On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 14:03:47 -0700, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 15:37:18 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 08:42:01 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 05:52:17 -0700, Don Y
>>><blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm seeing different experiences and outcomes in current
>>>>cases vs. cases from earlier in the pandemic.
>>>>
>>>>Granted, earlier, there were no vaccines whereas every
>>>>case I've heard of recently has been vaccinated and
>>>>usually, at least, boosted once (some twice).
>>>>
>>>>The cases early in the pandemic seemed to be more
>>>>intense symptoms, hospital stays and long recoveries
>>>>(some involving a fair bit of PT). Recent cases seem
>>>>to be milder (no hospitalizations that I've heard of)
>>>>but of much longer duration; you feel like shit for
>>>>a long time (but I don't hear of any 'extreme' recoveries)
>>>>
>>>>How does this jibe with other first-hand accounts?
>>>>Any recent cases? Anyone want to claim it's "just like
>>>>the flu"?
>>>
>>>I had it in 2020. It was like a cold, not bad, no treatment, but it
>>>left me fatigued for a year. Dry-eye syndrome too, during that year;
>>>that's one rare side effect, but no big deal.
>>>
>>>For roughly half of the people who got it, it was asymptomatic.
>>>
>>>I was blackmailed into getting vaccinated in 2021. I went for the J+J
>>>because it was one shot. No reaction to that besides a slightly sore
>>>arm.
>>
>>I had the J+J shot in 2021 as well, but I wasn't blackmailed at all.
>>Vaccines are the most powerful medical treatment ever invented, by
>>orders of magnitude.
>
>Getting the actual infection is probably better, and I had it before a
>vaccine was available. I've been fine since then, not even a cold.
>
>The blackmail was a reservation at The Gold Mirror, a superb Italian
>restaurant, that required a vaccine card at the time. Dirty trick.
>
>>
>>In round numbers, the risk of modern vaccination is of order a part
>>per million, comparable to commercial air travel.
>>
>>In the US, COVID has killed a million people. Sounds like a lot, but
>>the population is 330 million, so the raw risk is of order 0.33%, or
>>3,030 ppm. Which well exceeds 1 ppm.
>
>Likely over-counted. As in death by motorcycle included.
>
>>
>>So I take all booster shots offered. So far, Pfizer and Pfizer again.
>>I also had Omicron at XMAS 2021 - just a scratchy throat. The best
>>protection is the combination of natural and vaccination-induced
>>immunity.
>
>The vaccines are not risk-free themselves, especially for young males.

Hmm. Why do you say this? I don't think that the young are at more
risk from vaccination, but they do appear to be at less risk from
COVID. This is the kind of thing that the FDA and CDC agonize over,
mainly for a well-founded fear of Congress.

Joe Gwinn

On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 2:15:33 PM UTC-7, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 14:03:47 -0700, John Larkin
> <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 15:37:18 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 08:42:01 -0700, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 05:52:17 -0700, Don Y
> >>><blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>I'm seeing different experiences and outcomes in current
> >>>>cases vs. cases from earlier in the pandemic.
> >>>>
> >>>>Granted, earlier, there were no vaccines whereas every
> >>>>case I've heard of recently has been vaccinated and
> >>>>usually, at least, boosted once (some twice).
> >>>>
> >>>>The cases early in the pandemic seemed to be more
> >>>>intense symptoms, hospital stays and long recoveries
> >>>>(some involving a fair bit of PT). Recent cases seem
> >>>>to be milder (no hospitalizations that I've heard of)
> >>>>but of much longer duration; you feel like shit for
> >>>>a long time (but I don't hear of any 'extreme' recoveries)
> >>>>
> >>>>How does this jibe with other first-hand accounts?
> >>>>Any recent cases? Anyone want to claim it's "just like
> >>>>the flu"?
> >>>
> >>>I had it in 2020. It was like a cold, not bad, no treatment, but it
> >>>left me fatigued for a year. Dry-eye syndrome too, during that year;
> >>>that's one rare side effect, but no big deal.
> >>>
> >>>For roughly half of the people who got it, it was asymptomatic.
> >>>
> >>>I was blackmailed into getting vaccinated in 2021. I went for the J+J
> >>>because it was one shot. No reaction to that besides a slightly sore
> >>>arm.
> >>
> >>I had the J+J shot in 2021 as well, but I wasn't blackmailed at all.
> >>Vaccines are the most powerful medical treatment ever invented, by
> >>orders of magnitude.
> >
> >Getting the actual infection is probably better, and I had it before a
> >vaccine was available. I've been fine since then, not even a cold.
> >
> >The blackmail was a reservation at The Gold Mirror, a superb Italian
> >restaurant, that required a vaccine card at the time. Dirty trick.
> >
> >>
> >>In round numbers, the risk of modern vaccination is of order a part
> >>per million, comparable to commercial air travel.
> >>
> >>In the US, COVID has killed a million people. Sounds like a lot, but
> >>the population is 330 million, so the raw risk is of order 0.33%, or
> >>3,030 ppm. Which well exceeds 1 ppm.
> >
> >Likely over-counted. As in death by motorcycle included.
> >
> >>
> >>So I take all booster shots offered. So far, Pfizer and Pfizer again.
> >>I also had Omicron at XMAS 2021 - just a scratchy throat. The best
> >>protection is the combination of natural and vaccination-induced
> >>immunity.
> >
> >The vaccines are not risk-free themselves, especially for young males.
> Hmm. Why do you say this? I don't think that the young are at more
> risk from vaccination, but they do appear to be at less risk from
> COVID. This is the kind of thing that the FDA and CDC agonize over,
> mainly for a well-founded fear of Congress.
>
> Joe Gwinn

I got COVID last month. I know exactly when I was exposed because I was sharing a condo for a motorglider meet that we hold annually. My roommate tested positive after 3 days, at which point I self-isolated. He also infected 2-3 others, but not one who spent an evening with us. I did not show any symptoms for 3-4 days and had two negative tests. I started showing symptoms on the 5th day and tested positive on the 6th. It took a week and a half to run its course. I felt weak, dizzy, and coughed a lot, but never saw a doctor for it. I have had worse colds. Of course, I could not fly at all during the entire meet.

On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 17:15:21 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 14:03:47 -0700, John Larkin
><jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 15:37:18 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 08:42:01 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 05:52:17 -0700, Don Y
>>>><blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I'm seeing different experiences and outcomes in current
>>>>>cases vs. cases from earlier in the pandemic.
>>>>>
>>>>>Granted, earlier, there were no vaccines whereas every
>>>>>case I've heard of recently has been vaccinated and
>>>>>usually, at least, boosted once (some twice).
>>>>>
>>>>>The cases early in the pandemic seemed to be more
>>>>>intense symptoms, hospital stays and long recoveries
>>>>>(some involving a fair bit of PT). Recent cases seem
>>>>>to be milder (no hospitalizations that I've heard of)
>>>>>but of much longer duration; you feel like shit for
>>>>>a long time (but I don't hear of any 'extreme' recoveries)
>>>>>
>>>>>How does this jibe with other first-hand accounts?
>>>>>Any recent cases? Anyone want to claim it's "just like
>>>>>the flu"?
>>>>
>>>>I had it in 2020. It was like a cold, not bad, no treatment, but it
>>>>left me fatigued for a year. Dry-eye syndrome too, during that year;
>>>>that's one rare side effect, but no big deal.
>>>>
>>>>For roughly half of the people who got it, it was asymptomatic.
>>>>
>>>>I was blackmailed into getting vaccinated in 2021. I went for the J+J
>>>>because it was one shot. No reaction to that besides a slightly sore
>>>>arm.
>>>
>>>I had the J+J shot in 2021 as well, but I wasn't blackmailed at all.
>>>Vaccines are the most powerful medical treatment ever invented, by
>>>orders of magnitude.
>>
>>Getting the actual infection is probably better, and I had it before a
>>vaccine was available. I've been fine since then, not even a cold.
>>
>>The blackmail was a reservation at The Gold Mirror, a superb Italian
>>restaurant, that required a vaccine card at the time. Dirty trick.
>>
>>>
>>>In round numbers, the risk of modern vaccination is of order a part
>>>per million, comparable to commercial air travel.
>>>
>>>In the US, COVID has killed a million people. Sounds like a lot, but
>>>the population is 330 million, so the raw risk is of order 0.33%, or
>>>3,030 ppm. Which well exceeds 1 ppm.
>>
>>Likely over-counted. As in death by motorcycle included.
>>
>>>
>>>So I take all booster shots offered. So far, Pfizer and Pfizer again.
>>>I also had Omicron at XMAS 2021 - just a scratchy throat. The best
>>>protection is the combination of natural and vaccination-induced
>>>immunity.
>>
>>The vaccines are not risk-free themselves, especially for young males.
>
>Hmm. Why do you say this? I don't think that the young are at more
>risk from vaccination, but they do appear to be at less risk from
>COVID. This is the kind of thing that the FDA and CDC agonize over,
>mainly for a well-founded fear of Congress.
>
>Joe Gwinn

