On 5/19/2021 10:56 AM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:

>> It's kinda cool to have a beer in the street.
>
> Very Londonesque.

Seemed pretty common in much of England. I much prefered the
tight confines of indoors and the added effort to talk, navigate, etc.

> Some things have loosened up with COVID- we can get booze delivered
> with our Uber Eats food, even in tight-ass Ontario.

Heh heh heh... you've never lived in a dry city? :> When I lived in
Arlington (MA), you had to drive to the next town (e.g., Cambridge
or Somerville or Medford) to buy anything alcoholic.

Or, dealt with packies closing at *8* PM? And, the beer/wine
cooler in the grocery store (which stays open past 8) being covered
with a retractable "shade" to stress the fact that beer/wine sales
are no longer allowed...

("Closed on Sunday", etc.)

Yup, we know what's best for you!

> They were talking about officially allowing open booze containers in
> public parks, but apparently that was a bit much.

I don't believe you can have an open container in your own
*front* yard. But, the BACK yard is entirely permissible!

On 19/05/2021 09:18, Don Y wrote:
> On 5/19/2021 12:18 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:

>> I believe the UK has ordered enough vaccine to give a booster to
>> all the population in late autumn or early winter. Which vaccine that will be
>> I am not sure - I've heard of Moderna and Pfizer being mentioned. There could
>> be others which, as yet, haven't been approved anywhere in the world, and could
>> perhaps be more effective against current or even future variants than the
>> current vaccines.
>
> We hear talk of boosters but no followup; are these being readied for
> approval? Or, are folks playing "wait and see" -- to determine how
> long the vaccines will defer the need for boosters (so you can develop
> the RIGHT booster instead of a prematurely selected variant)

The UK has just announced a new clinical trial ("Cov-Boost") of a third
(booster) dose of one of seven different vaccines (only three have so
far been fully approved here).

"The trial will look at seven different COVID-19 vaccines as potential
boosters, given at least 10 to 12 weeks after a second dose as part of
the ongoing vaccination programme. One booster will be provided to each
volunteer and could be a different brand to the one they were originally
vaccinated with.

Vaccines being trialled include Oxford/AstraZeneca, Pfizer/BioNTech,
Moderna, Novavax, Valneva, Janssen and Curevac, as well as a control group."

Full info at
<https://www.gov.uk/government/news/world-first-covid-19-vaccine-booster-study-launches-in-uk>

--

Jeff

On 5/19/2021 2:14 PM, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 19/05/2021 09:18, Don Y wrote:
>> On 5/19/2021 12:18 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
>
>>> I believe the UK has ordered enough vaccine to give a booster to
>>> all the population in late autumn or early winter. Which vaccine that will be
>>> I am not sure - I've heard of Moderna and Pfizer being mentioned. There could
>>> be others which, as yet, haven't been approved anywhere in the world, and could
>>> perhaps be more effective against current or even future variants than the
>>> current vaccines.
>>
>> We hear talk of boosters but no followup; are these being readied for
>> approval? Or, are folks playing "wait and see" -- to determine how
>> long the vaccines will defer the need for boosters (so you can develop
>> the RIGHT booster instead of a prematurely selected variant)
>
> The UK has just announced a new clinical trial ("Cov-Boost") of a third
> (booster) dose of one of seven different vaccines (only three have so far been
> fully approved here).
>
> "The trial will look at seven different COVID-19 vaccines as potential
> boosters, given at least 10 to 12 weeks after a second dose as part of the
> ongoing vaccination programme. One booster will be provided to each volunteer
> and could be a different brand to the one they were originally vaccinated with.

So, they aren't using the booster to refresh the body's immune response
(presumably, it is still strong 10-12 weeks after immunization!) but,
rather, to augment it with exposure to different variants not covered
in the initial vaccine. (?)

I still don't see anyone actively tracking infection vs. vaccination
date/status; to know when immunity fades. (I recall hearing that immunity
from an infection fades quicker?)

I.e., given how long it takes to vaccinate an entire population, one
would think knowing how often that exercise has to be repeated would
be a worthwhile datum! (if it takes a year and only lasts 8 months...)

> Vaccines being trialled include Oxford/AstraZeneca, Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna,
> Novavax, Valneva, Janssen and Curevac, as well as a control group."
>
> Full info at
> <https://www.gov.uk/government/news/world-first-covid-19-vaccine-booster-study-launches-in-uk>

In re: mix and match (which, presumably, will likely apply to a booster as
keeping track of who had which vaccine and matching that to the "correct"
booster seems tedious):

"Initial results from this trial have shown that mixing the doses slightly
increases the frequency of mild-to-moderate symptoms following vaccination,
but there were no serious outcomes. Further results from this clinical
trial – including on the immune response in people who have two different
vaccine doses – are expected over the coming months."

[Amusing how mealy-mouthed that description is: "mild-to-moderate".
Imagine going for a job interview and inquiring as to the pay scale
only to be told "mild-to-moderate"... WTF?]

It will be interesting if the folks who have avoided vaccination based on
fear of first (*or* second) dose are further scared away by this (wrt a
booster).

I've not (personally) heard of anyone with "severe" side effects.
One case of a woman having flu-like symptoms for 3 days. A couple
of cases of folks with persistent (weeks) rashes. And, a few cases
of folks complaining of muscle weakness/ache months afterwards.

[In my case, a "tender" arm at the injection site -- both jabs -- for
a couple of hours]

On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 5:14:29 PM UTC-4, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 19/05/2021 09:18, Don Y wrote:
> > On 5/19/2021 12:18 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
>
> >> I believe the UK has ordered enough vaccine to give a booster to
> >> all the population in late autumn or early winter. Which vaccine that will be
> >> I am not sure - I've heard of Moderna and Pfizer being mentioned. There could
> >> be others which, as yet, haven't been approved anywhere in the world, and could
> >> perhaps be more effective against current or even future variants than the
> >> current vaccines.
> >
> > We hear talk of boosters but no followup; are these being readied for
> > approval? Or, are folks playing "wait and see" -- to determine how
> > long the vaccines will defer the need for boosters (so you can develop
> > the RIGHT booster instead of a prematurely selected variant)
> The UK has just announced a new clinical trial ("Cov-Boost") of a third
> (booster) dose of one of seven different vaccines (only three have so
> far been fully approved here).
>
> "The trial will look at seven different COVID-19 vaccines as potential
> boosters, given at least 10 to 12 weeks after a second dose as part of
> the ongoing vaccination programme. One booster will be provided to each
> volunteer and could be a different brand to the one they were originally
> vaccinated with.
>
> Vaccines being trialled include Oxford/AstraZeneca, Pfizer/BioNTech,
> Moderna, Novavax, Valneva, Janssen and Curevac, as well as a control group."
>
> Full info at
> <https://www.gov.uk/government/news/world-first-covid-19-vaccine-booster-study-launches-in-uk>

The trouble is no matter how many booster shots you get, it will not mitigate the idiot who won't get a vaccine shot.

