Coronavirus

[Rico1304]

3 minutes ago, TK421 said:

Nope, the post above did not show or prove anything. If you look closely the word used is "suggests". Which is the word they often use in these articles. I could suggest a lot of things, I could suggest that I'll be dating Michelle Pfeiffer this weekend. Doesn't mean it'll happen. 

 

So when they throw these numbers around like 98% this and 92% that, I take them with a pinch of salt. 

Ha ha ha ha. Jesus fucking Christ.  

[Pureblood]

1 minute ago, TheHowieLama said:

That would of course make sense if instead of suggesting anything about that white gold - someone was "suggesting either had 40% efficacy.

Which, btw, would still save quite a few lives don't you think?

You've lost me there. 

[Jenson]

The word 'suggests' is used extremely widely and regularly in all scientific publications.

It's the go to word for saying this is what the data is telling us.

[Sugar Ape]

2 hours ago, 3 Stacks said:

@Sugar Ape I'd like to know what you disagree with. Not finding certain side-effects during trials and finding them out when millions have had the shot is defo flying blind, sorry. Similarly, if you could find me something peer reviewed that confirms the safety of having RNA and lipid nanoparticles in your organs that would be great, but I don't see any. 

 

I'm literally getting the Pfizer vaccine tomorrow because societally it's the right thing to do and it's very likely going to be fine, but let's not pretend this is all hunky-dory. 

Not sure what you mean mate, I repped one of your posts. Don't think I've disagreed with anything you've said.

[TheHowieLama]

11 minutes ago, TK421 said:

You've lost me there. 

Michelle Pfeiffer - that white gold

                   Bruno Mars 

 

 

Have there been any studies/analyses/Spy Bee twitter feeds suggesting the vaccines have less than the stated efficacy?

And even if they had alot less, like they were half as good as stated (which would be a massive difference) - so say 45% efficacy - that is a bad thing?

[TheHowieLama]

1 minute ago, Sugar Ape said:

Not sure what you mean mate, I repped one of your posts. Don't think I've disagreed with anything you've said.

Ever??

[3 Stacks]

1 minute ago, Sugar Ape said:

Not sure what you mean mate, I repped one of your posts. Don't think I've disagreed with anything you've said.

Ah yeah, my bad. 

[Pureblood]

7 minutes ago, Jenson said:

The word 'suggests' is used extremely widely and regularly in all scientific publications.

It's the go to word for saying this is what the data is telling us.

I'd prefer the word "proves". 

[TheHowieLama]

Just now, TK421 said:

I'd prefer the word "proves". 

They usually wait awhile before using that. So, you have time to burn.

[Pureblood]

8 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

 

Have there been any studies/analyses/Spy Bee twitter feeds suggesting the vaccines have less than the stated efficacy?

There was a paper in Nature magazine showing an eight fold reduction in neutralising antibodies in respect of the delta variant.  Doesn't seem to get mentioned much, funnily enough. 

 

I'm no immunologist but an eight fold reduction sounds like a lot to me. 

[Rico1304]

Confirmation bias.  It’s incredible to watch. I hope your ivermectin dealer is trustworthy. 

[Rico1304]

9 minutes ago, TK421 said:

There was a paper in Nature magazine showing an eight fold reduction in neutralising antibodies in respect of the delta variant.  Doesn't seem to get mentioned much, funnily enough. 

 

I'm no immunologist but an eight fold reduction sounds like a lot to me. 

Here’s an article from nature that says ‘suggests’ may be an understatement 

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01390-4

 

[TheHowieLama]

7 minutes ago, TK421 said:

 

I'm no immunologist but an eight fold reduction sounds like a lot to me. 

Me too. Of course - anything is more than nothing. Science.

 

As I said, it is a personal choice - which I support - but you seem to be going through similar machinations to justify this choice that anti maskers/lockdown skeptics went through awhile back.

 

You started with " I am not getting vaccinated because I don't want 18 year olds in Italy to die" to an article in Nature magazine about a variant in a few hours.