https://www.mskcc.org/coronavirus/what-know-about-covid-19-vaccines-linked-heart-problems-young-people

In article <rc7edh1icl9c1v8ev8q3qicfosnegaffg2@4ax.com>,
Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:

>>The vaccines are not risk-free themselves, especially for young males.
>
>Hmm. Why do you say this? I don't think that the young are at more
>risk from vaccination, but they do appear to be at less risk from
>COVID. This is the kind of thing that the FDA and CDC agonize over,
>mainly for a well-founded fear of Congress.

The mRNA vaccines seem to be associated with an increased incidence of
myocarditis and pericarditis, affecting young males more than others.
If I'm reading the report in The Lancet properly, the excess rate
is about 20 per million doses administered. Most cases are reported
as being mild, with no lasting effects on quality of life.

So, "the vaccines are not risk-free" is an accurate description.

However, according to a CDC study earlier this year, the risk of
cardiac issues after a COVID infection is higher - sometimes a good
deal higher.

"Among teenage boys, the rate of myocarditis or pericarditis after
infection was at least 50 cases per 100,000 people, compared to at
least 22 cases per 100,000 after the second vaccine dose. The overall
risk of heart conditions after Covid infection was up to 5.6 times
higher compared to the second vaccine dose. The risk was up to 69
times higher after infection compared to the first shot."

"Overall, the risk of a heart issue after Covid infection was anywhere
from 2 to 115 times higher compared to vaccination depending on age,
gender and the dose administered."

(both from CNBC summary of the CDC report).

So, "not taking the vaccine" is also not risk-free (for this very same
issue). In fact it appears to be significantly riskier for your heart -
and that's neglecting all of the other nasty things COVID infection can
do to your body.

On 7/19/2022 3:54 PM, Dave Platt wrote:
> In article <rc7edh1icl9c1v8ev8q3qicfosnegaffg2@4ax.com>,
> Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> The vaccines are not risk-free themselves, especially for young males.
>>
>> Hmm. Why do you say this? I don't think that the young are at more
>> risk from vaccination, but they do appear to be at less risk from
>> COVID. This is the kind of thing that the FDA and CDC agonize over,
>> mainly for a well-founded fear of Congress.
>
> The mRNA vaccines seem to be associated with an increased incidence of
> myocarditis and pericarditis, affecting young males more than others.
> If I'm reading the report in The Lancet properly, the excess rate
> is about 20 per million doses administered. Most cases are reported
> as being mild, with no lasting effects on quality of life.
>
> So, "the vaccines are not risk-free" is an accurate description.
>
> However, according to a CDC study earlier this year, the risk of
> cardiac issues after a COVID infection is higher - sometimes a good
> deal higher.
>
> "Among teenage boys, the rate of myocarditis or pericarditis after
> infection was at least 50 cases per 100,000 people, compared to at
> least 22 cases per 100,000 after the second vaccine dose. The overall
> risk of heart conditions after Covid infection was up to 5.6 times
> higher compared to the second vaccine dose. The risk was up to 69
> times higher after infection compared to the first shot."
>
> "Overall, the risk of a heart issue after Covid infection was anywhere
> from 2 to 115 times higher compared to vaccination depending on age,
> gender and the dose administered."
>
> (both from CNBC summary of the CDC report).
>
> So, "not taking the vaccine" is also not risk-free (for this very same
> issue). In fact it appears to be significantly riskier for your heart -
> and that's neglecting all of the other nasty things COVID infection can
> do to your body.

Not insignificantly, getting a vaccine doesn't pose any increased risk
to those around you.

OTOH, catching COVID puts those around you (even casually) at increased
risk.

[Of course, if you don't give a rat's ass about others, then you can
ignore this additional downside to non-vaccination]

On 7/18/2022 4:50 PM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
>> How does this jibe with other first-hand accounts?
>> Any recent cases? Anyone want to claim it's "just like
>> the flu"?
>
> Had about month ago (I assume, friends I was with the week before tested positive with a home test)
> Stayed in bed feeling like crap for most of a week, with no taste. Took few weeks to feel sorta normal again

Age (within a decade)?

The folks I knew who got it early in the pandemic (pre-vaccine) had significant
hospital stays and longer-term recoveries -- despite being younger (40-50).

The folks I'm seeing catch it now are seeing longer "feel like shit" but
without significant symptoms to warrant hospitalization -- despite being older
(60-80).

Bottom line, neither experience seems like one you would relish!

On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 15:46:49 -0700, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 17:15:21 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 14:03:47 -0700, John Larkin
>><jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 15:37:18 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 08:42:01 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 05:52:17 -0700, Don Y
>>>>><blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm seeing different experiences and outcomes in current
>>>>>>cases vs. cases from earlier in the pandemic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Granted, earlier, there were no vaccines whereas every
>>>>>>case I've heard of recently has been vaccinated and
>>>>>>usually, at least, boosted once (some twice).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The cases early in the pandemic seemed to be more
>>>>>>intense symptoms, hospital stays and long recoveries
>>>>>>(some involving a fair bit of PT). Recent cases seem
>>>>>>to be milder (no hospitalizations that I've heard of)
>>>>>>but of much longer duration; you feel like shit for
>>>>>>a long time (but I don't hear of any 'extreme' recoveries)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How does this jibe with other first-hand accounts?
>>>>>>Any recent cases? Anyone want to claim it's "just like
>>>>>>the flu"?
>>>>>
>>>>>I had it in 2020. It was like a cold, not bad, no treatment, but it
>>>>>left me fatigued for a year. Dry-eye syndrome too, during that year;
>>>>>that's one rare side effect, but no big deal.
>>>>>
>>>>>For roughly half of the people who got it, it was asymptomatic.
>>>>>
>>>>>I was blackmailed into getting vaccinated in 2021. I went for the J+J
>>>>>because it was one shot. No reaction to that besides a slightly sore
>>>>>arm.
>>>>
>>>>I had the J+J shot in 2021 as well, but I wasn't blackmailed at all.
>>>>Vaccines are the most powerful medical treatment ever invented, by
>>>>orders of magnitude.
>>>
>>>Getting the actual infection is probably better, and I had it before a
>>>vaccine was available. I've been fine since then, not even a cold.
>>>
>>>The blackmail was a reservation at The Gold Mirror, a superb Italian
>>>restaurant, that required a vaccine card at the time. Dirty trick.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>In round numbers, the risk of modern vaccination is of order a part
>>>>per million, comparable to commercial air travel.
>>>>
>>>>In the US, COVID has killed a million people. Sounds like a lot, but
>>>>the population is 330 million, so the raw risk is of order 0.33%, or
>>>>3,030 ppm. Which well exceeds 1 ppm.
>>>
>>>Likely over-counted. As in death by motorcycle included.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>So I take all booster shots offered. So far, Pfizer and Pfizer again.
>>>>I also had Omicron at XMAS 2021 - just a scratchy throat. The best
>>>>protection is the combination of natural and vaccination-induced
>>>>immunity.
>>>
>>>The vaccines are not risk-free themselves, especially for young males.
>>
>>Hmm. Why do you say this? I don't think that the young are at more
>>risk from vaccination, but they do appear to be at less risk from
>>COVID. This is the kind of thing that the FDA and CDC agonize over,
>>mainly for a well-founded fear of Congress.
>>
>>Joe Gwinn
>
>.<https://www.mskcc.org/coronavirus/what-know-about-covid-19-vaccines-linked-heart-problems-young-people>

Click through to the underlying Lancet article, and look at the
figures and tables. Table 2 is key. Even for the young folk, it's
still parts per million.