--

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Wed, 19 May 2021 13:58:16 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

>On 5/19/2021 10:56 AM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>
>>> It's kinda cool to have a beer in the street.
>>
>> Very Londonesque.
>
>Seemed pretty common in much of England. I much prefered the
>tight confines of indoors and the added effort to talk, navigate, etc.
>
>> Some things have loosened up with COVID- we can get booze delivered
>> with our Uber Eats food, even in tight-ass Ontario.
>
>Heh heh heh... you've never lived in a dry city? :> When I lived in
>Arlington (MA), you had to drive to the next town (e.g., Cambridge
>or Somerville or Medford) to buy anything alcoholic.

Parts of Mississippi were dry. They had membership-only private clubs
that could serve alcohol. It wasn't hard to become a member; it took
about as long as it took to get the drinks mixed and served.

And some places would sell you a small glass of Coke for $5. You'd
bring your own bottle of liquor and keep it under the table.

>
>Or, dealt with packies closing at *8* PM? And, the beer/wine
>cooler in the grocery store (which stays open past 8) being covered
>with a retractable "shade" to stress the fact that beer/wine sales
>are no longer allowed...
>
>("Closed on Sunday", etc.)
>
>Yup, we know what's best for you!
>
>> They were talking about officially allowing open booze containers in
>> public parks, but apparently that was a bit much.
>
>I don't believe you can have an open container in your own
>*front* yard. But, the BACK yard is entirely permissible!

Brown paper bags are a great invention. And "water" bottles.

On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 9:50:47 AM UTC-7, Ed Lee wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 7:05:53 AM UTC-7, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 3:18:13 AM UTC-4, Jeff Layman wrote:
> > > On 19/05/2021 05:52, Don Y wrote:
> > > > On 5/18/2021 9:39 PM, bitrex wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I think the total percentage of US residents fully vaccinated is going to
> > > >> plateau far short of 70%;
> > > >
> > > > Agreed. Though subpopulations will likely see higher vaccination rates.
> > > > And, if their social interactions are largely within that subpopulation,
> > > > may see a significant decrease in infection rates.
> > > >
> > > > The next "widespread variant" will likely sate itself on the unvaccinated
> > > > (and undervaccinated). We're already hearing news reports to the effect
> > > > that "the folks being hospitalized are unvaccinated" (Great News! :-/ ).
> > > We've been doing pretty well in the UK with vaccination figures high and
> > > the infection rate going down, but it seems we could still have the
> > > ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The Indian variant is
> > > spreading fast in the UK (probably not helped by us allowing air
> > > travellers from India into the country for a couple of weeks after we
> > > should have stopped them coming in). More info on what could be expected
> > > in the near future here:
> > > <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57150871>
> > >
> > > The section headed "Huge uncertainty over Indian variant" is
> > > particularly interesting as it shows how figures and expressions can be
> > > misleading.
> > > > The focus will shift to booster shots. Whether those will be of any value
> > > > to unvaccinated folks is unknown. So, the protection for the next set
> > > > of variants may only be effective against folks who had previously taken
> > > > advantage of the first vaccines.
> > > It can only be a booster shot for those who have already had at least
> > > one vaccination. I believe the UK has ordered enough vaccine to give a
> > > booster to all the population in late autumn or early winter. Which
> > > vaccine that will be I am not sure - I've heard of Moderna and Pfizer
> > > being mentioned. There could be others which, as yet, haven't been
> > > approved anywhere in the world, and could perhaps be more effective
> > > against current or even future variants than the current vaccines.
> > A "booster" shot is normally one given to extend the protection period of a vaccine. In this case I believe you are referring to a shot that extends coverage to a wider range of virus variants. I have not read much about how these would be designed, but if the original vaccine is not effective against a new strain the "booster" would essentially be designed to work against a new protein sequence and therefore a new vaccine. It would be effective against the new variant, but may or may not be effective against the original strains. There is no basis for saying it would only be effective in people who had previously been vaccinated. It's not like adding a turbo to an existing engine.
> >
> > However, there is no reason to think the original strains are not present in the population. So the original vaccine would still be needed for complete protection. Hopefully people would understand that and get both if they presently had none.

> There is also a memory effect. If you are fully dosed against the original virus, your body tends to create anti-body for the original virus, even when new variants are encountered.

Better educational video of "Counter Strike of the Mutants":

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/05/19/997873815/video-why-some-coronavirus-variants-are-better-at-infecting-humans-than-others

On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 2:50:47 AM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 7:05:53 AM UTC-7, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 3:18:13 AM UTC-4, Jeff Layman wrote:
> > > On 19/05/2021 05:52, Don Y wrote:
> > > > On 5/18/2021 9:39 PM, bitrex wrote:

<snip>

> > However, there is no reason to think the original strains are not present in the population.

If they are losing the competition to infect new victims, there won't be as many of them around, and their incidence will decay exponentially.

> > So the original vaccine would still be needed for complete protection. Hopefully people would understand that and get both if they presently had none.

It's not the original vaccine that matters, but the antibody it provoked you into generating.

> There is also a memory effect. If you are fully dosed against the original virus, your body tends to create anti-body for the original virus, even when new variants are encountered.

If you get vaccinated against the original virus, your body has been provoked into generating an antibody against a fragment of the original virus - mostly a version of its spike protein. The actual antibody generated depends - to some extent - on the nature of your immune system. If the new variants are close enough to the original for your antibody to latch onto them, you will be fine. If a new variant evades a lot of peoples' antibodies, society is going to need to spend money on developing a a new vaccine that presents a different antigen, and - if all goes well - provokes people into generating different antibodies that will latch onto the new variant, as we've been doing with influenza for decades now.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 10:11:00 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 2:50:47 AM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 7:05:53 AM UTC-7, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 3:18:13 AM UTC-4, Jeff Layman wrote:
> > > > On 19/05/2021 05:52, Don Y wrote:
> > > > > On 5/18/2021 9:39 PM, bitrex wrote:
> <snip>
> > > However, there is no reason to think the original strains are not present in the population.
> If they are losing the competition to infect new victims, there won't be as many of them around, and their incidence will decay exponentially.

That is only true if the infection count or vaccination rate is high enough that the two virus strains are actually in competition for hosts. With the large number remaining not vaccinated hosts we presently see, the presence of a more infectious strain has virtually no impact on a less virulent strain and certainly won't cause the less infectious strain to "decay exponentially". Any decay of infection rate up until now is primarily from the actions of the potential hosts at this point. Going forward that may not be true as the vaccination level continues to rise.

