On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 1:25:59 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> 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.

Digestion in the stomach may be irrelevant if the nucleic acids are absorbed into the blood stream on the tongue. I don't know that they are, but talking about stomach digestion may well be the wrong conversation.

--

Rick C.

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

On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 10:31:20 PM UTC-7, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 1:25:59 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > 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.
> Digestion in the stomach may be irrelevant if the nucleic acids are absorbed into the blood stream on the tongue. I don't know that they are, but talking about stomach digestion may well be the wrong conversation.

There are still lots of tissues between the tongue and stomach. Bills' statement is similar to what they told the mRNA researchers early on. It cannot be done. The body will destroy the mRNA before reaching the cell.

On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 3:31:20 PM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 1:25:59 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > 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 cell and start it churning out a version of the spike protein.
> >
> > This isn't quite a daft as suggesting that drinking bleach might stop Covid-19, but it is still pretty daft.
>
> Digestion in the stomach may be irrelevant if the nucleic acids are absorbed into the blood stream on the tongue.

They have to be absorbed by cells - not the blood stream - before they can get the cell to start churning out a version of the Covid-19 spike protein.

> I don't know that they are, but talking about stomach digestion may well be the wrong conversation.

If the mouth and throat would absorb enough vaccine, we wouldn't be injecting anything into people's arms.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 5/20/2021 10:05 PM, Ed Lee wrote:

> If you give people sugar cube or ice-cream (mRNA needs to be frozen), there
> will not be hesitancy.

Really? Even if some talking head clown claims the ice cream includes
microchips that the gummit will use to track you? Or, that it will make you
sterile?

How the dose is packaged has little to do with the resistance to it.

If it came in *tablet* form, do you think the acceptance would be higher?

What if we aerosolized the vaccine and dispersed it in public places,
WITHOUT folks' consent?

> If you give people a shot, there will be hesitancy,
> even if you are just injecting salty water.

I don't think anyone older than about *five* fears "shots".
And, as "shots" go, the vaccine is probably one of the most benign
experiences, IME (novacain for a dental procedure being considerably
less tolerable)

> I am still waiting for the mRNA ice-cream.

That seems downright foolish. What if it never comes -- but COVID pays a
visit, instead? I can promise you the INFECTION PROCESS will be really
painless! The consequences? Not so much...

I welcome damn near every vaccine that comes along that is appropriate
for me. I get a flu shot each year and, touch wood, haven't had the
flu in all the years I've done so. I'm waiting for the shingles
vaccine to be Rx'd for me as I'd much rather the vaccine than the
disease. I get tetanus boosters pretty often because I do a fair
bit of work in the yard. etc.

None of these come with sugar nor iced cream.

On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 2:10:46 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 3:31:20 PM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 1:25:59 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > 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 cell and start it churning out a version of the spike protein.
> > >
> > > This isn't quite a daft as suggesting that drinking bleach might stop Covid-19, but it is still pretty daft.
> >
> > Digestion in the stomach may be irrelevant if the nucleic acids are absorbed into the blood stream on the tongue.
> They have to be absorbed by cells - not the blood stream - before they can get the cell to start churning out a version of the Covid-19 spike protein.

Now you are totally reaching as if the blood stream doesn't transport anything to the cells. How do you think a vaccine injected into the arm reaches the rest of the body???

> > I don't know that they are, but talking about stomach digestion may well be the wrong conversation.
> If the mouth and throat would absorb enough vaccine, we wouldn't be injecting anything into people's arms.

But you don't actually know that. They were rushing this vaccine from day one, so they likely didn't worry with a less conventional approach focusing on the more common method of providing the vaccine to meet a very short schedule. That doesn't mean oral administration of the vaccine would not be effective.

You usually have your facts straight before you debate a point, but in this case you are shooting from the hip.

--

Rick C.

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

On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 5:12:12 PM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 2:10:46 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 3:31:20 PM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 1:25:59 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > 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 cell and start it churning out a version of the spike protein.
> > > >
> > > > This isn't quite a daft as suggesting that drinking bleach might stop Covid-19, but it is still pretty daft.
> > >
> > > Digestion in the stomach may be irrelevant if the nucleic acids are absorbed into the blood stream on the tongue.
>
> > They have to be absorbed by cells - not the blood stream - before they can get the cell to start churning out a version of the Covid-19 spike protein.
>
> Now you are totally reaching as if the blood stream doesn't transport anything to the cells. How do you think a vaccine injected into the arm reaches the rest of the body???

Why do you think that vaccines are injected into muscle rather than a vein?

> > > I don't know that they are, but talking about stomach digestion may well be the wrong conversation.
> > If the mouth and throat would absorb enough vaccine, we wouldn't be injecting anything into people's arms.
>
> But you don't actually know that.

Every injection I've had has been into my arms. It is something I know from personal experience.

> They were rushing this vaccine from day one, so they likely didn't worry with a less conventional approach focusing on the more common method of providing the vaccine to meet a very short schedule. That doesn't mean oral administration of the vaccine would not be effective.

It seems unlikely that it would be cost effective. The example of the live polio vaccination is an exception, but that does seem to be a special case.

> You usually have your facts straight before you debate a point, but in this case you are shooting from the hip.