Joe Gwinn

On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 6:54:11 PM UTC-4, Dave Platt wrote:
> In article <rc7edh1icl9c1v8ev...@4ax.com>,
> Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>The vaccines are not risk-free themselves, especially for young males.
> >
> >Hmm. Why do you say this? I don't think that the young are at more
> >risk from vaccination, but they do appear to be at less risk from
> >COVID. This is the kind of thing that the FDA and CDC agonize over,
> >mainly for a well-founded fear of Congress.
> The mRNA vaccines seem to be associated with an increased incidence of
> myocarditis and pericarditis, affecting young males more than others.
> If I'm reading the report in The Lancet properly, the excess rate
> is about 20 per million doses administered. Most cases are reported
> as being mild, with no lasting effects on quality of life.
>
> So, "the vaccines are not risk-free" is an accurate description.
>
> However, according to a CDC study earlier this year, the risk of
> cardiac issues after a COVID infection is higher - sometimes a good
> deal higher.
>
> "Among teenage boys, the rate of myocarditis or pericarditis after
> infection was at least 50 cases per 100,000 people, compared to at
> least 22 cases per 100,000 after the second vaccine dose. The overall
> risk of heart conditions after Covid infection was up to 5.6 times
> higher compared to the second vaccine dose. The risk was up to 69
> times higher after infection compared to the first shot."
>
> "Overall, the risk of a heart issue after Covid infection was anywhere
> from 2 to 115 times higher compared to vaccination depending on age,
> gender and the dose administered."
>
> (both from CNBC summary of the CDC report).
>
> So, "not taking the vaccine" is also not risk-free (for this very same
> issue). In fact it appears to be significantly riskier for your heart -
> and that's neglecting all of the other nasty things COVID infection can
> do to your body.

Since vaccination simulates an attenuated viral infection, you're going to have the same downsides more or less as are present with a real infection. A major downside for nearly all viral infections is autoimmune response. Researchers have isolated 52 autoimmune components present in the typical COVID-19 infection, and those components are present in 24 different types of autoimmune diseases. In many cases the autoimmune response does not persist and is temporary, but in some people it's permanent. Long COVID is probably autoimmune disease. These cases of heart problems are a result of autoimmune responses. A bunch of viral infections cause reactions that attack heart tissue- it seems to be a very vulnerable organ. As the data shows, the autoimmune response from vaccination is much, much less than that of a real viral infection. It's better for these people to take their chances with a vaccine.

On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 8:50:42 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 1:51:49 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 10:33:29 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 11:07:38 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 8:53:30 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 10:16:02 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 3:23:25 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 12:04:53 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, July 18, 2022 at 12:32:15 PM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On a sunny day (Mon, 18 Jul 2022 05:52:17 -0700) it happened Don Y
> > > > > > > > > <blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote in <tb3l2e$bk87$1...@dont-email.me>:
>
> <snip>
> > > > I'm not interested in distracting and irrelevant minutia small and inappropriate in scope.
> > >
> > > So you are happy to post vague and misleading generalisations, and hide behind more of the same when you get called on it.
> >
> > And for what purpose, myopic idiot? Even CDC admits their infection rate statistics could be off by 300%.
> In what context?
> > You're just not in the same league here. Go read something else you can't make any sense of.
> I'd reading your nonsense, which doesn't make a lot of sense, and I'm complaining about it.
>
> I don't know what league you think you are playing in, but pretentious half-wit would be the label I'd slap on it.

Do you really think I care about your name calling? Get real. I don't post supporting links for fence posts, who can't comprehend the content anyway.

>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 07/19/2022 05:40 PM, Don Y wrote:
> On 7/19/2022 3:54 PM, Dave Platt wrote:
>> In article <rc7edh1icl9c1v8ev8q3qicfosnegaffg2@4ax.com>,
>> Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> The vaccines are not risk-free themselves, especially for young males.
>>>
>>> Hmm. Why do you say this? I don't think that the young are at more
>>> risk from vaccination, but they do appear to be at less risk from
>>> COVID. This is the kind of thing that the FDA and CDC agonize over,
>>> mainly for a well-founded fear of Congress.
>>
>> The mRNA vaccines seem to be associated with an increased incidence of
>> myocarditis and pericarditis, affecting young males more than others.
>> If I'm reading the report in The Lancet properly, the excess rate
>> is about 20 per million doses administered. Most cases are reported
>> as being mild, with no lasting effects on quality of life.
>>
>> So, "the vaccines are not risk-free" is an accurate description.
>>
>> However, according to a CDC study earlier this year, the risk of
>> cardiac issues after a COVID infection is higher - sometimes a good
>> deal higher.
>>
>> "Among teenage boys, the rate of myocarditis or pericarditis after
>> infection was at least 50 cases per 100,000 people, compared to at
>> least 22 cases per 100,000 after the second vaccine dose. The overall
>> risk of heart conditions after Covid infection was up to 5.6 times
>> higher compared to the second vaccine dose. The risk was up to 69
>> times higher after infection compared to the first shot."
>>
>> "Overall, the risk of a heart issue after Covid infection was anywhere
>> from 2 to 115 times higher compared to vaccination depending on age,
>> gender and the dose administered."
>>
>> (both from CNBC summary of the CDC report).
>>
>> So, "not taking the vaccine" is also not risk-free (for this very same
>> issue). In fact it appears to be significantly riskier for your heart -
>> and that's neglecting all of the other nasty things COVID infection can
>> do to your body.
>
> Not insignificantly, getting a vaccine doesn't pose any increased risk
> to those around you.
>
> OTOH, catching COVID puts those around you (even casually) at increased
> risk.
>
> [Of course, if you don't give a rat's ass about others, then you can
> ignore this additional downside to non-vaccination]
>

The only people I know personally that were diagnosed with covid were
also fully vaccinated and boosted. That also appears to be the case for
those high profile enough to attract media attention.

One assumes they are just as infectious as the unvaccinated.

On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 9:34:26 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 10:42:48 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 6:54:11 PM UTC-4, Dave Platt wrote:
> > > In article <rc7edh1icl9c1v8ev...@4ax.com>,
> > > Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >>The vaccines are not risk-free themselves, especially for young males.
> > > >
> > > >Hmm. Why do you say this? I don't think that the young are at more
> > > >risk from vaccination, but they do appear to be at less risk from
> > > >COVID. This is the kind of thing that the FDA and CDC agonize over,
> > > >mainly for a well-founded fear of Congress.
> > > The mRNA vaccines seem to be associated with an increased incidence of
> > > myocarditis and pericarditis, affecting young males more than others.
> > > If I'm reading the report in The Lancet properly, the excess rate
> > > is about 20 per million doses administered. Most cases are reported
> > > as being mild, with no lasting effects on quality of life.
> > >
> > > So, "the vaccines are not risk-free" is an accurate description.
> > >
> > > However, according to a CDC study earlier this year, the risk of
> > > cardiac issues after a COVID infection is higher - sometimes a good
> > > deal higher.
> > >
> > > "Among teenage boys, the rate of myocarditis or pericarditis after
> > > infection was at least 50 cases per 100,000 people, compared to at
> > > least 22 cases per 100,000 after the second vaccine dose. The overall
> > > risk of heart conditions after Covid infection was up to 5.6 times
> > > higher compared to the second vaccine dose. The risk was up to 69
> > > times higher after infection compared to the first shot."
> > >
> > > "Overall, the risk of a heart issue after Covid infection was anywhere
> > > from 2 to 115 times higher compared to vaccination depending on age,
> > > gender and the dose administered."
> > >
> > > (both from CNBC summary of the CDC report).
> > >
> > > So, "not taking the vaccine" is also not risk-free (for this very same
> > > issue). In fact it appears to be significantly riskier for your heart -
> > > and that's neglecting all of the other nasty things COVID infection can
> > > do to your body.
> >
> > Since vaccination simulates an attenuated viral infection, you're going to have the same downsides more or less as are present with a real infection.
> It doesn't. The Covid-19 vaccines all seem to instruct the patient's body to make a lot of the Covid-19 spike protein, and nothing else.
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22905-7
>
> talks about the other proteins that the Covid-19 genome can - and does - construct. Some of them seem to be positively selected, so presumably they interfere with the host in a way that helps the virus.