> > > So the original vaccine would still be needed for complete protection.. Hopefully people would understand that and get both if they presently had none.
> It's not the original vaccine that matters, but the antibody it provoked you into generating.
> > There is also a memory effect. If you are fully dosed against the original virus, your body tends to create anti-body for the original virus, even when new variants are encountered.
> If you get vaccinated against the original virus, your body has been provoked into generating an antibody against a fragment of the original virus - mostly a version of its spike protein. The actual antibody generated depends - to some extent - on the nature of your immune system. If the new variants are close enough to the original for your antibody to latch onto them, you will be fine. If a new variant evades a lot of peoples' antibodies, society is going to need to spend money on developing a a new vaccine that presents a different antigen, and - if all goes well - provokes people into generating different antibodies that will latch onto the new variant, as we've been doing with influenza for decades now.

Your body will produce antibodies to the new strain regardless of the vaccine or previous infection. Being vaccinated does not stop the immune system from learning about a new virus strain. So far most vaccinated immune systems have not had much opportunity to learn about new strains since the antibodies they are already producing are still very effective against the new strains and these new strains aren't around long enough to produce much of an immune response.

--

Rick C.

--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 12:36:26 PM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 10:11:00 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 2:50:47 AM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 7:05:53 AM UTC-7, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 3:18:13 AM UTC-4, Jeff Layman wrote:
> > > > > On 19/05/2021 05:52, Don Y wrote:
> > > > > > On 5/18/2021 9:39 PM, bitrex wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > > However, there is no reason to think the original strains are not present in the population.
> > If they are losing the competition to infect new victims, there won't be as many of them around, and their incidence will decay exponentially.
>
> That is only true if the infection count or vaccination rate is high enough that the two virus strains are actually in competition for hosts. With the large number remaining not vaccinated hosts we presently see, the presence of a more infectious strain has virtually no impact on a less virulent strain and certainly won't cause the less infectious strain to "decay exponentially".

Once you've been infected by the more infectious strain, you won't get infected by the less infectious strain. That's all that competition for hosts means.

With fewer people around infected with the less infectious strain, there are fewer people to pass it on, and it will get selected out.

> Any decay of infection rate up until now is primarily from the actions of the potential hosts at this point.

US hosts don't seem to be much good at changing their behavior to make it less likely that they will be infected. Australian hosts seem to have done better.

> Going forward that may not be true as the vaccination level continues to rise.

That's the whole point of vaccinating as many people as possible, as fast as possible. The US is doing a much better job at that than Australia, manly because it doesn't have any other choice.

> > > > So the original vaccine would still be needed for complete protection. Hopefully people would understand that and get both if they presently had none.
> > It's not the original vaccine that matters, but the antibody it provoked you into generating.
> > > There is also a memory effect. If you are fully dosed against the original virus, your body tends to create anti-body for the original virus, even when new variants are encountered.
> > If you get vaccinated against the original virus, your body has been provoked into generating an antibody against a fragment of the original virus - mostly a version of its spike protein. The actual antibody generated depends - to some extent - on the nature of your immune system. If the new variants are close enough to the original for your antibody to latch onto them, you will be fine. If a new variant evades a lot of peoples' antibodies, society is going to need to spend money on developing a a new vaccine that presents a different antigen, and - if all goes well - provokes people into generating different antibodies that will latch onto the new variant, as we've been doing with influenza for decades now.
>
> Your body will produce antibodies to the new strain regardless of the vaccine or previous infection.

But if the antibodies provoked by previous infection or vaccination are effective against the new virus, you don't get much of a viral load of the new strain, and the immune system won't have much to work on, and may not bother to generate a new antibody.

> Being vaccinated does not stop the immune system from learning about a new virus strain.

But it may make it much less likely to gear up to the point where it produces a new antibody in volume.

> So far most vaccinated immune systems have not had much opportunity to learn about new strains since the antibodies they are already producing are still very effective against the new strains and these new strains aren't around long enough to produce much of an immune response.

Exactly.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 11:01:50 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 12:36:26 PM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 10:11:00 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 2:50:47 AM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 7:05:53 AM UTC-7, gnuarm.del...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 3:18:13 AM UTC-4, Jeff Layman wrote:
> > > > > > On 19/05/2021 05:52, Don Y wrote:
> > > > > > > On 5/18/2021 9:39 PM, bitrex wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > > However, there is no reason to think the original strains are not present in the population.
> > > If they are losing the competition to infect new victims, there won't be as many of them around, and their incidence will decay exponentially.
> >
> > That is only true if the infection count or vaccination rate is high enough that the two virus strains are actually in competition for hosts. With the large number remaining not vaccinated hosts we presently see, the presence of a more infectious strain has virtually no impact on a less virulent strain and certainly won't cause the less infectious strain to "decay exponentially".
> Once you've been infected by the more infectious strain, you won't get infected by the less infectious strain. That's all that competition for hosts means.
>
> With fewer people around infected with the less infectious strain, there are fewer people to pass it on, and it will get selected out.

There are times when you literally are incapable of understanding what other people say to you. There will be no "exponential decay" until the number of potential hosts is much smaller than can support the continued infection rate. What you say is true, but in ignorance of the rest of the facts of the real world.

Whatevs...

--

Rick C.

-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 1:35:42 PM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 11:01:50 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 12:36:26 PM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 10:11:00 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 2:50:47 AM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 7:05:53 AM UTC-7, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 3:18:13 AM UTC-4, Jeff Layman wrote:
> > > > > > > On 19/05/2021 05:52, Don Y wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 5/18/2021 9:39 PM, bitrex wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > > > > However, there is no reason to think the original strains are not present in the population.
> > > > If they are losing the competition to infect new victims, there won't be as many of them around, and their incidence will decay exponentially.
> > >
> > > That is only true if the infection count or vaccination rate is high enough that the two virus strains are actually in competition for hosts. With the large number remaining not vaccinated hosts we presently see, the presence of a more infectious strain has virtually no impact on a less virulent strain and certainly won't cause the less infectious strain to "decay exponentially".
> >
> > Once you've been infected by the more infectious strain, you won't get infected by the less infectious strain. That's all that competition for hosts means.
> >
> > With fewer people around infected with the less infectious strain, there are fewer people to pass it on, and it will get selected out.
>
> There are times when you literally are incapable of understanding what other people say to you. There will be no "exponential decay" until the number of potential hosts is much smaller than can support the continued infection rate. What you say is true, but in ignorance of the rest of the facts of the real world.

An exponential decay (or growth) is one in which the number of new infections is a constant fraction of the number of infections in the previous generation.

