Comments by "N Marbletoe" (@nmarbletoe8210) on "Excellent vaccine news" video.

  1. New strains are appearing all the time. I think there are a few dozen now. The vaccine will probably work just as well since the mutations don't change the basic spike target. . The virus is probably mutating to be less harmful overall.
    3
  2. no I don't think it helps at that point
    3
  3. they don't change DNA
    3
  4. you're off by a factor of 10
    2
  5. No, and maybe.
    2
  6. what Paula said
    2
  7. I think that is an excellent question. Oxford/AZ messed up the trial really badly, therefore it's not clear if their vaccine has over 62% effectiveness, 70%, 90%, or something in between. . If it is the lower ranges, then it won't be enough to produce herd immunology by itself, but do remember that every survivor is even better protected than any of the vaccines are reporting. So we add the survivors to the total % for the herd.
    2
  8. to see if you need the vaccine or not?
    2
  9. What weapon kills only 3 in 1000 people hit by it.  No it is probably a natural virus or a mistaken lab release.
    1
  10. flake news detected
    1
  11. I would guess that some people get true immunity after being vaccinated and some people get improved resistance. . Immunity means that you still "catch" it a little bit -- it doesn't eliminate the first virus to think about landing on you. It's not a laser defense shield. But an immune person would be unlikely to pass it on. . I think PT is right and we don't yet know the vaccine effect on transmission, except that logically it would lower it.
    1
  12. Sure they have been tested, but is the data publicaly available?
    1
  13. because that's still millions of people. but why do we need hard lockdowns, when they are no more effective than more reasoned measures... and have serious death tolls of their own...
    1
  14. both. but not 100%.
    1
  15. they accidentaly gave half doses to the UK group, and the Brazil group got the planned full doses
    1
  16. is there a scientific analysis for that?
    1
  17. ​ @jackharper6448  Why so rude? Simply asking for data relating to that estimate. . Note that your Public Health people did not say "is 70%..." but "may be up to...." . This is one reason seeing actual research data is important, so people don't get it wrong like that.
    1
  18. hope so. it wasn't a smooth trial.
    1
  19. The dosing was a mistake. Therefore, the design of the trial doesn't allow one to say if the 62% vs 90% results are due to the dosages, or some other factor. . All of the half-doses were in the UK, and the full doses in Brazil. . SO they just have to do more research.
    1
  20. >> "Does this mean that the anti-COVID effect of the new vaccines only lasts as long as there are antigens in the blood stream." . I would guess no.
    1
  21. They are up in the US, but maybe 1/3 of the excess deaths are due to lockdowns, not the virus.
    1
  22. they messed up the dosing program in the trial, so I can understand some doubts
    1
  23.  @stopdamadness  I think that would be an excellent idea since doses are now limited. It could save of lives if people who already had the virus gave their vaccine to someone who needs it.
    1
  24. Pfizer and Moderna have similar ingredients. Oxford/AstraZeneca is very different from those two. . Pfizer and Moderna report about 95% effectivenessy, Oxford/AZ reports 62% to 90% effectiveness. .
    1
  25. If it got more transmissible, it probably got less deadly. There is a general tradeoff in pathogens in that respect.
    1
  26.  @SupaPoopaScoopa  Sure, that is true, but "effective" to the virus means infecting more people, and that can be done fast or slow. . The fast way produces tons of virus rapidly, but then the person is isolated and transmission ends. The slow way produces fewer virions but is less likely to get isolated so has more time to spread. . If slow transmission is favored by isolating bad cases, this favors the more gentle virus strains if they exist. . It's all theory until proper studies are done, which takes time for this kind of question.
    1
  27.  @SupaPoopaScoopa  I have authored research on the subject of novel diseases, which has been published in peer reviewed journals.
    1
  28.  @SupaPoopaScoopa  You can investigate the field of evolutionary biology, if not on youtube, perhaps google scholar. . With the exception of vector-born diseases, the general trend is for novel pathogens to become less deadly over time. Can you see why that might be the case? . If you are genuinely interested, perhaps include the term "review" in your search, to get the best summaries of the field, and to not get lost in the minutiae. I could of course provide references, but your dismissive attitude makes me disinclined to volunteer.
    1
  29.  @SupaPoopaScoopa  Thank you for your kind reply! . To be clear, I certainly think that your OP is on to something: if the strain is 70% more transmissible, that should affect treatment and public health!
    1
  30. Addition, and then some division. Not social division, math division.
    1
  31. If it involves Kim Chee, I'm in.
    1
  32. Xi
    1
  33.  @linhtrantruong7616  xi jinping
    1