You'd be the expert on that. Your "facts" are what you think you know, and you seem resistant to the idea that you might have got some of them wrong.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 3:38:19 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 5:12:12 PM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 2:10:46 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 3:31:20 PM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 1:25:59 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > > 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 cell and start it churning out a version of the spike protein.
> > > > >
> > > > > This isn't quite a daft as suggesting that drinking bleach might stop Covid-19, but it is still pretty daft.
> > > >
> > > > Digestion in the stomach may be irrelevant if the nucleic acids are absorbed into the blood stream on the tongue.
> >
> > > They have to be absorbed by cells - not the blood stream - before they can get the cell to start churning out a version of the Covid-19 spike protein.
> >
> > Now you are totally reaching as if the blood stream doesn't transport anything to the cells. How do you think a vaccine injected into the arm reaches the rest of the body???
> Why do you think that vaccines are injected into muscle rather than a vein?

Because they don't need to go directly into a vein...? Asking me a question means you don't know the answer to my question.

> > > > I don't know that they are, but talking about stomach digestion may well be the wrong conversation.
> > > If the mouth and throat would absorb enough vaccine, we wouldn't be injecting anything into people's arms.
> >
> > But you don't actually know that.
> Every injection I've had has been into my arms. It is something I know from personal experience.

LOL!!! As if they would inject your tongue? WTF are you talking about?

> > They were rushing this vaccine from day one, so they likely didn't worry with a less conventional approach focusing on the more common method of providing the vaccine to meet a very short schedule. That doesn't mean oral administration of the vaccine would not be effective.
> It seems unlikely that it would be cost effective. The example of the live polio vaccination is an exception, but that does seem to be a special case.

Actually, they could have injected the polio vaccine. Sabin realized that not only was the oral vaccine easier to administer, it provoked less concern in the patients.

COVID vaccines have been considered as inhaled and oral.

https://www.google.com/search?q=covid+vaccine+oral&safe=off&client=firefox-b-1-d&ei=DmynYMHICJXWtQbHl7_4Dg&oq=covid+vaccine+oral

> > You usually have your facts straight before you debate a point, but in this case you are shooting from the hip.
> You'd be the expert on that. Your "facts" are what you think you know, and you seem resistant to the idea that you might have got some of them wrong..

Then when you are shown to be wrong you resort to ad hominem attacks. tsk tsk

--

Rick C.

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

On 20/05/2021 14:55, Rick C wrote:
> On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 3:37:05 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

>> 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).

Then why did the original imported wild D strain get pretty much wiped
out by the more infectious D614G strain last year? By your reasoning we
should still see the wild type growing but it is almost undetectable.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02544-6

You singularly fail to understand quite how big weekly infection growth
(1+x)^N gets when N is large. What matters is the proportion of the most
infectious strain in the population and it very quickly reaches 95+%.

It took it (D614G) about 6 months to take over the world.
B1.1.7 managed the same trick in about 3 months.

It remains to be seen just how fast the new Indian strain will grow and
whether or not it will halt the loosening of lockdown. The latest UK
data from PHE does not look at all good with VOC doubling every week:

<https://khub.net/documents/135939561/405676950/Variants+data.pdf/bc307de5-d085-a191-c93e-4438676375ed>

Test & trace failed dismally yet again. It is the only thing they do
well (failing). Today's update says it is now tripling week on week.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 6:20:10 PM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 3:38:19 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 5:12:12 PM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 2:10:46 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 3:31:20 PM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 1:25:59 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > 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 cell and start it churning out a version of the spike protein.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This isn't quite a daft as suggesting that drinking bleach might stop Covid-19, but it is still pretty daft.
> > > > >
> > > > > Digestion in the stomach may be irrelevant if the nucleic acids are absorbed into the blood stream on the tongue.
> > >
> > > > They have to be absorbed by cells - not the blood stream - before they can get the cell to start churning out a version of the Covid-19 spike protein.
> > >
> > > Now you are totally reaching as if the blood stream doesn't transport anything to the cells. How do you think a vaccine injected into the arm reaches the rest of the body???
> > Why do you think that vaccines are injected into muscle rather than a vein?
>
> Because they don't need to go directly into a vein...?

It's easy enough to get into a vein - going into muscle is an explicit choice.

> Asking me a question means you don't know the answer to my question.

Actually it was designed to get you to think about what was going on - and it clearly didn't work.

> > > > > I don't know that they are, but talking about stomach digestion may well be the wrong conversation.
>
> > > > If the mouth and throat would absorb enough vaccine, we wouldn't be injecting anything into people's arms.
> > >
> > > But you don't actually know that.
>
> > Every injection I've had has been into my arms. It is something I know from personal experience.
>
> LOL!!! As if they would inject your tongue? WTF are you talking about?

The tongue is muscular, so it would be a reasonable place for an intramuscular injection. There's not a lot of muscular tissue there, so the shoulders are preferred - unless there's a lot of fluid to go in when the buttocks get hit.

> > > They were rushing this vaccine from day one, so they likely didn't worry with a less conventional approach focusing on the more common method of providing the vaccine to meet a very short schedule. That doesn't mean oral administration of the vaccine would not be effective.
>
> > It seems unlikely that it would be cost effective. The example of the live polio vaccination is an exception, but that does seem to be a special case.
>
> Actually, they could have injected the polio vaccine. Sabin realized that not only was the oral vaccine easier to administer, it provoked less concern in the patients.