The number of potential hosts doesn't come into it. What you are saying isn't remotely true - I don't have any trouble understanding it, but it just means that you are repeating your error. Your idea that you have some kind of "grasp of real world facts" is an unfortunate - if persistent - delusion.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 20/05/2021 00:22, Rick C wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 5:14:29 PM UTC-4, Jeff Layman wrote:

>> "The trial will look at seven different COVID-19 vaccines as potential
>> boosters, given at least 10 to 12 weeks after a second dose as part of
>> the ongoing vaccination programme. One booster will be provided to each
>> volunteer and could be a different brand to the one they were originally
>> vaccinated with.
>>
>> Vaccines being trialled include Oxford/AstraZeneca, Pfizer/BioNTech,
>> Moderna, Novavax, Valneva, Janssen and Curevac, as well as a control group."
>>
>> Full info at
>> <https://www.gov.uk/government/news/world-first-covid-19-vaccine-booster-study-launches-in-uk>
>
> The trouble is no matter how many booster shots you get, it will not mitigate the idiot who won't get a vaccine shot.

True, but in that case I expect that Darwin will intervene at some point...

--

Jeff

On 20/05/2021 04:35, Rick C wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 11:01:50 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 12:36:26 PM UTC+10,
>> gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 10:11:00 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 2:50:47 AM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 7:05:53 AM UTC-7,
>>>>> gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 3:18:13 AM UTC-4, Jeff Layman
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 19/05/2021 05:52, Don Y wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2021 9:39 PM, bitrex wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> However, there is no reason to think the original strains
>>>>>> are not present in the population.
>>>> If they are losing the competition to infect new victims, there
>>>> won't be as many of them around, and their incidence will decay
>>>> exponentially.
>>>
>>> That is only true if the infection count or vaccination rate is
>>> high enough that the two virus strains are actually in
>>> competition for hosts. With the large number remaining not
>>> vaccinated hosts we presently see, the presence of a more
>>> infectious strain has virtually no impact on a less virulent
>>> strain and certainly won't cause the less infectious strain to
>>> "decay exponentially".
>> Once you've been infected by the more infectious strain, you won't
>> get infected by the less infectious strain. That's all that
>> competition for hosts means.
>>
>> With fewer people around infected with the less infectious strain,
>> there are fewer people to pass it on, and it will get selected
>> out.
>
> There are times when you literally are incapable of understanding
> what other people say to you. There will be no "exponential decay"

Yes. There will - it is *you* who are incapable of grasping even the
simplest of concepts. If you have two competing strains each with
exponential growth and different exponents the one with the larger
exponent quickly wins out over the other one. It is an arms race.

Something 1.3x more infective will double its host size relative to the
original wild form in about 3 weeks. The troublesome new Indian strain
looks like it could be as much as 1.5x more infective (than B1.1.7).

The other one is still trying to grow exponentially but is outcompeted
by the faster growing competitor for new hosts. That is the very nature
of exponential growth it is pretty much winner takes all.

Within a couple of months a strain with a 1.5x higher infectivity will
account for almost all of the active cases in real world data.

> until the number of potential hosts is much smaller than can support
> the continued infection rate. What you say is true, but in ignorance
> of the rest of the facts of the real world.
>
> Whatevs...

The UK Kent strain B1.1.7 displaced the D614G strain to become totally
dominant in the UK in about two months from a standing start. OK it
didn't help that university students and Xmas spread it far and wide.

This is a paper showing how the strain took over and Dec 9 was the
fateful day that university students with their freshly minted but
meaningless Covid negative certificates went home to rural pubs.

Up until then the new pox was largely confined to London and the SE.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03470-x

This is *REAL* data from the UK which leads the world in genomic
sequencing and is monitoring Variants of Concern in real time.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 19/05/2021 22:32, Don Y wrote:
> On 5/19/2021 2:14 PM, Jeff Layman wrote:
>> On 19/05/2021 09:18, Don Y wrote:
>>> On 5/19/2021 12:18 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>
>>>> I believe the UK has ordered enough vaccine to give a booster to
>>>> all the population in late autumn or early winter. Which vaccine that will be
>>>> I am not sure - I've heard of Moderna and Pfizer being mentioned. There could
>>>> be others which, as yet, haven't been approved anywhere in the world, and could
>>>> perhaps be more effective against current or even future variants than the
>>>> current vaccines.
>>>
>>> We hear talk of boosters but no followup; are these being readied for
>>> approval? Or, are folks playing "wait and see" -- to determine how
>>> long the vaccines will defer the need for boosters (so you can develop
>>> the RIGHT booster instead of a prematurely selected variant)
>>
>> The UK has just announced a new clinical trial ("Cov-Boost") of a third
>> (booster) dose of one of seven different vaccines (only three have so far been
>> fully approved here).
>>
>> "The trial will look at seven different COVID-19 vaccines as potential
>> boosters, given at least 10 to 12 weeks after a second dose as part of the
>> ongoing vaccination programme. One booster will be provided to each volunteer
>> and could be a different brand to the one they were originally vaccinated with.
>
> So, they aren't using the booster to refresh the body's immune response
> (presumably, it is still strong 10-12 weeks after immunization!) but,
> rather, to augment it with exposure to different variants not covered
> in the initial vaccine. (?)

From
<https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/clinical-areas/immunology-and-vaccines/world-first-uk-trial-to-report-on-booster-covid-vaccines-by-september/>:

"The Government said this will be the first trial in the world to
provide data on the impact of a third dose on patients’ immune responses.

Speaking during a press briefing earlier today, Professor Saul Faust,
professor of paediatric immunology and infectious diseases at the
University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust said: ‘We know that
to try to protect people against the variants, there are two ways of
doing that.

‘Either we raise the antibody levels from current vaccines higher – or
we change the vaccine.’

He added: ‘This study is looking at boosting the current strain antibody
levels high enough to protect against the circulating strains.’

So it looks like they are trying to boost antibody levels with a third
dose, and hoping that those higher levels will prove effective against
current strains which may be somewhat resistant to current vaccines.
Maybe they also hope to get the same effect with as-yet unseen new
strains which might be even more resistant.

I see also that Cov-Boost and another trial (ComCov) are using mixed
dosing levels to see what effect that has on the level of developing
antibodies.

> I still don't see anyone actively tracking infection vs. vaccination
> date/status; to know when immunity fades. (I recall hearing that immunity
> from an infection fades quicker?)

I'm pretty certain that is being tracked in the UK at least, as there
have been reports earlier in the year of poor take-up in certain ethnic
groups, and corresponding higher levels of infection in those groups.
There were confounding factors such as those groups tending to be in
poorer areas with more crowded accommodation. I haven't heard much about
it recently, so maybe vaccination levels have increased in those
populations.

> I.e., given how long it takes to vaccinate an entire population, one
> would think knowing how often that exercise has to be repeated would
> be a worthwhile datum! (if it takes a year and only lasts 8 months...)