 

 

[Pureblood]

10 minutes ago, TK421 said:

There was a paper in Nature magazine showing an eight fold reduction in neutralising antibodies in respect of the delta variant.  Doesn't seem to get mentioned much, funnily enough. 

 

I'm no immunologist but an eight fold reduction sounds like a lot to me. 

Here it is:-

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01274-7

 

Research⁴ from Gupta’s own lab suggests that antibodies are slightly less effective against the variant than against others. The team collected blood serum from nine people who had received one dose of the Pfizer vaccine and tested it against a harmless carrier virus modified to contain the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, with the mutations from B.1.617. Serum from vaccinated individuals typically contains antibodies that can block, or ‘neutralize’, the virus and prevent cells from getting infected.

 

Gupta’s team discovered that neutralizing antibodies generated by the vaccinated individuals were about 80% less potent against some of the mutations in B.1.617, although this would not render vaccination ineffective, he says. The researchers also found that some health-care workers in Delhi who had been vaccinated with Covishield, an Indian version of the Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine, had become reinfected, with most cases tied to B.1.617.

 

Similarly, the German team tested² serum from 15 people who had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2, and found that their antibodies neutralized B.1.617 about 50% less effectively than previously circulating strains. When they tested serum from participants who’d had two shots of the Pfizer vaccine, they found that the antibodies were about 67% less potent against B.1.617.

 

Two other small studies, one from Yadav’s team⁵ testing the Covaxin vaccine made by Indian firm Bharat Biotech in Hyderabad, and an as-yet-unpublished study on Covishield, showed that the vaccines continue to work. But Yadav observed small drops in the effectiveness of neutralizing antibodies generated by the Covaxin vaccine.

 

The B.1.617 variant does seem to have an advantage over previously circulating versions of the virus, especially in individuals whose immunity is waning a while after previous infection or vaccination, says Hoffman.

[Pureblood]

2 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Me too. Of course - anything is more than nothing. Science.

 

As I said, it is a personal choice - which I support - but you seem to be going through similar machinations to justify this choice that anti maskers/lockdown skeptics went through awhile back.

 

You started with " I am not getting vaccinated because I don't want 18 year olds in Italy to die" to an article in Nature magazine about a variant in a few hours.

 

 

I look at the totality of everything and decide what is in my best interests.  At the moment I don't feel ready to take what I perceive to be an experimental vaccine with doubtful efficacy against the delta variant.

 

One day I might take the vaccine but I don't feel ready yet.

[Rico1304]

5 minutes ago, TK421 said:

Here it is:-

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01274-7

 

Research⁴ from Gupta’s own lab suggests that antibodies are slightly less effective against the variant than against others. The team collected blood serum from nine people who had received one dose of the Pfizer vaccine and tested it against a harmless carrier virus modified to contain the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, with the mutations from B.1.617. Serum from vaccinated individuals typically contains antibodies that can block, or ‘neutralize’, the virus and prevent cells from getting infected.

 

Gupta’s team discovered that neutralizing antibodies generated by the vaccinated individuals were about 80% less potent against some of the mutations in B.1.617, although this would not render vaccination ineffective, he says. The researchers also found that some health-care workers in Delhi who had been vaccinated with Covishield, an Indian version of the Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine, had become reinfected, with most cases tied to B.1.617.

 

Similarly, the German team tested² serum from 15 people who had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2, and found that their antibodies neutralized B.1.617 about 50% less effectively than previously circulating strains. When they tested serum from participants who’d had two shots of the Pfizer vaccine, they found that the antibodies were about 67% less potent against B.1.617.

 

Two other small studies, one from Yadav’s team⁵ testing the Covaxin vaccine made by Indian firm Bharat Biotech in Hyderabad, and an as-yet-unpublished study on Covishield, showed that the vaccines continue to work. But Yadav observed small drops in the effectiveness of neutralizing antibodies generated by the Covaxin vaccine.

 

The B.1.617 variant does seem to have an advantage over previously circulating versions of the virus, especially in individuals whose immunity is waning a while after previous infection or vaccination, says Hoffman.