And the virus shell was robust enough to survive inside the digestive system.
> COVID vaccines have been considered as inhaled and oral.

Cite? There's an antibody therapy where this has been contemplated, but I've not heard of a vaccine.

> https://www.google.com/search?q=covid+vaccine+oral&safe=off&client=firefox-b-1-d&ei=DmynYMHICJXWtQbHl7_4Dg&oq=covid+vaccine+oral

> > > You usually have your facts straight before you debate a point, but in this case you are shooting from the hip.
>
> > You'd be the expert on that. Your "facts" are what you think you know, and you seem resistant to the idea that you might have got some of them wrong.
>
> Then when you are shown to be wrong you resort to ad hominem attacks. tsk tsk

"You usually have your facts straight before you debate a point, but in this case you are shooting from the hip." is pure ad hominem.

You didn't cite a single fact in contradiction to what I'd posted, but rather assured your readers that you thought that you were right and I was wrong.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 9:44:12 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 6:20:10 PM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 3:38:19 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 5:12:12 PM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 2:10:46 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 3:31:20 PM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 1:25:59 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > > 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 cell and start it churning out a version of the spike protein.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This isn't quite a daft as suggesting that drinking bleach might stop Covid-19, but it is still pretty daft.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Digestion in the stomach may be irrelevant if the nucleic acids are absorbed into the blood stream on the tongue.
> > > >
> > > > > They have to be absorbed by cells - not the blood stream - before they can get the cell to start churning out a version of the Covid-19 spike protein.
> > > >
> > > > Now you are totally reaching as if the blood stream doesn't transport anything to the cells. How do you think a vaccine injected into the arm reaches the rest of the body???
> > > Why do you think that vaccines are injected into muscle rather than a vein?
> >
> > Because they don't need to go directly into a vein...?
> It's easy enough to get into a vein - going into muscle is an explicit choice.
> > Asking me a question means you don't know the answer to my question.
> Actually it was designed to get you to think about what was going on - and it clearly didn't work.
> > > > > > I don't know that they are, but talking about stomach digestion may well be the wrong conversation.
> >
> > > > > If the mouth and throat would absorb enough vaccine, we wouldn't be injecting anything into people's arms.
> > > >
> > > > But you don't actually know that.
> >
> > > Every injection I've had has been into my arms. It is something I know from personal experience.
> >
> > LOL!!! As if they would inject your tongue? WTF are you talking about?
> The tongue is muscular, so it would be a reasonable place for an intramuscular injection. There's not a lot of muscular tissue there, so the shoulders are preferred - unless there's a lot of fluid to go in when the buttocks get hit.
> > > > They were rushing this vaccine from day one, so they likely didn't worry with a less conventional approach focusing on the more common method of providing the vaccine to meet a very short schedule. That doesn't mean oral administration of the vaccine would not be effective.
> >
> > > It seems unlikely that it would be cost effective. The example of the live polio vaccination is an exception, but that does seem to be a special case.
> >
> > Actually, they could have injected the polio vaccine. Sabin realized that not only was the oral vaccine easier to administer, it provoked less concern in the patients.
> And the virus shell was robust enough to survive inside the digestive system.
> > COVID vaccines have been considered as inhaled and oral.
> Cite? There's an antibody therapy where this has been contemplated, but I've not heard of a vaccine.
> > https://www.google.com/search?q=covid+vaccine+oral&safe=off&client=firefox-b-1-d&ei=DmynYMHICJXWtQbHl7_4Dg&oq=covid+vaccine+oral
>
> > > > You usually have your facts straight before you debate a point, but in this case you are shooting from the hip.
> >
> > > You'd be the expert on that. Your "facts" are what you think you know, and you seem resistant to the idea that you might have got some of them wrong.
> >
> > Then when you are shown to be wrong you resort to ad hominem attacks. tsk tsk
> "You usually have your facts straight before you debate a point, but in this case you are shooting from the hip." is pure ad hominem.
>
> You didn't cite a single fact in contradiction to what I'd posted, but rather assured your readers that you thought that you were right and I was wrong.

I provided a google search link with examples of oral vaccines entering Clinical Trials! What more do you want???

--

Rick C.

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

On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 5:05:28 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 20/05/2021 14:55, Rick C wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 3:37:05 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
>
> >> 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).
> Then why did the original imported wild D strain get pretty much wiped
> out by the more infectious D614G strain last year? By your reasoning we
> should still see the wild type growing but it is almost undetectable.

You fail to understand anything I wrote. The actions taken by people in self defense can easily have put the majority of strains on the down slope. Following the initial surge in April of 2020 the US and other places showed the COVID genome on a down slope in general. If nothing changes the ultimate result is extinction of the virus. If the virus mutates creating a strain that is more infectious, the mutated strain can start spreading more rapidly while the original strain continues to die off. Is that so hard to understand?

It's no different than comparing COVID to the flu. There is very little competition until the infection rates get very high making a significant proportion of the available population no longer available. But the same measures that restrict spreading of COVID also reduce the spread of the flu. So we have seen very little flu while we fight COVID.

> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02544-6

You should read your references. "there remains no solid proof that D614G has a significant effect on the spread of the virus, or that a process of natural selection explains its rise"

The article even directly supports my view. "At a time when nearly everyone on the planet is susceptible, there is likely to be little evolutionary pressure on the virus to spread better, so even potentially beneficial mutations might not flourish"

> You singularly fail to understand quite how big weekly infection growth
> (1+x)^N gets when N is large. What matters is the proportion of the most
> infectious strain in the population and it very quickly reaches 95+%.

You keep talking about a meaningless number, "proportion". That in no way implies or measures competition. Each strain struggles to survive against our protective measures on its own with little interaction. Like pioneers making their way across the North American continent in covered wagons. Each wagon train is on it's own against the odds.

> It took it (D614G) about 6 months to take over the world.
> B1.1.7 managed the same trick in about 3 months.
>
> It remains to be seen just how fast the new Indian strain will grow and
> whether or not it will halt the loosening of lockdown. The latest UK
> data from PHE does not look at all good with VOC doubling every week:
>
> <https://khub.net/documents/135939561/405676950/Variants+data.pdf/bc307de5-d085-a191-c93e-4438676375ed>
>
> Test & trace failed dismally yet again. It is the only thing they do
> well (failing). Today's update says it is now tripling week on week.

It is not a good sign when a country continues making the same mistake over and over. Is no one held accountable for the track and trace failures? The US managed to rid themselves of the Trmp failure. Unfortunately we don't have an effective means of ridding ourselves of a failed President faster than that. But we did correct the error of the 2016 election at the next opportunity.

--

Rick C.

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

In article <cfe389be-057e-4827-bb76-a85a6a63f8c7n@googlegroups.com>,
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

>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.

It seems to me that a lot of the hesitancy results from a common
inability to actually evaluate risk factors (and cost/benefit) accurately.

For example, people seem to be deterred a lot by the (very small)
chance of developing an admittedly-dangerous blood clot after taking
the A-Z or J-J vaccines. However, the risk of developing a dangerous
blood clot if you have a COVID-19 infection is quite a lot higher
(this is a common effect among those hospitalized with COVID).

What this indicates is that people are evaluating the risks in an
"apples and oranges" way. They look at the risk of a clot from the
vaccine, but they compare this to a "no risk at all" scenario
(e.g. don't get the vaccine, but also don't ever get COVID-19). They
don't compare it to the _actual_ risk of not being vaccinated (where
the risk is "probability of becoming infected" times "probability of
developing a clot if infected").

At some point, this inability-to-measure-risks-and-benefits reaches
the point of intellectual blindness (or perhaps intellectual
hypocracy). Today's paper mentioned a gentleman out in a rural area
being asked about vaccination, and his comment was "It's too soon,
they haven't had enough time to test it, we don't know what the
long-term risks are."

He was interviewed at a convenience store, to which he had gone to buy
cigarettes.

On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 2:13:55 PM UTC-4, Dave Platt wrote:
> In article <cfe389be-057e-4827...@googlegroups.com>,
> Rick C <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >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.
> It seems to me that a lot of the hesitancy results from a common
> inability to actually evaluate risk factors (and cost/benefit) accurately..
>
> For example, people seem to be deterred a lot by the (very small)
> chance of developing an admittedly-dangerous blood clot after taking
> the A-Z or J-J vaccines. However, the risk of developing a dangerous
> blood clot if you have a COVID-19 infection is quite a lot higher
> (this is a common effect among those hospitalized with COVID).
>
> What this indicates is that people are evaluating the risks in an
> "apples and oranges" way. They look at the risk of a clot from the
> vaccine, but they compare this to a "no risk at all" scenario
> (e.g. don't get the vaccine, but also don't ever get COVID-19). They
> don't compare it to the _actual_ risk of not being vaccinated (where
> the risk is "probability of becoming infected" times "probability of
> developing a clot if infected").
>
> At some point, this inability-to-measure-risks-and-benefits reaches
> the point of intellectual blindness (or perhaps intellectual
> hypocracy). Today's paper mentioned a gentleman out in a rural area
> being asked about vaccination, and his comment was "It's too soon,
> they haven't had enough time to test it, we don't know what the
> long-term risks are."
>
> He was interviewed at a convenience store, to which he had gone to buy
> cigarettes.

Yeah, clearly we rationalize many of our decisions. To get an idea of the relative risk, in the US we have infected 10% of the population or 33 million with 2% dying or 600,000. If we are 90% of the way through this disease we will see another 60,000 die in the coming months. We have vaccinated nearly 40% of the US population with just a handful of deaths. I know which group I wish to be in.

Trmp was very important to this process! I am so thankful that he didn't do something idiotic like preventing the vaccines from being developed. I think he did a tremendous job with that. He was the best!

We are living in a time when just 10 years ago, this vaccine would not have been possible with this speed and effectiveness. It is mind boggling that some people don't want to live with electricity, food production or vaccines. Oh, wait, that's just vaccines, sorry.

I believe there were denialists even when Salk and Sabine developed their polio vaccines, but the vast majority accepted the vaccines and polio was pretty much wiped out. Why can't we learn from history?

--

Rick C.