I don't know. I agree this would be important to know, but if immunity
lasted perhaps only 6 - 8 months do we have the capability to keep
producing vaccine and vaccinating 9 billion people twice a year?

>> Vaccines being trialled include Oxford/AstraZeneca, Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna,
>> Novavax, Valneva, Janssen and Curevac, as well as a control group."
>>
>> Full info at
>> <https://www.gov.uk/government/news/world-first-covid-19-vaccine-booster-study-launches-in-uk>
>
> In re: mix and match (which, presumably, will likely apply to a booster as
> keeping track of who had which vaccine and matching that to the "correct"
> booster seems tedious):

I'm sure this will be done as part of the trial. As it is random
allocation, I guess it will be a 1 in 7 chance that a participant will
receive the same vaccine they had for their first two doses (or 1 in 8
if you include the placebo group).

> "Initial results from this trial have shown that mixing the doses slightly
> increases the frequency of mild-to-moderate symptoms following vaccination,
> but there were no serious outcomes. Further results from this clinical
> trial – including on the immune response in people who have two different
> vaccine doses – are expected over the coming months."
>
> [Amusing how mealy-mouthed that description is: "mild-to-moderate".
> Imagine going for a job interview and inquiring as to the pay scale
> only to be told "mild-to-moderate"... WTF?]

I think that, in general, most people experience very mild side-effects,
such as arm ache. The somewhat less mild would be slight fever and
flu-like symptoms, which if you felt really rough might be classed as
moderate. Strangely, I can't see any mention of blood clots here
<https://www.covboost.org.uk/about>.

> It will be interesting if the folks who have avoided vaccination based on
> fear of first (*or* second) dose are further scared away by this (wrt a
> booster).

I doubt it would make any difference to them, unless they'd had a first
dose without any side effects, and suffered a serious reaction after the
second.

> I've not (personally) heard of anyone with "severe" side effects.
> One case of a woman having flu-like symptoms for 3 days. A couple
> of cases of folks with persistent (weeks) rashes. And, a few cases
> of folks complaining of muscle weakness/ache months afterwards.

Agreed. I think just about the only worrisome side-effect is blood clots
in a very limited population receiving the O-AZ vaccine. They could be
excluded from the trial inclusion criteria, I guess.

> [In my case, a "tender" arm at the injection site -- both jabs -- for
> a couple of hours]

I had the O-AZ vaccine. Got a sore arm with the first, and a slight
fever. Worst with it was really cold feet for six hours (confirmed with
an IR thermometer)! Second vaccination had no adverse effects at all.

--

Jeff

On 20/05/2021 07:56, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 20/05/2021 00:22, Rick C wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 5:14:29 PM UTC-4, Jeff Layman wrote:
>
>>> "The trial will look at seven different COVID-19 vaccines as potential
>>> boosters, given at least 10 to 12 weeks after a second dose as part of
>>> the ongoing vaccination programme. One booster will be provided to each
>>> volunteer and could be a different brand to the one they were originally
>>> vaccinated with.
>>>
>>> Vaccines being trialled include Oxford/AstraZeneca, Pfizer/BioNTech,
>>> Moderna, Novavax, Valneva, Janssen and Curevac, as well as a control
>>> group."
>>>
>>> Full info at
>>> <https://www.gov.uk/government/news/world-first-covid-19-vaccine-booster-study-launches-in-uk>
>>>
>>
>> The trouble is no matter how many booster shots you get, it will not
>> mitigate the idiot who won't get a vaccine shot.

There are a few people who are unable to have a vaccine shot for genuine
medical reasons as well. In the UK those eligible to have the vaccine
have mostly taken it up with 90+% uptake in the eligible cohort.

There are some strictly orthodox religious cults that have managed to
spread the disease widely within their nearly closed community. They are
now reaching herd immunity the hard way with many elderly deaths.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-55903096
>
> True, but in that case I expect that Darwin will intervene at some point...

Darwin is really quite ineffective with only a 1% IFR.

Obviously 10% in the more elderly refuseniks. Even that is not enough to
make a significant difference. Black death at 30% was a game changer.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 19/05/2021 18:56, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 2021 07:11:22 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
> wrote:
>
>>
>> At GPS, our local dive bar, the bartender asks if you have been
>> vaccinated, honor system. If you say no, you have to take your beer
>> outside to the shelter they built in the street.
>>
>> It used to be illegal to leave the premises with a beer, and there
>> used to be more parking spots.
>>
>> It's kinda cool to have a beer in the street.
>
> Very Londonesque.

More like Brussels, Paris or Rome. It rains a bit too much in the UK for
pavement dining to really flourish here. Pubs here are now allowed to
erect semi-permanent marquees outside to shelter their punters.

Previously rules only allowed such structures for a maximum 30 days.

Had a cake and coffee at an outdoors cafe earlier this week whilst
waiting for the car to have its tyres swapped. And guess what - it
rained on us. Luckily the tables were under huge "sunshade" umbrellas!

> Some things have loosened up with COVID- we can get booze delivered
> with our Uber Eats food, even in tight-ass Ontario.
>
> They were talking about officially allowing open booze containers in
> public parks, but apparently that was a bit much.

UK varies on this. Places where they have had a problem with drunkenness
have a ban on open booze but the vast majority of places are OK with it.
eg
https://www.seton.co.uk/alcohol-free-zone-sign.html

(very much the exception rather than the rule)

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 20/05/2021 08:54, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 20/05/2021 07:56, Jeff Layman wrote:
>> On 20/05/2021 00:22, Rick C wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 5:14:29 PM UTC-4, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>
>>>> "The trial will look at seven different COVID-19 vaccines as potential
>>>> boosters, given at least 10 to 12 weeks after a second dose as part of
>>>> the ongoing vaccination programme. One booster will be provided to each
>>>> volunteer and could be a different brand to the one they were originally
>>>> vaccinated with.
>>>>
>>>> Vaccines being trialled include Oxford/AstraZeneca, Pfizer/BioNTech,
>>>> Moderna, Novavax, Valneva, Janssen and Curevac, as well as a control
>>>> group."
>>>>
>>>> Full info at
>>>> <https://www.gov.uk/government/news/world-first-covid-19-vaccine-booster-study-launches-in-uk>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The trouble is no matter how many booster shots you get, it will not
>>> mitigate the idiot who won't get a vaccine shot.
>
> There are a few people who are unable to have a vaccine shot for genuine
> medical reasons as well. In the UK those eligible to have the vaccine
> have mostly taken it up with 90+% uptake in the eligible cohort.
>
> There are some strictly orthodox religious cults that have managed to
> spread the disease widely within their nearly closed community. They are
> now reaching herd immunity the hard way with many elderly deaths.
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-55903096
>>
>> True, but in that case I expect that Darwin will intervene at some point...
>
> Darwin is really quite ineffective with only a 1% IFR.
>
> Obviously 10% in the more elderly refuseniks. Even that is not enough to
> make a significant difference. Black death at 30% was a game changer.