Like I said- you're a complete idiot. Nobody said the vaccine produces the auto-antibodies. It is the immune response to the vaccine antigen that does that.

> > A major downside for nearly all viral infections is autoimmune response.. Researchers have isolated 52 autoimmune components present in the typical COVID-19 infection, and those components are present in 24 different types of autoimmune diseases.
> But presumably not all of these will be present in the reaction to the vaccine, which presents the immune system with a single antigen, as opposed to a cocktail of proteins.

Why presumably? You are accidently right about one thing, the real infection involves a lot more chemistry than a vaccine, especially with enzymes and cytokines. But for some people just the presentation of the simplest antigen- like a receptor binding domain- is all it takes to set off a chain of events producing an autoimmune effect. If you run across an investigative report of research into how much and how little in each of those cases, let us know.

> > In many cases the autoimmune response does not persist and is temporary, but in some people it's permanent. Long COVID is probably autoimmune disease.
> Why "probably"?

There is no one form of long COVID- there are several varieties.

Altered mental state seems to be quite common , but you have shown neither a vaccine nor an infection is necessary condition for that.

> >These cases of heart problems are a result of autoimmune responses. A bunch of viral infections cause reactions that attack heart tissue- it seems to be a very vulnerable organ. As the data shows, the autoimmune response from vaccination is much, much less than that of a real viral infection. It's better for these people to take their chances with a vaccine.
> Absolutely. so why did you start off with " you're going to have the same downsides more or less as are present with a real infection"?

More precisely I should have said "...as can be present..."

You're welcome to survey the literature and make a determination of diagnosed autoimmune response in vaccinated without infection versus infection without vaccination...

>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 9:39:30 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 11:03:25 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 8:50:42 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 1:51:49 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 10:33:29 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 11:07:38 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 8:53:30 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 10:16:02 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 3:23:25 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 12:04:53 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Monday, July 18, 2022 at 12:32:15 PM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On a sunny day (Mon, 18 Jul 2022 05:52:17 -0700) it happened Don Y
> > > > > > > > > > > <blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote in <tb3l2e$bk87$1...@dont-email.me>:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > > > I'm not interested in distracting and irrelevant minutia small and inappropriate in scope.
> > > > >
> > > > > So you are happy to post vague and misleading generalisations, and hide behind more of the same when you get called on it.
> > > >
> > > > And for what purpose, myopic idiot? Even CDC admits their infection rate statistics could be off by 300%.
> > > In what context?
> > > > You're just not in the same league here. Go read something else you can't make any sense of.
> > > I'd reading your nonsense, which doesn't make a lot of sense, and I'm complaining about it.
> > >
> > > I don't know what league you think you are playing in, but pretentious half-wit would be the label I'd slap on it.
> >
> > Do you really think I care about your name calling? Get real. I don't post supporting links for fence posts, who can't comprehend the content anyway.
> You don't seem to be able to comprehend the content you post, which makes you dumber than a fence post. Naturally, you won't care about my "name calling" any more than Flyguy, Jake Isks and A A do. You can't understand what it means.

Problem with people like you is you think everyone else is just as empty headed as you are.

>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 7/19/2022 7:37 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On 07/19/2022 05:40 PM, Don Y wrote:
>> On 7/19/2022 3:54 PM, Dave Platt wrote:
>>> In article <rc7edh1icl9c1v8ev8q3qicfosnegaffg2@4ax.com>,
>>> Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The vaccines are not risk-free themselves, especially for young males.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm. Why do you say this? I don't think that the young are at more
>>>> risk from vaccination, but they do appear to be at less risk from
>>>> COVID. This is the kind of thing that the FDA and CDC agonize over,
>>>> mainly for a well-founded fear of Congress.
>>>
>>> The mRNA vaccines seem to be associated with an increased incidence of
>>> myocarditis and pericarditis, affecting young males more than others.
>>> If I'm reading the report in The Lancet properly, the excess rate
>>> is about 20 per million doses administered. Most cases are reported
>>> as being mild, with no lasting effects on quality of life.
>>>
>>> So, "the vaccines are not risk-free" is an accurate description.
>>>
>>> However, according to a CDC study earlier this year, the risk of
>>> cardiac issues after a COVID infection is higher - sometimes a good
>>> deal higher.
>>>
>>> "Among teenage boys, the rate of myocarditis or pericarditis after
>>> infection was at least 50 cases per 100,000 people, compared to at
>>> least 22 cases per 100,000 after the second vaccine dose. The overall
>>> risk of heart conditions after Covid infection was up to 5.6 times
>>> higher compared to the second vaccine dose. The risk was up to 69
>>> times higher after infection compared to the first shot."
>>>
>>> "Overall, the risk of a heart issue after Covid infection was anywhere
>>> from 2 to 115 times higher compared to vaccination depending on age,
>>> gender and the dose administered."
>>>
>>> (both from CNBC summary of the CDC report).
>>>
>>> So, "not taking the vaccine" is also not risk-free (for this very same
>>> issue). In fact it appears to be significantly riskier for your heart -
>>> and that's neglecting all of the other nasty things COVID infection can
>>> do to your body.
>>
>> Not insignificantly, getting a vaccine doesn't pose any increased risk
>> to those around you.
>>
>> OTOH, catching COVID puts those around you (even casually) at increased
>> risk.
>>
>> [Of course, if you don't give a rat's ass about others, then you can
>> ignore this additional downside to non-vaccination]
>
> The only people I know personally that were diagnosed with covid were also
> fully vaccinated and boosted. That also appears to be the case for those high
> profile enough to attract media attention.

Most of those that I know who were Dx'ed predate the availability
of vaccines. The number of "vaccinated" cases that I'm aware of number
in the handful (prevaccine were dozens!)

> One assumes they are just as infectious as the unvaccinated.

But the vaccine didn't *increase* the risk to others around them.

Their *behavior* may have changed -- considering themselves invulnerable
once vaccinated -- but the vaccine didn't cause, e.g., pericarditis in
the guy sitting next to them on the bus.

The point of masking has always been twofold -- to protect yourself
(OK, if you're vaccinated you may believe you don't need such
protection) *AND* to protect those around you.

"Of course, if you don't give a rat's ass about others..."

Thankfully, most of my friends/associates care enough about others
(me, particularly) to be very proactive in notifying others of their
POSSIBLE exposure and/or diagnosis. Can't say that for the rest
of the jamokes in the grocery stores, etc. (hence the value of
my continued masking -- even for *them*!)