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

On 2021/05/21 12:56 p.m., Rick C wrote:
> On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 2:13:55 PM UTC-4, Dave Platt wrote:
>> In article <cfe389be-057e-4827...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Rick C <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>> It seems to me that a lot of the hesitancy results from a common
>> inability to actually evaluate risk factors (and cost/benefit) accurately.
>>
>> For example, people seem to be deterred a lot by the (very small)
>> chance of developing an admittedly-dangerous blood clot after taking
>> the A-Z or J-J vaccines. However, the risk of developing a dangerous
>> blood clot if you have a COVID-19 infection is quite a lot higher
>> (this is a common effect among those hospitalized with COVID).
>>
>> What this indicates is that people are evaluating the risks in an
>> "apples and oranges" way. They look at the risk of a clot from the
>> vaccine, but they compare this to a "no risk at all" scenario
>> (e.g. don't get the vaccine, but also don't ever get COVID-19). They
>> don't compare it to the _actual_ risk of not being vaccinated (where
>> the risk is "probability of becoming infected" times "probability of
>> developing a clot if infected").
>>
>> At some point, this inability-to-measure-risks-and-benefits reaches
>> the point of intellectual blindness (or perhaps intellectual
>> hypocracy). Today's paper mentioned a gentleman out in a rural area
>> being asked about vaccination, and his comment was "It's too soon,
>> they haven't had enough time to test it, we don't know what the
>> long-term risks are."
>>
>> He was interviewed at a convenience store, to which he had gone to buy
>> cigarettes.
>
> Yeah, clearly we rationalize many of our decisions. To get an idea of the relative risk, in the US we have infected 10% of the population or 33 million with 2% dying or 600,000. If we are 90% of the way through this disease we will see another 60,000 die in the coming months. We have vaccinated nearly 40% of the US population with just a handful of deaths. I know which group I wish to be in.
>
> Trmp was very important to this process! I am so thankful that he didn't do something idiotic like preventing the vaccines from being developed. I think he did a tremendous job with that. He was the best!

Trump had nothing to do with the Pfizer vaccine, they refused to buy
into that program.

--------------(Wikipedia)-----------
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said that the company decided against taking
Warp Speed funding for the development of the vaccine out of a desire
"to liberate our scientists [from] any bureaucracy that comes with
having to give reports and agree how we are going to spend the money in
parallel or together"
---------------(end)----------------

Of course Trump made a mockery of mask wearing and trying to avoid
crowds and your people have paid the price in a death rate far higher
than other developed countries.

And that fool T. does like to meddle:
---------------(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Warp_Speed#Goals
)--------------
Rick Bright, the BARDA director, was reassigned on or about April 22
(2020) following his resistance to (as he phrased it) "efforts to fund
potentially dangerous drugs promoted by those with political connections"
------------(end quote)-------------

John

On Fri, 21 May 2021 11:10:48 -0700, dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave
Platt) wrote:

>In article <cfe389be-057e-4827-bb76-a85a6a63f8c7n@googlegroups.com>,
>Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>It seems to me that a lot of the hesitancy results from a common
>inability to actually evaluate risk factors (and cost/benefit) accurately.
>
>For example, people seem to be deterred a lot by the (very small)
>chance of developing an admittedly-dangerous blood clot after taking
>the A-Z or J-J vaccines. However, the risk of developing a dangerous
>blood clot if you have a COVID-19 infection is quite a lot higher
>(this is a common effect among those hospitalized with COVID).
>
>What this indicates is that people are evaluating the risks in an
>"apples and oranges" way. They look at the risk of a clot from the
>vaccine, but they compare this to a "no risk at all" scenario
>(e.g. don't get the vaccine, but also don't ever get COVID-19). They
>don't compare it to the _actual_ risk of not being vaccinated (where
>the risk is "probability of becoming infected" times "probability of
>developing a clot if infected").
>
>At some point, this inability-to-measure-risks-and-benefits reaches
>the point of intellectual blindness (or perhaps intellectual
>hypocracy). Today's paper mentioned a gentleman out in a rural area
>being asked about vaccination, and his comment was "It's too soon,
>they haven't had enough time to test it, we don't know what the
>long-term risks are."
>
>He was interviewed at a convenience store, to which he had gone to buy
>cigarettes.
>

Many people really hate getting shots. Some faint. So any excuse to
not get poked will do.

I think the worst part is parking.

On Fri, 21 May 2021 14:01:42 -0700, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

>
>Many people really hate getting shots. Some faint. So any excuse to
>not get poked will do.
>
>I think the worst part is parking.
>

Getting a vaccine shot is nowhere near as bad as when they draw blood
for testing. Some people have really narrow blood vessels and even a
skilled nurse has to poke about.

--
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

On Fri, 21 May 2021 17:49:25 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

>On Fri, 21 May 2021 14:01:42 -0700, John Larkin
><jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Many people really hate getting shots. Some faint. So any excuse to
>>not get poked will do.
>>
>>I think the worst part is parking.
>>
>
>Getting a vaccine shot is nowhere near as bad as when they draw blood
>for testing. Some people have really narrow blood vessels and even a
>skilled nurse has to poke about.

Nah, the worst part of that is parking.

In article <lobgag5ni3dfpm101jl6ceomhns1ag7rca@4ax.com>,
jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com says...
> Getting a vaccine shot is nowhere near as bad as when they draw blood
> >for testing. Some people have really narrow blood vessels and even a
> >skilled nurse has to poke about.
>
> Nah, the worst part of that is parking.
>
>
>

The wife and I were lucky. Had an appointment for a drive through. Our
biggest wait was for us to fill out some paper work. For several weeks
before there were people in line at the first come first served that
waited for several hours and then got turned away because they ran out
of the shots.