Significant enough to the one who dies. Anyway, not everyone who merits
it wins a Darwin Award.

--

Jeff

On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 3:37:05 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 20/05/2021 04:35, Rick C wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 11:01:50 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> >> On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 12:36:26 PM UTC+10,
> >> gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 10:11:00 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 2:50:47 AM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 7:05:53 AM UTC-7,
> >>>>> gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 3:18:13 AM UTC-4, Jeff Layman
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 19/05/2021 05:52, Don Y wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/18/2021 9:39 PM, bitrex wrote:
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>>>> However, there is no reason to think the original strains
> >>>>>> are not present in the population.
> >>>> If they are losing the competition to infect new victims, there
> >>>> won't be as many of them around, and their incidence will decay
> >>>> exponentially.
> >>>
> >>> That is only true if the infection count or vaccination rate is
> >>> high enough that the two virus strains are actually in
> >>> competition for hosts. With the large number remaining not
> >>> vaccinated hosts we presently see, the presence of a more
> >>> infectious strain has virtually no impact on a less virulent
> >>> strain and certainly won't cause the less infectious strain to
> >>> "decay exponentially".
> >> Once you've been infected by the more infectious strain, you won't
> >> get infected by the less infectious strain. That's all that
> >> competition for hosts means.
> >>
> >> With fewer people around infected with the less infectious strain,
> >> there are fewer people to pass it on, and it will get selected
> >> out.
> >
> > There are times when you literally are incapable of understanding
> > what other people say to you. There will be no "exponential decay"
> Yes. There will - it is *you* who are incapable of grasping even the
> simplest of concepts. If you have two competing strains each with
> exponential growth and different exponents the one with the larger
> exponent quickly wins out over the other one. It is an arms race.

There is EXACTLY your fallacy. In a population of sufficient size there is NO COMPETITION. It's like door to door encyclopedia salesmen. In a sufficiently large city two salesmen don't visit the same home, so there's no competition. Doors don't get slammed in their faces because the other salesman knocked yesterday.

We may now be crossing a threshold between all strains of COVID seeing the same large pool of potential victims and that pool starting to shrink enough to slow the rate of infection.

> Something 1.3x more infective will double its host size relative to the
> original wild form in about 3 weeks. The troublesome new Indian strain
> looks like it could be as much as 1.5x more infective (than B1.1.7).

Which has nothing to do with competition to date.

> The other one is still trying to grow exponentially but is outcompeted
> by the faster growing competitor for new hosts. That is the very nature
> of exponential growth it is pretty much winner takes all.

No "out competition" because the number of infections by one strain is small compared to the remaining population. So each viral strain reproduction rate is not impacted by the other strain, only the vaccine.

> Within a couple of months a strain with a 1.5x higher infectivity will
> account for almost all of the active cases in real world data.
> > until the number of potential hosts is much smaller than can support
> > the continued infection rate. What you say is true, but in ignorance
> > of the rest of the facts of the real world.
> >
> > Whatevs...
> The UK Kent strain B1.1.7 displaced the D614G strain to become totally
> dominant in the UK in about two months from a standing start. OK it
> didn't help that university students and Xmas spread it far and wide.
>
> This is a paper showing how the strain took over and Dec 9 was the
> fateful day that university students with their freshly minted but
> meaningless Covid negative certificates went home to rural pubs.
>
> Up until then the new pox was largely confined to London and the SE.
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03470-x
>
> This is *REAL* data from the UK which leads the world in genomic
> sequencing and is monitoring Variants of Concern in real time.

You are focusing on the relative infection rate rather than the absolute infection rate of the strains. Find data that shows the December spike has lower numbers of infections from the non-B.1.1.7 strains, because that is what you are claiming. But perhaps you don't understand what I am disputing. If the strains "compete", one grows in absolute numbers and the other diminishes in absolute numbers. If, through the month of December, both strains grow exponentially, it shows there is NO COMPETITION between them at that point (other than in your mind).

--

Rick C.

-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On 5/20/2021 12:49 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 19/05/2021 22:32, Don Y wrote:
>> On 5/19/2021 2:14 PM, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>> On 19/05/2021 09:18, Don Y wrote:
>>>> On 5/19/2021 12:18 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I believe the UK has ordered enough vaccine to give a booster to
>>>>> all the population in late autumn or early winter. Which vaccine that
>>>>> will be
>>>>> I am not sure - I've heard of Moderna and Pfizer being mentioned. There could
>>>>> be others which, as yet, haven't been approved anywhere in the world, and
>>>>> could
>>>>> perhaps be more effective against current or even future variants than the
>>>>> current vaccines.
>>>>
>>>> We hear talk of boosters but no followup; are these being readied for
>>>> approval? Or, are folks playing "wait and see" -- to determine how
>>>> long the vaccines will defer the need for boosters (so you can develop
>>>> the RIGHT booster instead of a prematurely selected variant)
>>>
>>> The UK has just announced a new clinical trial ("Cov-Boost") of a third
>>> (booster) dose of one of seven different vaccines (only three have so far been
>>> fully approved here).
>>>
>>> "The trial will look at seven different COVID-19 vaccines as potential
>>> boosters, given at least 10 to 12 weeks after a second dose as part of the
>>> ongoing vaccination programme. One booster will be provided to each volunteer
>>> and could be a different brand to the one they were originally vaccinated with.
>>
>> So, they aren't using the booster to refresh the body's immune response
>> (presumably, it is still strong 10-12 weeks after immunization!) but,
>> rather, to augment it with exposure to different variants not covered
>> in the initial vaccine. (?)
>
> "The Government said this will be the first trial in the world to provide data
> on the impact of a third dose on patients’ immune responses.
>
> Speaking during a press briefing earlier today, Professor Saul Faust, professor
> of paediatric immunology and infectious diseases at the University Hospital
> Southampton NHS Foundation Trust said: ‘We know that to try to protect people
> against the variants, there are two ways of doing that.
>
> ‘Either we raise the antibody levels from current vaccines higher – or we
> change the vaccine.’
>
> He added: ‘This study is looking at boosting the current strain antibody levels
> high enough to protect against the circulating strains.’
>
> So it looks like they are trying to boost antibody levels with a third dose,
> and hoping that those higher levels will prove effective against current
> strains which may be somewhat resistant to current vaccines. Maybe they also
> hope to get the same effect with as-yet unseen new strains which might be even
> more resistant.

Ah! So, they are hoping the differences between *existing* vaccines not only
"remind" the body of the nature of the threat but, also, give it a nudge
in a slightly different direction (for those cases where folks receive a
DIFFERENT vaccine than the one they originally received).