On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 10:37:59 PM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
> On 07/19/2022 05:40 PM, Don Y wrote:
> > On 7/19/2022 3:54 PM, Dave Platt wrote:
> >> In article <rc7edh1icl9c1v8ev...@4ax.com>,
> >> Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> The vaccines are not risk-free themselves, especially for young males.
> >>>
> >>> Hmm. Why do you say this? I don't think that the young are at more
> >>> risk from vaccination, but they do appear to be at less risk from
> >>> COVID. This is the kind of thing that the FDA and CDC agonize over,
> >>> mainly for a well-founded fear of Congress.
> >>
> >> The mRNA vaccines seem to be associated with an increased incidence of
> >> myocarditis and pericarditis, affecting young males more than others.
> >> If I'm reading the report in The Lancet properly, the excess rate
> >> is about 20 per million doses administered. Most cases are reported
> >> as being mild, with no lasting effects on quality of life.
> >>
> >> So, "the vaccines are not risk-free" is an accurate description.
> >>
> >> However, according to a CDC study earlier this year, the risk of
> >> cardiac issues after a COVID infection is higher - sometimes a good
> >> deal higher.
> >>
> >> "Among teenage boys, the rate of myocarditis or pericarditis after
> >> infection was at least 50 cases per 100,000 people, compared to at
> >> least 22 cases per 100,000 after the second vaccine dose. The overall
> >> risk of heart conditions after Covid infection was up to 5.6 times
> >> higher compared to the second vaccine dose. The risk was up to 69
> >> times higher after infection compared to the first shot."
> >>
> >> "Overall, the risk of a heart issue after Covid infection was anywhere
> >> from 2 to 115 times higher compared to vaccination depending on age,
> >> gender and the dose administered."
> >>
> >> (both from CNBC summary of the CDC report).
> >>
> >> So, "not taking the vaccine" is also not risk-free (for this very same
> >> issue). In fact it appears to be significantly riskier for your heart -
> >> and that's neglecting all of the other nasty things COVID infection can
> >> do to your body.
> >
> > Not insignificantly, getting a vaccine doesn't pose any increased risk
> > to those around you.
> >
> > OTOH, catching COVID puts those around you (even casually) at increased
> > risk.
> >
> > [Of course, if you don't give a rat's ass about others, then you can
> > ignore this additional downside to non-vaccination]
> >
> The only people I know personally that were diagnosed with covid were
> also fully vaccinated and boosted. That also appears to be the case for
> those high profile enough to attract media attention.

Right- they discovered early on that the vaccine does not prevent infection, so they moved the goal posts to serious disease requiring hospitalization.

>
> One assumes they are just as infectious as the unvaccinated.

Maybe and maybe not- if the vaccine gave them enough resistance to keep the viral load to low levels then they're less infectious- but still infectious nonetheless.

On 07/19/2022 08:49 PM, Don Y wrote:
> Most of those that I know who were Dx'ed predate the availability
> of vaccines. The number of "vaccinated" cases that I'm aware of number
> in the handful (prevaccine were dozens!)

I don't have a wide circle of acquaintances but I'm not aware of anyone
diagnosed pre-vaccine. Like most places the first wave in this state was
in nursing homes.

I spent 50 days in a rehab/nursing facility after breaking a hip at the
end of January and judging from the crowd from the nursing wing it
wouldn't take much to push them over. Oddly the staff wore masks, the
residents didn't for the most part. I was in quarantine for a week or so
when I arrived and theoretically should have left my room but nobody
paid too much attention to that.

It did hit the nursing home economically, most going down to half
occupancy, and laying off staff. As the immediate crisis passed they had
trouble restaffing, particularly the CNA's. That job sucks compared to
collecting enhanced unemployment checks.

This county mandated masks and had fairly good compliance. Masks in the
adjoining counties were optional since this county is a little blue spot
in a sea of red.

Some people still wear masks. I'm puzzled by the pairs with one masked
person and one unmasked. Strictly casual observation but young women
seem to be disproportionately masked.

At least I had a better time than my ex who lives in NYC. She is not
vaccinated which meant she was more or less under house arrest. She
mentioned canceling her membership at one of the museums since they
wouldn't let her in without a card anyway.

On 07/19/2022 08:53 PM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 10:37:59 PM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
>> On 07/19/2022 05:40 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>> On 7/19/2022 3:54 PM, Dave Platt wrote:
>>>> In article <rc7edh1icl9c1v8ev...@4ax.com>,
>>>> Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The vaccines are not risk-free themselves, especially for young males.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm. Why do you say this? I don't think that the young are at more
>>>>> risk from vaccination, but they do appear to be at less risk from
>>>>> COVID. This is the kind of thing that the FDA and CDC agonize over,
>>>>> mainly for a well-founded fear of Congress.
>>>>
>>>> The mRNA vaccines seem to be associated with an increased incidence of
>>>> myocarditis and pericarditis, affecting young males more than others.
>>>> If I'm reading the report in The Lancet properly, the excess rate
>>>> is about 20 per million doses administered. Most cases are reported
>>>> as being mild, with no lasting effects on quality of life.
>>>>
>>>> So, "the vaccines are not risk-free" is an accurate description.
>>>>
>>>> However, according to a CDC study earlier this year, the risk of
>>>> cardiac issues after a COVID infection is higher - sometimes a good
>>>> deal higher.
>>>>
>>>> "Among teenage boys, the rate of myocarditis or pericarditis after
>>>> infection was at least 50 cases per 100,000 people, compared to at
>>>> least 22 cases per 100,000 after the second vaccine dose. The overall
>>>> risk of heart conditions after Covid infection was up to 5.6 times
>>>> higher compared to the second vaccine dose. The risk was up to 69
>>>> times higher after infection compared to the first shot."
>>>>
>>>> "Overall, the risk of a heart issue after Covid infection was anywhere
>>>> from 2 to 115 times higher compared to vaccination depending on age,
>>>> gender and the dose administered."
>>>>
>>>> (both from CNBC summary of the CDC report).
>>>>
>>>> So, "not taking the vaccine" is also not risk-free (for this very same
>>>> issue). In fact it appears to be significantly riskier for your heart -
>>>> and that's neglecting all of the other nasty things COVID infection can
>>>> do to your body.
>>>
>>> Not insignificantly, getting a vaccine doesn't pose any increased risk
>>> to those around you.
>>>
>>> OTOH, catching COVID puts those around you (even casually) at increased
>>> risk.
>>>
>>> [Of course, if you don't give a rat's ass about others, then you can
>>> ignore this additional downside to non-vaccination]
>>>
>> The only people I know personally that were diagnosed with covid were
>> also fully vaccinated and boosted. That also appears to be the case for
>> those high profile enough to attract media attention.
>
> Right- they discovered early on that the vaccine does not prevent infection, so they moved the goal posts to serious disease requiring hospitalization.

'You are still susceptible but it probably won't be as bad' isn't much
of a selling point. Pre-vaccine they tested the inmates at Marion
Correctional and found over 2000 were positive, most of whom were very
surprised. The follow-up reports were hard to find but iirc there were 7
deaths in an overcrowded situation that should have been a recipe for
disaster.

onsdag den 20. juli 2022 kl. 01.46.56 UTC+2 skrev Don Y:
> On 7/18/2022 4:50 PM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
> >> How does this jibe with other first-hand accounts?
> >> Any recent cases? Anyone want to claim it's "just like
> >> the flu"?
> >
> > Had about month ago (I assume, friends I was with the week before tested positive with a home test)
> > Stayed in bed feeling like crap for most of a week, with no taste. Took few weeks to feel sorta normal again
> Age (within a decade)?

47

On a sunny day (Tue, 19 Jul 2022 13:27:02 -0500) it happened amdx
<amdx@knology.net> wrote in <tb6t1o$15qg0$1@dont-email.me>:

>  Could you teach your people to draw legible schematics?

We don't need no schema-tics

But what specifically did you want to know?

On 7/19/2022 10:57 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On 07/19/2022 08:49 PM, Don Y wrote:
>> Most of those that I know who were Dx'ed predate the availability
>> of vaccines. The number of "vaccinated" cases that I'm aware of number
>> in the handful (prevaccine were dozens!)
>
> I don't have a wide circle of acquaintances but I'm not aware of anyone
> diagnosed pre-vaccine. Like most places the first wave in this state was in
> nursing homes.