On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 4:27:55 PM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:
> On 2021/05/21 12:56 p.m., Rick C wrote:
> > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 2:13:55 PM UTC-4, Dave Platt wrote:
> >> In article <cfe389be-057e-4827...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> Rick C <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >> It seems to me that a lot of the hesitancy results from a common
> >> inability to actually evaluate risk factors (and cost/benefit) accurately.
> >>
> >> For example, people seem to be deterred a lot by the (very small)
> >> chance of developing an admittedly-dangerous blood clot after taking
> >> the A-Z or J-J vaccines. However, the risk of developing a dangerous
> >> blood clot if you have a COVID-19 infection is quite a lot higher
> >> (this is a common effect among those hospitalized with COVID).
> >>
> >> What this indicates is that people are evaluating the risks in an
> >> "apples and oranges" way. They look at the risk of a clot from the
> >> vaccine, but they compare this to a "no risk at all" scenario
> >> (e.g. don't get the vaccine, but also don't ever get COVID-19). They
> >> don't compare it to the _actual_ risk of not being vaccinated (where
> >> the risk is "probability of becoming infected" times "probability of
> >> developing a clot if infected").
> >>
> >> At some point, this inability-to-measure-risks-and-benefits reaches
> >> the point of intellectual blindness (or perhaps intellectual
> >> hypocracy). Today's paper mentioned a gentleman out in a rural area
> >> being asked about vaccination, and his comment was "It's too soon,
> >> they haven't had enough time to test it, we don't know what the
> >> long-term risks are."
> >>
> >> He was interviewed at a convenience store, to which he had gone to buy
> >> cigarettes.
> >
> > Yeah, clearly we rationalize many of our decisions. To get an idea of the relative risk, in the US we have infected 10% of the population or 33 million with 2% dying or 600,000. If we are 90% of the way through this disease we will see another 60,000 die in the coming months. We have vaccinated nearly 40% of the US population with just a handful of deaths. I know which group I wish to be in.
> >
> > Trmp was very important to this process! I am so thankful that he didn't do something idiotic like preventing the vaccines from being developed. I think he did a tremendous job with that. He was the best!
> Trump had nothing to do with the Pfizer vaccine, they refused to buy
> into that program.
>
> --------------(Wikipedia)-----------
> Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said that the company decided against taking
> Warp Speed funding for the development of the vaccine out of a desire
> "to liberate our scientists [from] any bureaucracy that comes with
> having to give reports and agree how we are going to spend the money in
> parallel or together"
> ---------------(end)----------------
>
> Of course Trump made a mockery of mask wearing and trying to avoid
> crowds and your people have paid the price in a death rate far higher
> than other developed countries.
>
> And that fool T. does like to meddle:
> ---------------(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Warp_Speed#Goals
> )--------------
> Rick Bright, the BARDA director, was reassigned on or about April 22
> (2020) following his resistance to (as he phrased it) "efforts to fund
> potentially dangerous drugs promoted by those with political connections"
> ------------(end quote)-------------

Sorry, I should have included something to flag the sarcasm. ;-o

--

Rick C.

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

In article <8m9lnh-grh.ln1@coop.radagast.org>,
Dave Platt <dplatt@coop.radagast.org> wrote:
<SNIP>
>
>What this indicates is that people are evaluating the risks in an
>"apples and oranges" way. They look at the risk of a clot from the
>vaccine, but they compare this to a "no risk at all" scenario
>(e.g. don't get the vaccine, but also don't ever get COVID-19). They
>don't compare it to the _actual_ risk of not being vaccinated (where
>the risk is "probability of becoming infected" times "probability of
>developing a clot if infected").

What do you expect from people who believe that god promised
Palestine to Abraham and his descendants, think that a 6 week foetus
is an individual with a soul, and that in the year 30 some man walked
on water?
(Or the slightly less respectable people who think that the moonlanding
was a hoax, the earth is flat, and the moon revolves around the earth.)

Groetjes Albert
--
"in our communism country Viet Nam, people are forced to be
alive and in the western country like US, people are free to
die from Covid 19 lol" duc ha
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

On 5/21/2021 11:10 AM, Dave Platt wrote:

> It seems to me that a lot of the hesitancy results from a common
> inability to actually evaluate risk factors (and cost/benefit) accurately.

People don't understand numbers. And, understand "odds" (probability)
even less!

You *know* that most people think a coin that has flipped "heads"
10 times in a row is MORE LIKELY to flip *tails* on the next flip.
No matter how you explain this to them, they will still *feel*
that bias in the coin even if their "head" tells them otherwise.

In designing gaming (gambling) kit, you exploit this to coerce
the player to continue losing^H^H^H playing. E.g., a (modern)
slot machine rolls virtual dice to determine what the outcome
will be, then uses the display (electronic or mechanical) to
present that result to the player. If you want to display
cherry cherry bar, you'll prefer picking a "bar" that is
immediately adjacent (on that reel) to a cherry -- so the
player feels like they "just missed"! <rolls eyes>

> For example, people seem to be deterred a lot by the (very small)
> chance of developing an admittedly-dangerous blood clot after taking
> the A-Z or J-J vaccines. However, the risk of developing a dangerous
> blood clot if you have a COVID-19 infection is quite a lot higher
> (this is a common effect among those hospitalized with COVID).

Forget the covid clot! "However, the risk of developing a COVID-19
*infection* is quite a lot higher -- and not without cost (financial,
quality of life, side effects, etc.)"

"Your choice: I can shoot you with this revolver -- or stab you with this
knife..."

> What this indicates is that people are evaluating the risks in an
> "apples and oranges" way. They look at the risk of a clot from the
> vaccine, but they compare this to a "no risk at all" scenario
> (e.g. don't get the vaccine, but also don't ever get COVID-19). They

Exactly. They *rationalize* the vaccine as being a bigger risk (cost)
because it is a voluntary act that they can avoid. They similarly
rationalize that covid is a smaller risk because they think they can
avoid *it*, as well! (despite not following whatever guidance is
suggested).

I think back to the onset of HIV/AIDS and the comment that "you can't
tell if someone has it just by looking at them" D'uh! Yet, the comment
needed to be made because folks would otherwise think they could *infer*
the infection status of a person based on some magical 6th sense
(and, having that magical 6th sense, one has to wonder why they
didn't volunteer their services to help track down HIV/AIDS pts
in the population at large -- if they were so good at doing so!)

> don't compare it to the _actual_ risk of not being vaccinated (where
> the risk is "probability of becoming infected" times "probability of
> developing a clot if infected").
>
> At some point, this inability-to-measure-risks-and-benefits reaches
> the point of intellectual blindness (or perhaps intellectual
> hypocracy). Today's paper mentioned a gentleman out in a rural area
> being asked about vaccination, and his comment was "It's too soon,
> they haven't had enough time to test it, we don't know what the
> long-term risks are."
>
> He was interviewed at a convenience store, to which he had gone to buy
> cigarettes.

Yup. A neighbor has exactly the same attitude -- as she smokes and
drinks!

<shakes head>

Sadly, if "luck" (or other events) conspires to let them avoid (symptomatic)
infection, they will take that as validation of their beliefs.

[I held the revolver to my temple, pulled the trigger and didn't die.
Therefore, holding a revolver to one's temple is a safe undertaking!]

On Saturday, May 22, 2021 at 12:58:06 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 9:44:12 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 6:20:10 PM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 3:38:19 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 5:12:12 PM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 2:10:46 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 3:31:20 PM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 1:25:59 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > > > 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>

> > > https://www.google.com/search?q=covid+vaccine+oral&safe=off&client=firefox-b-1-d&ei=DmynYMHICJXWtQbHl7_4Dg&oq=covid+vaccine+oral

But your search string picked up a treatment, not a vaccine.

> > > > > You usually have your facts straight before you debate a point, but in this case you are shooting from the hip.
> > >
> > > > You'd be the expert on that. Your "facts" are what you think you know, and you seem resistant to the idea that you might have got some of them wrong.
> > >
> > > Then when you are shown to be wrong you resort to ad hominem attacks. tsk tsk
> > "You usually have your facts straight before you debate a point, but in this case you are shooting from the hip." is pure ad hominem.
> >
> > You didn't cite a single fact in contradiction to what I'd posted, but rather assured your readers that you thought that you were right and I was wrong.
>
> I provided a google search link with examples of oral vaccines entering Clinical Trials! What more do you want???

It would have been nice if you had read your link, and noticed that it was describing a treatment, rather than a vaccine.

"This is the first orally administered coronavirus-specific investigational protease inhibitor to be evaluated in clinical studies, and follows Pfizer’s intravenously administered investigational protease inhibitor, which is currently being evaluated in a Phase 1b multi-dose study in hospitalized clinical trial participants with COVID-19".

It's not a vaccine. It also isn't any of the antibody-like treatments that I had heard about and mentioned, but it does seem that my skepticism was well founded, and that you could do a bit more work on getting on top of the stuff you claim to be educating us about.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 11:42:26 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Saturday, May 22, 2021 at 12:58:06 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 9:44:12 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 6:20:10 PM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 3:38:19 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 5:12:12 PM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 2:10:46 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 3:31:20 PM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 1:25:59 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 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>
> > > > https://www.google.com/search?q=covid+vaccine+oral&safe=off&client=firefox-b-1-d&ei=DmynYMHICJXWtQbHl7_4Dg&oq=covid+vaccine+oral
>
> But your search string picked up a treatment, not a vaccine.

Wow! Someone should be sued for false advertising or something. "Vaxart COVID-19 Oral Vaccine"

> > > > > > You usually have your facts straight before you debate a point, but in this case you are shooting from the hip.
> > > >
> > > > > You'd be the expert on that. Your "facts" are what you think you know, and you seem resistant to the idea that you might have got some of them wrong.
> > > >
> > > > Then when you are shown to be wrong you resort to ad hominem attacks. tsk tsk
> > > "You usually have your facts straight before you debate a point, but in this case you are shooting from the hip." is pure ad hominem.
> > >
> > > You didn't cite a single fact in contradiction to what I'd posted, but rather assured your readers that you thought that you were right and I was wrong.
> >
> > I provided a google search link with examples of oral vaccines entering Clinical Trials! What more do you want???
> It would have been nice if you had read your link, and noticed that it was describing a treatment, rather than a vaccine.