This, instead of trying to develop a new vaccine targeting a different
variant.

This makes sense in terms of economy -- you already have the existing vaccines
and they have SOME track record (in terms of efficacy, side effects, etc.).
And, if they each were developed with some different "recognizer" in mind,
two could potentially prime the body to recognize different invaders
(instead of just boosting the response to *a* particular characteristic
as a third shot of the original vaccine).

But, a variant that looks different enough to slip by the defenses primed
for those two (similar, though different) vaccines would still bear disease.

> I see also that Cov-Boost and another trial (ComCov) are using mixed dosing
> levels to see what effect that has on the level of developing antibodies.
>
>> I still don't see anyone actively tracking infection vs. vaccination
>> date/status; to know when immunity fades. (I recall hearing that immunity
>> from an infection fades quicker?)
>
> I'm pretty certain that is being tracked in the UK at least, as there have been
> reports earlier in the year of poor take-up in certain ethnic groups, and
> corresponding higher levels of infection in those groups. There were

Yeah, but that just tracks vaccinated/not-vaccinated. You'd expect a
correlation between non-vaccination status and infection rates. It
doesn't tell you how infection rates in vaccinated populations change,
over time (i.e., as the vaccine's effect wanes).

> confounding factors such as those groups tending to be in poorer areas with
> more crowded accommodation. I haven't heard much about it recently, so maybe
> vaccination levels have increased in those populations.
>
>> I.e., given how long it takes to vaccinate an entire population, one
>> would think knowing how often that exercise has to be repeated would
>> be a worthwhile datum! (if it takes a year and only lasts 8 months...)
>
> I don't know. I agree this would be important to know, but if immunity lasted
> perhaps only 6 - 8 months do we have the capability to keep producing vaccine
> and vaccinating 9 billion people twice a year?

It tells you that there is merit in looking for OTHER ways to control
the virus. Right now, the only effective way is with vaccines -- because
folks resist voluntary changes to their socialization, masks, "lock downs",
etc. It could lead to the development of other treatment strategies as
being "more important" (in light of the decreased efficacy of vaccination).
Or, could lead to "rationing" care: "Experience tells us that you will
likely survive (or not!) regardless of whether you have one of these
scarce hospital beds. Go home, drink plenty of fluids, yada-yada-yada.
We simply can't afford to let all other medical care come to a halt because
of this outbreak."

>>> Vaccines being trialled include Oxford/AstraZeneca, Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna,
>>> Novavax, Valneva, Janssen and Curevac, as well as a control group."
>>>
>>> Full info at
>>> <https://www.gov.uk/government/news/world-first-covid-19-vaccine-booster-study-launches-in-uk>
>>
>> In re: mix and match (which, presumably, will likely apply to a booster as
>> keeping track of who had which vaccine and matching that to the "correct"
>> booster seems tedious):
>
> I'm sure this will be done as part of the trial. As it is random allocation, I
> guess it will be a 1 in 7 chance that a participant will receive the same
> vaccine they had for their first two doses (or 1 in 8 if you include the
> placebo group).

For a big enough sample, likely the best approach. I doubt anyone has
enough knowledge of the characteristics of each vaccine to mix them
most effectively, /a priori/

>> "Initial results from this trial have shown that mixing the doses slightly
>> increases the frequency of mild-to-moderate symptoms following vaccination,
>> but there were no serious outcomes. Further results from this clinical
>> trial – including on the immune response in people who have two different
>> vaccine doses – are expected over the coming months."
>>
>> [Amusing how mealy-mouthed that description is: "mild-to-moderate".
>> Imagine going for a job interview and inquiring as to the pay scale
>> only to be told "mild-to-moderate"... WTF?]
>
> I think that, in general, most people experience very mild side-effects, such
> as arm ache.

Yes, but they don't explicitly say what those are. So, the population
has to wonder ("imagine") what might be waiting for them -- instead of
telling them "your arm will be tender for N days; it *may* cause you some
trouble sleeping, if you normally sleep on that side". Or, "you may have
a slight rash on <body surface> that *may* itch; OTC cortisone creams
will control the symptoms for the N days it will take to subside".

Instead, folks get these vague descriptions of POSSIBLE side effects
and don't know -- when they get them -- if what they are experiencing
is "within the norm" or something *alarming*.

When I got my second jab, I made a comment about side effects to the
RN. She replied, "Oh, only about 30% of people have them!" While
she may have thought she was downplaying the risk, *I* thought 30%
was a pretty *high* number! I.e., do NOT be surprised if you have some!

> The somewhat less mild would be slight fever and flu-like
> symptoms, which if you felt really rough might be classed as moderate.
> Strangely, I can't see any mention of blood clots here
> <https://www.covboost.org.uk/about>.
>
>> It will be interesting if the folks who have avoided vaccination based on
>> fear of first (*or* second) dose are further scared away by this (wrt a
>> booster).
>
> I doubt it would make any difference to them, unless they'd had a first dose
> without any side effects, and suffered a serious reaction after the second.

On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 10:33:09 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

> I doubt that masks help much, maybe not at all. The original theory
> was that they absorb outgoing sneeze droplets that became surface
> fomites that got on peoples' hands and transported to faces. That
> seems to not happen, so masks were politically repurposed to filter
> the viruses themselves.

The world is against you on the 'doubt'. Me, too.
There was no 'politically repurposed' event or statement as far
as I know; that's something you saw in a dream?

On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 6:55:40 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 10:33:09 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>
> > I doubt that masks help much, maybe not at all. The original theory
> > was that they absorb outgoing sneeze droplets that became surface
> > fomites that got on peoples' hands and transported to faces. That
> > seems to not happen, so masks were politically repurposed to filter
> > the viruses themselves.
> The world is against you on the 'doubt'. Me, too.
> There was no 'politically repurposed' event or statement as far
> as I know; that's something you saw in a dream?

Yes, Larkin is another Kekulé, seeing his best ideas in a dream... but this isn't one of them.

--

Rick C.

+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On 5/20/2021 3:55 PM, whit3rd wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 10:33:09 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>
>> I doubt that masks help much, maybe not at all. The original theory
>> was that they absorb outgoing sneeze droplets that became surface
>> fomites that got on peoples' hands and transported to faces. That
>> seems to not happen, so masks were politically repurposed to filter
>> the viruses themselves.
>
> The world is against you on the 'doubt'. Me, too.
> There was no 'politically repurposed' event or statement as far
> as I know; that's something you saw in a dream?

<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293495/>

(published fully a year ago)

I think there has been concensus established that one of mechanisms
the "virus uses" is aerosols. People eating in a restaurant
at one table don't share food items, dinnerware, utensils,
etc. with the folks eating at other tables. Yet, those at
other tables are exposed to their exhalations.