Why didn’t you copy this bit of the article?  
 

Caveats and caution

But Gupta cautions that these lab studies all involve small groups and show smaller drops in antibody effectiveness, compared with what has been seen with other variants of concern.

 

India will supply coronavirus vaccines to the world — will its people benefit?

Scientists also warn that experiments in serum are not always a good guide to whether a variant can evade immunity from a vaccine in the real world. Vaccines can cause the production of vast quantities of antibodies, so a dip in potency might not be significant. Furthermore, other parts of the immune system, such as T cells, might not be affected.

For example, the B.1.351 variant has been linked to much steeper drops in the potency of neutralizing antibodies, but studies in humans suggest that many vaccines remain highly effective against that variant, particularly at preventing severe disease.

For these reasons, the vaccines are likely to remain effective against B.1.617 and to limit severe disease. “The vaccine is still working,” says Yadav. “If you get vaccinated, you “will be protected, and the severity will be less”.

Nevertheless, “the surge in cases in India and scenes witnessed there is of grave concern internationally”, Nick Loman, a microbial genomicist and bioinformatician at the University of Birmingham, UK, told the Science Media Centre in London after the United Kingdom declared B.1.617.2 a variant of concern. “This variant will now be one to watch carefully."

[Pureblood]

Just now, Rico1304 said:

Why didn’t you copy this bit of the article?  

Because I couldn't be arsed.  I provided the link for it to be read in full, should you so desire.  

[Colonel Bumcunt]

4 hours ago, TK421 said:

Why, because you said so? Fuck off. 

Just know that when we come out of this, you'll have done nothing towards that success.  Shirker riding on the coat-tails of the other 80+% who did do something to help the country get back to normal.  

[TheHowieLama]

I was actually kidding about the "SpyBee" twitter feed, but then, there it is.

 

Are there a number of Gupta's involved or just the one?

[TheHowieLama]

8 minutes ago, TK421 said:

I look at the totality of everything and decide what is in my best interests.  At the moment I don't feel ready to take what I perceive to be an experimental vaccine with doubtful efficacy against the delta variant.

 

One day I might take the vaccine but I don't feel ready yet.

Yea.

 

I live in a hotbed where a fair few people never changed their behavior in any way - never had it - been vaccinated. Do not expect to ever be adversely symptomatic - though I wouldn't be surprised if I still got it at some point.

[Pureblood]

2 minutes ago, Colonel Bumcunt said:

Just know that when we come out of this, you'll have done nothing towards that success.  Shirker riding on the coat-tails of the other 80+% who did do something to help the country get back to normal.  

That's not true, I am taking ivermectin as prophylaxis.  I could just as easily have a go at you for not taking ivermectin, but I won't because I respect your bodily sovereignty.

 

Moreover, I have adjusted my behaviour and the number of people I mix with considerably in order to reduce risk.

 

Your post encapsulates what Skidfingers was referring to earlier.  It's needlessly divisive rhetoric.

 

Quite frankly, fuck this country and fuck normal.  

[Pureblood]

3 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Are there a number of Gupta's involved or just the one?

I don't know.   You asked for an article, I provided it.

[Gnasher]

Wimbledon going ahead with full crowds and 'cough 

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/jun/14/lloyd-webbers-cinderella-could-go-on-boris-johnson-hints

 

I'm beginning to wonder if these restrictions do not apply to tories.

[Pureblood]

48 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

I was actually kidding about the "SpyBee" twitter feed, but then, there it is.

 

Are there a number of Gupta's involved or just the one?

I don't think it's the same Gupta.

[Pidge]

1 hour ago, TK421 said:

I look at the totality of everything and decide what is in my best interests.  At the moment I don't feel ready to take what I perceive to be an experimental vaccine with doubtful efficacy against the delta variant.

 

One day I might take the vaccine but I don't feel ready yet.

96% Pfizer, 92% AZ. Per PHE findings.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/vaccines-highly-effective-against-hospitalisation-from-delta-variant