I've a rather large list of "acquaintances" (folks whose names you know and
some level of detail about their lives that allows you to maintain a sense
of "continuity" between interactions) and "friends" (folks who can make demands
on you for your time) in various places around the country (places I've
lived, previously, or clients/staff with whom I've interacted and maintained
contact with, over the years). Most aren't very "needy" in terms of "contact"
(regular correspondence).

Perhaps the biggest "cost" to me in the first year or so of COVID was *their*
increased need for contact as their social interactions were significantly
impacted by restrictions (whether imposed externally or from within). Had
this resulted in just an increase in email contacts, I could have easily
managed it (cuz I can address email at my leisure). But, instead, much
of that contact came in the form of an increasing need for *voice* contact.

I *really* discourage phone calls. So, fielding calls that weren't really
of my choosing was a big time sink/productivity hit. But, friends can make
that sort of "demand"...

[Perhaps the biggest hit came from SWMBO being home 24/7 as all of her
"outside activities" had been canceled. Suddenly, added pressure to
eat "on a normal schedule" ("but I ate YESTERDAY!") and demands for
other entertainment (I was bringing home 20 movie titles each week to
keep her distracted) and desire to clean up around here ("Why do we
suddenly *need* to cut down that tree??") <frown> ]

I don't know anyone in a "nursing home" (needing continuous medical care).
But, know many folks living in "assisted living facilities" (long term
*hotels*??). They were adversely impacted by their *internal* social
structures being disrupted; the restaurants in the facilities were
closed (meals were served to you in your suite), activities canceled
(no Wii bowling or Bingo...), excursions curtailed, etc. They ended up
feeling like prisoners for many months, yet equally wary of the
consequences of NOT living within those constraints! By contrast,
folks who still maintained their own residences could get out and
about in their neighborhoods, shop, etc.

The folks I saw get sick early on were in high contact fields -- often
medical or caregiving. You *knew* it was just a matter of time for
each of them.

Others got sick out of a fear of invincibility or not wanting to feel
deprived of some "personal liberty"; a lady friend went out with her
girlfriends... and all got sick. Her "I-NEVER-get-sick" partner
was surprised when he found himself laid up. Etc.

Now, I see folks thinking they are "safe" because they've been vaccinated
*or* already had a case of COVID. So, feel like they can get back to
life as normal -- until the two red stripes alert them to their new dilemma!

> I spent 50 days in a rehab/nursing facility after breaking a hip at the end of
> January and judging from the crowd from the nursing wing it wouldn't take much
> to push them over. Oddly the staff wore masks, the residents didn't for the
> most part. I was in quarantine for a week or so when I arrived and
> theoretically should have left my room but nobody paid too much attention to that.
>
> It did hit the nursing home economically, most going down to half occupancy,
> and laying off staff. As the immediate crisis passed they had trouble
> restaffing, particularly the CNA's. That job sucks compared to collecting
> enhanced unemployment checks.

Businesses, here, saw a similar impact. Our red-state goobernor prevented
businesses from being closed (by local decrees). But, couldn't force folks
to USE those businesses!

So, the restaurants sat empty -- but staffed! Ditto the nail salons, hair
dressers, etc. I'm sure they were GLAD they could keep accumulating
operating expenses when everyone else had other plans! <rolls eyes>

> This county mandated masks and had fairly good compliance. Masks in the
> adjoining counties were optional since this county is a little blue spot in a
> sea of red.

Similar, here. *Initially*. Now, folks seem to think the danger is past
(its no longer covered in the news cycles). I suspect they are surprised
when/if they find themselves suddenly sick ("How did *I* get this?")

> Some people still wear masks. I'm puzzled by the pairs with one masked person
> and one unmasked. Strictly casual observation but young women seem to be
> disproportionately masked.

Ah, you noticed that, too? ("And you're gonna *kiss* him, little girl??")

Maybe it's just their way of avoiding wearing makeup?? <grin>

> At least I had a better time than my ex who lives in NYC. She is not vaccinated
> which meant she was more or less under house arrest. She mentioned canceling
> her membership at one of the museums since they wouldn't let her in without a
> card anyway.

I don't think anyone has ever asked to see *my* proof of vaccination.
I only carry it when I'm on my way to get a booster, etc.

Even medical providers just *inquire* as to your status -- mainly so
they can justify removing their masks during appointments.

[Though masks are still required by *all* medical establishments. Gee,
do you think they know something that the grocery stores and restaurants
*don't*?]

I've heard of friends catching it (likely) from their masseuse/masseur,
hairdresser, etc. (they come to this conclusion when they are later notified
that the provider in question has come down with COVID and they are being
asked to self-monitor)

<shrug> Gotta feel for the folks who don't have control over their
living/work environments! As well as those lacking self-discipline!

[Opportunity for a great social study, there -- correlate mask wearing,
vaccination (and other prophylactics) with exercise routines, healthy
diets, etc.]

On 07/20/2022 02:33 AM, Don Y wrote:
> So, the restaurants sat empty -- but staffed! Ditto the nail salons, hair
> dressers, etc. I'm sure they were GLAD they could keep accumulating
> operating expenses when everyone else had other plans! <rolls eyes>

Most of the restaurants here survived. There was a bit of irony when you
had to be masked for the 30' from the door to the table and then off
with the masks. Some were strictly off premises. I was annoyed when my
favorite bakery required you to call to place your order and I didn't
have my phone. I guess they put your brownies in a bag and pushed it out
the door with a long stick.

NYC was different. My ex's favorite restaurant went under as did a lot
of others. She survived on DoorDash or the equivalent. Strictly credit
card, the courier left your chow in the lobby, called you, and
disappeared. You masked up, went down, and got your meal. Great life. We
always talked several times a year but the phone calls became more
frequent as she went stir crazy.

> Maybe it's just their way of avoiding wearing makeup?? <grin>

One article suggested they've come to the point where they feel naked
without a mask sort of like the last century where a woman wouldn't go
out without some sort of head covering.

> Even medical providers just *inquire* as to your status -- mainly so
> they can justify removing their masks during appointments.

More irony. My dentist requires a mask and the receptionist takes you
temperature. Then you fill out a questionnaire even if you were there
the day before. Then you proceed to the torture chamber and remove the
mask obviously.

> [Though masks are still required by *all* medical establishments. Gee,
> do you think they know something that the grocery stores and restaurants
> *don't*?]

It varies. I had two post-op appointments with the surgeon who nailed my
femur. He's in a rather busy orthopedic center and a mask was required
when I went to the first. By the time of the follow up 30 days later the
only masks in site were a few patients who chose to wear one. None of
the staff was masked.

My primary physician still required masking.