Choir members singing loudly (moving lots of air) aren't
spitting on each other's hymnals.

Crowds at sporting events, bars, etc. similarly aren't
spewing fomites onto each other's food, glasses, etc.

I.e., the difference in these sorts of events is the
volume of air EXPELLED from potentially infected hosts.

Being outdoors does little to affect the dispersal of
LARGE DROPLETS. But, does a lot to disperse smaller,
aerosolized particles.

If fomites were the primary vector, then N95 masks would
be of little use to health care providers (unless they
were in the habit of using their TONGUES to clean surfaces).

Folks using crappy masks undoubtedly do little to prevent
spread *or* their own infection. OTOH, folks using
"good" masks likely reduce *their* exposure as well as
the crud they inherently spread just by breathing/talking.

On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 9:51:22 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
> On 5/20/2021 3:55 PM, whit3rd wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 10:33:09 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >
> >> I doubt that masks help much, maybe not at all. The original theory
> >> was that they absorb outgoing sneeze droplets that became surface
> >> fomites that got on peoples' hands and transported to faces. That
> >> seems to not happen, so masks were politically repurposed to filter
> >> the viruses themselves.
> >
> > The world is against you on the 'doubt'. Me, too.
> > There was no 'politically repurposed' event or statement as far
> > as I know; that's something you saw in a dream?
> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293495/>
>
> (published fully a year ago)
>
>
> I think there has been concensus established that one of mechanisms
> the "virus uses" is aerosols. People eating in a restaurant
> at one table don't share food items, dinnerware, utensils,
> etc. with the folks eating at other tables. Yet, those at
> other tables are exposed to their exhalations.
>
> Choir members singing loudly (moving lots of air) aren't
> spitting on each other's hymnals.
>
> Crowds at sporting events, bars, etc. similarly aren't
> spewing fomites onto each other's food, glasses, etc.
>
> I.e., the difference in these sorts of events is the
> volume of air EXPELLED from potentially infected hosts.
>
> Being outdoors does little to affect the dispersal of
> LARGE DROPLETS. But, does a lot to disperse smaller,
> aerosolized particles.
>
> If fomites were the primary vector, then N95 masks would
> be of little use to health care providers (unless they
> were in the habit of using their TONGUES to clean surfaces).
>
> Folks using crappy masks undoubtedly do little to prevent
> spread *or* their own infection. OTOH, folks using
> "good" masks likely reduce *their* exposure as well as
> the crud they inherently spread just by breathing/talking.

You don't believe that if you are John Larkin. You think the disease is ruled by weather patterns or solar flares, but not masks or distancing.

I really don't understand the hesitancy in getting a vaccine. I remember as a small child eating a sugar cube which contained the polio vaccine. There was not a bit of hesitancy in my parents in getting this. There was no cry to be protected by herd immunity. Getting a vaccine for a horrible disease was fantastic! Now 50-60 years later there are people who suffer recurrence of the polio symptoms in what is called post-polio syndrome. Seems even if you recover from polio, your body has suffered serious harm and as your nervous system deteriorates in the natural process of aging the damaged nerves lose function more quickly and you end up crippled. However, there are virtually no reports of harm from the IPV vaccine.

"We got hot and died" https://allpoetry.com/The-Fever-Monument

--

Rick C.

+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 9:16:32 PM UTC-7, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 9:51:22 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
> > On 5/20/2021 3:55 PM, whit3rd wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 10:33:09 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> > >
> > >> I doubt that masks help much, maybe not at all. The original theory
> > >> was that they absorb outgoing sneeze droplets that became surface
> > >> fomites that got on peoples' hands and transported to faces. That
> > >> seems to not happen, so masks were politically repurposed to filter
> > >> the viruses themselves.
> > >
> > > The world is against you on the 'doubt'. Me, too.
> > > There was no 'politically repurposed' event or statement as far
> > > as I know; that's something you saw in a dream?
> > <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293495/>
> >
> > (published fully a year ago)
> >
> >
> > I think there has been concensus established that one of mechanisms
> > the "virus uses" is aerosols. People eating in a restaurant
> > at one table don't share food items, dinnerware, utensils,
> > etc. with the folks eating at other tables. Yet, those at
> > other tables are exposed to their exhalations.
> >
> > Choir members singing loudly (moving lots of air) aren't
> > spitting on each other's hymnals.
> >
> > Crowds at sporting events, bars, etc. similarly aren't
> > spewing fomites onto each other's food, glasses, etc.
> >
> > I.e., the difference in these sorts of events is the
> > volume of air EXPELLED from potentially infected hosts.
> >
> > Being outdoors does little to affect the dispersal of
> > LARGE DROPLETS. But, does a lot to disperse smaller,
> > aerosolized particles.
> >
> > If fomites were the primary vector, then N95 masks would
> > be of little use to health care providers (unless they
> > were in the habit of using their TONGUES to clean surfaces).
> >
> > Folks using crappy masks undoubtedly do little to prevent
> > spread *or* their own infection. OTOH, folks using
> > "good" masks likely reduce *their* exposure as well as
> > the crud they inherently spread just by breathing/talking.
> You don't believe that if you are John Larkin. You think the disease is ruled by weather patterns or solar flares, but not masks or distancing.
>
> I really don't understand the hesitancy in getting a vaccine. I remember as a small child eating a sugar cube which contained the polio vaccine. There was not a bit of hesitancy in my parents in getting this. There was no cry to be protected by herd immunity. Getting a vaccine for a horrible disease was fantastic! Now 50-60 years later there are people who suffer recurrence of the polio symptoms in what is called post-polio syndrome. Seems even if you recover from polio, your body has suffered serious harm and as your nervous system deteriorates in the natural process of aging the damaged nerves lose function more quickly and you end up crippled. However, there are virtually no reports of harm from the IPV vaccine.

If you give people sugar cube or ice-cream (mRNA needs to be frozen), there will not be hesitancy. If you give people a shot, there will be hesitancy, even if you are just injecting salty water. I am still waiting for the mRNA ice-cream.

On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 3:05:29 PM UTC+10, Ed Lee wrote:
> On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 9:16:32 PM UTC-7, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 9:51:22 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
> > > On 5/20/2021 3:55 PM, whit3rd wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 10:33:09 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
<snip>

> If you give people sugar cube or ice-cream (mRNA needs to be frozen), there will not be hesitancy. If you give people a shot, there will be hesitancy, even if you are just injecting salty water. I am still waiting for the mRNA ice-cream.

There are other things beside warming that destroy mRNA.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4500949/

suggests that if you ingested it into your stomach, you digestive juices would dismantle it as food before it got a chance to get into a ce,l and start it charming out a version of the spike protein.

This isn't quite a daft as suggesting theat drinking bleach might stop Covid-19, but it is still pretty daft.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney