the first two shots for me. My head is absolutely killing me and body aches and chills all over.

Hope it passes soon. Probably will just nap all day.

are you maxed out on ibuprofen/Tylenol? I'm surprised how many people don't utilize these meds

 

[DragoonKain]

are you maxed out on ibuprofen/Tylenol? I'm surprised how many people don't utilize these meds

Can’t take ibuprofen, but I took some Tylenol and feeling a little better.

 

[Chaplain]

 

[Chaplain]

Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report appeared on FOX 11’s The Issue Is: with Elex Michaelson to debate the California school vaccine mandate with Gloria Allred. The school vaccine mandate has divided parents in California as vaccine mandates elsewhere have divided the country. The debate gets heated when Gloria Allred resorts to accusing Dave of making a sexist remark by labeling her response to the COVID threat in children hysterical. Is the state of US news driving you crazy? Does the coverage of political news rarely seem “fair and balanced”? Serious discussions on US politics is vital to having a healthy democracy. No matter what political party you belong to, we need to be able to hear a variety of political perspectives.

 

[Rentahamster]

 

[DragoonKain]

Apparently a major strike at SW Airlines leading to hundreds of cancelled flights due to vaccine mandates.

That's something I wondered about. If a major chunk of the US's labor force went on strike over it, it would really make a significant impact. I'm interested to see how this plays out. I think in the end, individual companies would cave because society can't function if there are too many work stoppages.

 

[ManaByte]

Made the mistake of looking at the comments of some news article about the FAA and the first comment is some anti-vaxxer saying the FTC employees walked off the job to avoid the "kill shot mandate"

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Worlds greatest retraction?

I bet most media companies don't even have hard hitting reports or researchers. They just wing it with freelancers who in turn get their info asap from just scouring the internet praying that tweet they found has legit info.

 

[TheFarter]

Well, that’s what anti-vaxxers are. Always have been. And anyone who expresses anti-vax sentiment is rightly seen by everyone else as being selfish in the face of a pandemic. Less anti-vaxxers, less virus, less sick and dead people.

Don’t like it? Don’t be anti-vax. It’s quite simple.



Of course they are anti-vax. We have all the information we need to tell us the vaccines are safe, and help to keep others safe. There is no good reason not to get vaccinated. Ergo, everyone left who won’t get a vaccination without a decent reason (medically) is an anti-vaxxer.

Again, it’s very simple.

You don’t want it to be, because you don’t want perceived as a selfish anti-vaxxer. But if you haven’t had the vaccine, and you don’t have a good reason, congratulations… everyone else thinks (also rightly) that you’re an anti-vaxxer.

Well I don't care anymore. I'm just a regular person. I've had covid, my family and kids have. One day I'll get a shot for it. But right now, nah. You guys have gotten so militant with all this, that I'm starting to be happy it makes you guys so upset. You guys are acting absolutely ridiculous with how you write to people in this thread. From what I see, a bunch of the people who are either waiting, or understand why people are waiting are just completely shit on. It's like reset era posters reactions. Oh well. It's something everyone will have to live with. I don't feel I'm being selfish at all, and nothing will change that.

This is a flu shot. Not a vaccine.

 

[Rentahamster]

This is a flu shot. Not a vaccine.

Fun fact: the flu shot is also a vaccine.

 

[Rentahamster]

The case for ivermectin is looking less good as time goes on and the studies are scrutinized further.



One might ask oneself, "Is this level of inaccuracies normal or abnormal?"

Because of some amazingly positive trials, ivermectin has also been proposed as a treatment of and cure for Covid-19. According to passionate proponents, ivermectin is an almost-perfect treatment for coronavirus that can almost entirely eliminate your risk of dying from the disease or even catching it in the first place.

This perspective has come under fire recently as a number of very high-profile studies were revealed to be potentially or definitely faked. However, there remained hope, because there was one trial in the bunch that had enormously positive results, and this skewed the scientific appraisal to favour ivermectin immensely.

Unfortunately, it turns out that this study was almost certainly not conducted as described in the published paper. Removing this trial from the literature entirely overturns any benefit for ivermectin and makes it quite likely that the drug is useless for Covid-19 after all.

 

[Toons]

Well I don't care anymore. I'm just a regular person. I've had covid, my family and kids have. One day I'll get a shot for it. But right now, nah. You guys have gotten so militant with all this, that I'm starting to be happy it makes you guys so upset. You guys are acting absolutely ridiculous with how you write to people in this thread. From what I see, a bunch of the people who are either waiting, or understand why people are waiting are just completely shit on. It's like reset era posters reactions. Oh well. It's something everyone will have to live with. I don't feel I'm being selfish at all, and nothing will change that.

This is a flu shot. Not a vaccine.

Incredibly childish of a perspective

 

[BadBurger]

Yea, the thing about Ivermectin is anyone can submit papers to preprint journals / servers / etc, it has credibility as an anti-parasitic, and people want an easy answer. The bullshit studies will continue to be submitted so long as those preprint houses keep blindly accepting them.

Well I don't care anymore. I'm just a regular person. I've had covid, my family and kids have. One day I'll get a shot for it. But right now, nah. You guys have gotten so militant with all this, that I'm starting to be happy it makes you guys so upset. You guys are acting absolutely ridiculous with how you write to people in this thread. From what I see, a bunch of the people who are either waiting, or understand why people are waiting are just completely shit on. It's like reset era posters reactions. Oh well. It's something everyone will have to live with. I don't feel I'm being selfish at all, and nothing will change that.

This is a flu shot. Not a vaccine.

I'm sorry but this is projection. We all know vaccines work, we all know the way forward, we're talking over a century's worth of knowledge, history, and common sense at this point. People of your mindset are actually treated rather nicely here on NeoGAF in comparison to out in the wild, Twitter, etc. Despite how wrong headed, and sometimes just plainly outright absurd and stupid your stances are (your, as in you and those with similar arguments), we'll at least engage you here and try to convince you to do the right thing. Out in the street? People are straight up laughing at you and ridiculing you for fostering 1800's level beliefs and rightfully so.

You seem like a cool guy and all, but Jesus dude, catch up to last century at least on the science front.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Some people are just stubborn.

I forget where I saw it, but it was a survey I found on google. I might had even posted it here, but I forget.

For people who don't want to get the covid vax, you'd think it was fear of side effects of a new vaccine (which seems like the big thing anti-vaxxers claim is the reason). The number one reason was actually "they don't want to be told by government what to do".

It gets to a point it actually is farcical. As impossible as it sounds, you can have some anti-vaxxers who get sick or have people they know die from covid, yet still don't want to get the shot. If that doesn't make you man up and get the free 2 minute shot, nothing will. Also, when you read articles about people promoting anti-vax (often with annoying loud FB and Twitter battles), they get the virus and are on their death bed from it.

Magically, in those final days for the first time in life they'll tell the world to get it.

Funny how that works when it hits them hard.