On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 1:55:26 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 12:46:17 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 9:34:26 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 10:42:48 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 6:54:11 PM UTC-4, Dave Platt wrote:
> > > > > In article <rc7edh1icl9c1v8ev...@4ax.com>,
> > > > > Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net> wrote:
> <snip>
> > > > Since vaccination simulates an attenuated viral infection, you're going to have the same downsides more or less as are present with a real infection.
> > >
> > > It doesn't. The Covid-19 vaccines all seem to instruct the patient's body to make a lot of the Covid-19 spike protein, and nothing else.
> > >
> > > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22905-7
> > >
> > > talks about the other proteins that the Covid-19 genome can - and does - construct. Some of them seem to be positively selected, so presumably they interfere with the host in a way that helps the virus.
> >
> > Like I said- you're a complete idiot. Nobody said the vaccine produces the auto-antibodies. It is the immune response to the vaccine antigen that does that.
> The complete idiot here seems to be you. The is just one vaccine antigen - a version of the Covid-19 spike protein.
> The virus itself synthesises a number of other proteins when it takes over a human cell. Some are purely functional like the genome replication enzyme, but others seem mess up the human immune response, and they can all serve as antigens.
> > > > A major downside for nearly all viral infections is autoimmune response. Researchers have isolated 52 autoimmune components present in the typical COVID-19 infection, and those components are present in 24 different types of autoimmune diseases.
> > >
> > > But presumably not all of these will be present in the reaction to the vaccine, which presents the immune system with a single antigen, as opposed to a cocktail of proteins.
> >
> > Why presumably? You are accidently right about one thing, the real infection involves a lot more chemistry than a vaccine, especially with enzymes and cytokines. But for some people just the presentation of the simplest antigen- like a receptor binding domain- is all it takes to set off a chain of events producing an autoimmune effect.
> This is a claim, rather than a statement of an established fact. Cite your reference
> > If you run across an investigative report of research into how much and how little in each of those cases, let us know.
> You first.
> > > > In many cases the autoimmune response does not persist and is temporary, but in some people it's permanent. Long COVID is probably autoimmune disease.
> >
> > > Why "probably"?
> >
> > There is no one form of long COVID- there are several varieties.
> That doesn't explain your "probably".
> > Altered mental state seems to be quite common , but you have shown neither a vaccine nor an infection is necessary condition for that.
> Your own mental state - your head up own arse - is unfortunate, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with long Covid.
> > > >These cases of heart problems are a result of autoimmune responses. A bunch of viral infections cause reactions that attack heart tissue- it seems to be a very vulnerable organ. As the data shows, the autoimmune response from vaccination is much, much less than that of a real viral infection. It's better for these people to take their chances with a vaccine.
> >
> > > Absolutely. so why did you start off with " you're going to have the same downsides more or less as are present with a real infection"?
> >
> > More precisely I should have said "...as can be present..."
> Which would have made it even more vacuous than what you did post.
> > You're welcome to survey the literature and make a determination of diagnosed autoimmune response in vaccinated without infection versus infection without vaccination...
> Why on earth would I bother? You wanted to pontificate about the minor risk of percardiac inflamation from vaccination against Covid-19 and you managed to get it wrong, as you have admitted

I admitted no such thing. You're just a stupid little A-hole with dementia with a big helping of ignorance and low IQ mixed in.

You pretend to be such a complex and detailed thinker yet fail to demonstrate one bit of that or any other form of usefulness in your posts.

All you can manage to understand are simple, single variable, one dimensional information blurbs. This excludes you entirely from understanding anything at all related to health- also explains why you're so ignorant.

>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 2:03:26 AM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
> On 07/19/2022 08:53 PM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 10:37:59 PM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
> >> On 07/19/2022 05:40 PM, Don Y wrote:
> >>> On 7/19/2022 3:54 PM, Dave Platt wrote:
> >>>> In article <rc7edh1icl9c1v8ev...@4ax.com>,
> >>>> Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> The vaccines are not risk-free themselves, especially for young males.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hmm. Why do you say this? I don't think that the young are at more
> >>>>> risk from vaccination, but they do appear to be at less risk from
> >>>>> COVID. This is the kind of thing that the FDA and CDC agonize over,
> >>>>> mainly for a well-founded fear of Congress.
> >>>>
> >>>> The mRNA vaccines seem to be associated with an increased incidence of
> >>>> myocarditis and pericarditis, affecting young males more than others..
> >>>> If I'm reading the report in The Lancet properly, the excess rate
> >>>> is about 20 per million doses administered. Most cases are reported
> >>>> as being mild, with no lasting effects on quality of life.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, "the vaccines are not risk-free" is an accurate description.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, according to a CDC study earlier this year, the risk of
> >>>> cardiac issues after a COVID infection is higher - sometimes a good
> >>>> deal higher.
> >>>>
> >>>> "Among teenage boys, the rate of myocarditis or pericarditis after
> >>>> infection was at least 50 cases per 100,000 people, compared to at
> >>>> least 22 cases per 100,000 after the second vaccine dose. The overall
> >>>> risk of heart conditions after Covid infection was up to 5.6 times
> >>>> higher compared to the second vaccine dose. The risk was up to 69
> >>>> times higher after infection compared to the first shot."
> >>>>
> >>>> "Overall, the risk of a heart issue after Covid infection was anywhere
> >>>> from 2 to 115 times higher compared to vaccination depending on age,
> >>>> gender and the dose administered."
> >>>>
> >>>> (both from CNBC summary of the CDC report).
> >>>>
> >>>> So, "not taking the vaccine" is also not risk-free (for this very same
> >>>> issue). In fact it appears to be significantly riskier for your heart -
> >>>> and that's neglecting all of the other nasty things COVID infection can
> >>>> do to your body.
> >>>
> >>> Not insignificantly, getting a vaccine doesn't pose any increased risk
> >>> to those around you.
> >>>
> >>> OTOH, catching COVID puts those around you (even casually) at increased
> >>> risk.
> >>>
> >>> [Of course, if you don't give a rat's ass about others, then you can
> >>> ignore this additional downside to non-vaccination]
> >>>
> >> The only people I know personally that were diagnosed with covid were
> >> also fully vaccinated and boosted. That also appears to be the case for
> >> those high profile enough to attract media attention.
> >
> > Right- they discovered early on that the vaccine does not prevent infection, so they moved the goal posts to serious disease requiring hospitalization.
> 'You are still susceptible but it probably won't be as bad' isn't much
> of a selling point. Pre-vaccine they tested the inmates at Marion
> Correctional and found over 2000 were positive, most of whom were very
> surprised. The follow-up reports were hard to find but iirc there were 7
> deaths in an overcrowded situation that should have been a recipe for
> disaster.

They had a big problem with this massively expensive multi-vaccine development not meeting the initial FDA effectiveness requirements for approval. Once they changed the threshold for effectiveness to prevents disease serious enough to require hospitalization, all the vaccines effectiveness performance shot up to 95%- except the viral vector crap like J&J and AstraZeneca.

If Fauci was infected, anybody can be infected. He was vaccinated with Moderna. The news may have mentioned that he received a monoclonal antibody treatment- don't recall. When you head up NIAID, you have access to quite a few treatment options.

On 7/20/2022 6:39 AM, rbowman wrote:
> On 07/20/2022 02:33 AM, Don Y wrote:
>> So, the restaurants sat empty -- but staffed! Ditto the nail salons, hair
>> dressers, etc. I'm sure they were GLAD they could keep accumulating
>> operating expenses when everyone else had other plans! <rolls eyes>
>
> Most of the restaurants here survived.

I have no idea how they fared, here. But, given that ~25% of most fail,
it wouldn't likely be seen as a real "loss". We rarely visit restaurants
but made several trips for BBQ take out. And, based on those results,
decided we won't be doing that again!

> There was a bit of irony when you had to
> be masked for the 30' from the door to the table and then off with the masks.

Here, they spaced out tables and reduced occupancy. As eating outdoors is
practical most of the year (save Monsoon), it's not hard to arrange for
"safer" dining.

> Some were strictly off premises. I was annoyed when my favorite bakery required
> you to call to place your order and I didn't have my phone. I guess they put
> your brownies in a bag and pushed it out the door with a long stick.

Most stores offered roadside pickup. Even the hummingbird feeder that
we purchased was brought out to our car, for us.

> NYC was different. My ex's favorite restaurant went under as did a lot of
> others. She survived on DoorDash or the equivalent. Strictly credit card, the
> courier left your chow in the lobby, called you, and disappeared. You masked
> up, went down, and got your meal. Great life. We always talked several times a
> year but the phone calls became more frequent as she went stir crazy.

Yeah, I found this amusing. The same folks who would scarcely take their
nose out of their phone DESPITE a "live human" standing next to them
BEFORE the pandemic suddenly *craved* that contact!

>> Maybe it's just their way of avoiding wearing makeup?? <grin>
>
> One article suggested they've come to the point where they feel naked without a
> mask sort of like the last century where a woman wouldn't go out without some
> sort of head covering.

Dunno. I suspect more concern for disease. Now, masks are reasonably scarce.
OTOH, I've noticed that it helps with my "seasonal" allergies (which seem
to occur in all five seasons!). But, I can't discipline myself to wear
one while walking the neighborhood or working in the yard (which is how I
see the difference in "performance")

>> Even medical providers just *inquire* as to your status -- mainly so
>> they can justify removing their masks during appointments.
>
> More irony. My dentist requires a mask and the receptionist takes you
> temperature. Then you fill out a questionnaire even if you were there the day
> before. Then you proceed to the torture chamber and remove the mask obviously.