First hit... "Vaxart COVID-19 Oral Vaccine" and second hit... "Clinical Trials Planned for Oral COVID-19 Vaccine - WebMD" and third hit... "Apr 20, 2021 — More research is needed to find out if these oral or nasal spray vaccines will be as effective as injectable vaccines. The three COVID-19 ..."

WTF are you going on about?

> "This is the first orally administered coronavirus-specific investigational protease inhibitor to be evaluated in clinical studies, and follows Pfizer’s intravenously administered investigational protease inhibitor, which is currently being evaluated in a Phase 1b multi-dose study in hospitalized clinical trial participants with COVID-19".
>
> It's not a vaccine. It also isn't any of the antibody-like treatments that I had heard about and mentioned, but it does seem that my skepticism was well founded, and that you could do a bit more work on getting on top of the stuff you claim to be educating us about.

No it's not a vaccine. So why are you ignoring all the links to oral vaccines and focusing on the one hit that isn't a vaccine?

"According to FasterCures, a center of the Milken Institute that’s currently tracking the development of COVID-19 vaccines, five companies are developing oral vaccines. Two of these companies have moved on to phase 1 clinical trials."

I think sometimes you go out of your way to be obstinate and argumentative.

--

Rick C.

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

On Saturday, May 22, 2021 at 2:32:26 PM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 11:42:26 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 22, 2021 at 12:58:06 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 9:44:12 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 6:20:10 PM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 3:38:19 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 5:12:12 PM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 2:10:46 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 3:31:20 PM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 1:25:59 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > 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>
> > > > > https://www.google.com/search?q=covid+vaccine+oral&safe=off&client=firefox-b-1-d&ei=DmynYMHICJXWtQbHl7_4Dg&oq=covid+vaccine+oral
> >
> > But your search string picked up a treatment, not a vaccine.
> Wow! Someone should be sued for false advertising or something. "Vaxart COVID-19 Oral Vaccine"
> > > > > > > You usually have your facts straight before you debate a point, but in this case you are shooting from the hip.
> > > > >
> > > > > > You'd be the expert on that. Your "facts" are what you think you know, and you seem resistant to the idea that you might have got some of them wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then when you are shown to be wrong you resort to ad hominem attacks. tsk tsk
> > > > "You usually have your facts straight before you debate a point, but in this case you are shooting from the hip." is pure ad hominem.
> > > >
> > > > You didn't cite a single fact in contradiction to what I'd posted, but rather assured your readers that you thought that you were right and I was wrong.
> > >
> > > I provided a google search link with examples of oral vaccines entering Clinical Trials! What more do you want???
> > It would have been nice if you had read your link, and noticed that it was describing a treatment, rather than a vaccine.
>
> First hit... "Vaxart COVID-19 Oral Vaccine" and second hit... "Clinical Trials Planned for Oral COVID-19 Vaccine - WebMD" and third hit... "Apr 20, 2021 — More research is needed to find out if these oral or nasal spray vaccines will be as effective as injectable vaccines. The three COVID-19 ..."
>
> WTF are you going on about?

The third hit was the first one that talked about developing an oral vaccine. Why was I supposed to keep on looking after your first two hits had picked up irrelevant links, where the word "vaccine" showed up because the reporter was contrasting a treatment with a vaccine?

You seem to think that your capacity to find a search string that produced irrelevant hits is an example of your competence.

Would it have been that difficult to read the links and post the link that did support your claim - at least to some extent.

"“Nasal spray vaccine could be available as soon as 2022, however this is highly variable based on clinical efficacy and vaccine effectiveness in clinical trials,” he said. "

Vaccine development isn't usually all that quick - the vaccines that we have got against Covid-19 have got into people's arms within a year, which is three years faster than the previous best. Looking for an oral vaccine isn't any guarantee that we will ever get one.

> > "This is the first orally administered coronavirus-specific investigational protease inhibitor to be evaluated in clinical studies, and follows Pfizer’s intravenously administered investigational protease inhibitor, which is currently being evaluated in a Phase 1b multi-dose study in hospitalized clinical trial participants with COVID-19".
> >
> > It's not a vaccine. It also isn't any of the antibody-like treatments that I had heard about and mentioned, but it does seem that my skepticism was well founded, and that you could do a bit more work on getting on top of the stuff you claim to be educating us about.
>
> No it's not a vaccine. So why are you ignoring all the links to oral vaccines and focusing on the one hit that isn't a vaccine?

Because it was the first link in the list, and it made it clear that your search string wasn't guaranteed to get the result you were looking for?
>
> "According to FasterCures, a center of the Milken Institute that’s currently tracking the development of COVID-19 vaccines, five companies are developing oral vaccines. Two of these companies have moved on to phase 1 clinical trials."

That isn't any guarantee that they are going to end up with a working vaccine.
> I think sometimes you go out of your way to be obstinate and argumentative.

Whereas you seem take every opportunity to be slap-dash and gullible.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

The US data from April 15 to May 23 shows a relatively linear drop from 72,000 to 25,000 new infections each day. If this trend continues, the new infection rate can actually approximate zero in just three weeks. Anyone think this is actually going to happen this time? I'm amazed the new infection count is ramping down so consistently. I would have expected a flattening out by now.

--

Rick C.

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