My dentist shut down all aerosol generating activities. E.g., cleanings
couldn't use cavitron *nor* polishing; everything had to be done by handwork.
Fillings only on an emergency basis, etc.

You waited in your vehicle instead of in the waiting room -- and someone
came out to fetch you when they were ready for you.

>> [Though masks are still required by *all* medical establishments. Gee,
>> do you think they know something that the grocery stores and restaurants
>> *don't*?]
>
> It varies. I had two post-op appointments with the surgeon who nailed my femur.
> He's in a rather busy orthopedic center and a mask was required when I went to
> the first. By the time of the follow up 30 days later the only masks in site
> were a few patients who chose to wear one. None of the staff was masked.
>
> My primary physician still required masking.

It is only recently that ONE "family member" can accompany a pt. And, they
can't wait in the waiting room; wait elsewhere and they'll fetch you when
your pt is called in.

In a sense, many of the offices are now operating more efficiently.
Pts don't queue up in the waiting room ahead of time ("Do NOT arrive
more than 15 minutes before your apppointment"). I suspect they are
now taking a more realistic approach to appt scheduling -- leaving some
slop in the schedule so delays don't lead to a backlog of pts waiting.

On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 10:39:29 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 4:03:26 PM UTC+10, rbowman wrote:
> > On 07/19/2022 08:53 PM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 10:37:59 PM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
> > >> On 07/19/2022 05:40 PM, Don Y wrote:
> > >>> On 7/19/2022 3:54 PM, Dave Platt wrote:
> > >>>> In article <rc7edh1icl9c1v8ev...@4ax.com>,
> > >>>> Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net> wrote:
> <snip>
> > > Right- they discovered early on that the vaccine does not prevent infection, so they moved the goal posts to serious disease requiring hospitalization.
> >
> > 'You are still susceptible but it probably won't be as bad' isn't much of a selling point.
> You are much less likely to end up dead puts it more accurately, and you do need to throw in the fact that you are less likely to infect other people if you do get infected after you have been vaccinated.
>
> Treating vaccination as something that needs to be sold to reluctant customers may fit the private enterprise mind-set, but the public health issue is all about getting as many people as possible vaccinated, and giving them as little opportunity as possible to express any irrational reluctance they may feel.

The public health issue was relieving the strain on a failing hospital system. Many people who ordinarily would be admitted to the hospital for other conditions were turned away, surgeries were postponed indefinitely, diagnostic testing was all but discontinued, standard operating procedures for treatment and triage were rewritten and became quite extreme in hard hit areas.. It is estimated that excess deaths due to cancer alone in U.S. for year 2021 were 38,000. The operative word is excess. Damage to the health care system was enormous and quite a bit of it was undocumented because people simply did not seek care.

> > Pre-vaccine they tested the inmates at Marion Correctional and found over 2000 were positive, most of whom were very surprised. The follow-up reports were hard to find but iirc there were 7 deaths in an overcrowded situation that should have been a recipe for disaster.
> Why? If the inmates had been elderly and sick there would have been a lot more deaths, but 7 out of 2000 is 0.35% which is not expected for the 20 to 30 year-old age bracket.
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 11:02:31 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 12:24:17 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 1:55:26 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 12:46:17 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 9:34:26 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 10:42:48 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 6:54:11 PM UTC-4, Dave Platt wrote:
> > > > > > > In article <rc7edh1icl9c1v8ev...@4ax.com>,
> > > > > > > Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > > > Since vaccination simulates an attenuated viral infection, you're going to have the same downsides more or less as are present with a real infection.
> > > > >
> > > > > It doesn't. The Covid-19 vaccines all seem to instruct the patient's body to make a lot of the Covid-19 spike protein, and nothing else.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22905-7
> > > > >
> > > > > talks about the other proteins that the Covid-19 genome can - and does - construct. Some of them seem to be positively selected, so presumably they interfere with the host in a way that helps the virus.
> > > >
> > > > Like I said- you're a complete idiot. Nobody said the vaccine produces the auto-antibodies. It is the immune response to the vaccine antigen that does that.
> > >
> > > The complete idiot here seems to be you. The is just one vaccine antigen - a version of the Covid-19 spike protein.
> > > The virus itself synthesises a number of other proteins when it takes over a human cell. Some are purely functional like the genome replication enzyme, but others seem mess up the human immune response, and they can all serve as antigens.
> > >
> > > > > > A major downside for nearly all viral infections is autoimmune response. Researchers have isolated 52 autoimmune components present in the typical COVID-19 infection, and those components are present in 24 different types of autoimmune diseases.
> > > > >
> > > > > But presumably not all of these will be present in the reaction to the vaccine, which presents the immune system with a single antigen, as opposed to a cocktail of proteins.
> > > >
> > > > Why presumably? You are accidently right about one thing, the real infection involves a lot more chemistry than a vaccine, especially with enzymes and cytokines. But for some people just the presentation of the simplest antigen- like a receptor binding domain- is all it takes to set off a chain of events producing an autoimmune effect.
> >>
> > > This is a claim, rather than a statement of an established fact. Cite your reference
> > > > If you run across an investigative report of research into how much and how little in each of those cases, let us know.
> > > You first.
> > > > > > In many cases the autoimmune response does not persist and is temporary, but in some people it's permanent. Long COVID is probably autoimmune disease.
> > > >
> > > > > Why "probably"?
> > > >
> > > > There is no one form of long COVID- there are several varieties.
> > >
> > > That doesn't explain your "probably".
> > >
> > > > Altered mental state seems to be quite common , but you have shown neither a vaccine nor an infection is necessary condition for that.
> > >
> > > Your own mental state - your head up own arse - is unfortunate, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with long Covid.
> > >
> > > > > >These cases of heart problems are a result of autoimmune responses. A bunch of viral infections cause reactions that attack heart tissue- it seems to be a very vulnerable organ. As the data shows, the autoimmune response from vaccination is much, much less than that of a real viral infection. It's better for these people to take their chances with a vaccine.
> > > >
> > > > > Absolutely. so why did you start off with " you're going to have the same downsides more or less as are present with a real infection"?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Which would have made it even more vacuous than what you did post.
> > >
> > > > You're welcome to survey the literature and make a determination of diagnosed autoimmune response in vaccinated without infection versus infection without vaccination...
> > >
> > > Why on earth would I bother? You wanted to pontificate about the minor risk of percardiac inflamation from vaccination against Covid-19 and you managed to get it wrong, as you have admitted.
> >
> > I admitted no such thing.
> " More precisely I should have said "...as can be present..." "
> > You're just a stupid little A-hole with dementia with a big helping of ignorance and low IQ mixed in.
> Funny that you - of all people - should make that claim.

Another of your routine pat and tired comebacks...

> > You pretend to be such a complex and detailed thinker yet fail to demonstrate one bit of that or any other form of usefulness in your posts.
> You get stuff wrong. I point this out. You don't think that this is a useful exercise. John Larkin has the same problem.

You pointed out no such thing. You're a delusional narcissist.

> > All you can manage to understand are simple, single variable, one dimensional information blurbs. This excludes you entirely from understanding anything at all related to health- also explains why you're so ignorant.
> " A major downside for nearly all viral infections is autoimmune response.. Researchers have isolated 52 autoimmune components present in the typical COVID-19 infection, and those components are present in 24 different types of autoimmune diseases. "
> Fred seems to think that invoking elaborate complications makes his fantasies more entertaining. He likes to think that less extravagant comments are "simple, single variable, one dimensional information blurbs" which doesn't happen to be entirely accurate, but it keeps him happy

If it's a complication then it's not elaborate. I notice with your crippled mental processing no mention of the adjuvant at all because you know nothing at all about it. Adjuvants are a great way to bring out autoimmunity in an individual.

>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney