I disagree that neutralizing antibodies are the most important to public health. What is most important to public health is that if you get vaccinated and are exposed, you don't get severe disease. Neutralizing antibodies are only a part of that system.
The reason the early papers all focused on neutralizing antibodies was because it is the only function that is relatively easy to measure not because it is the end-all be-all of protection. You may focus on it if you like but it's not going to take you anyplace interesting.
When the vaccines came out I did not make predictions about how they would compare compare to infection-mediated immunity. Some vaccines do better than others, and there is no way to know at the beginning how well it would hold up or how many doses would be required to establish a durable response.
Explain to me - or any young healthy person - how the probability I experience severe COVID-19 is greater than the probability I retransmit it (and thereby create a public health burden). Make sure your explanation accords with statements made, in early 2021, by people like you towards people like me.
Have you personally made any accurate predictions about the pandemic? If so, where?When the vaccines came out I did not make predictions about how they would compare compare to infection-mediated immunity.
Did any of your colleagues make any predictions about this important topic? If so, how did those fare?
There was no way to predict that the vaccines would not be robust, given the ensuing narrow targeting of the RBD? Is that your claim?Some vaccines do better than others, and there is no way to know at the beginning how well it would hold up or how many doses would be required to establish a durable response.
I don't see a lot of analysis here. There is obviously financial warfare going on all over the world, but people have been predicting that the "economy is going to collapse in a couple of months" for 12 years now. At some point they are gonna be right, but the timing is critical, isn't it? Jeff Snider has gone off the deep end, he is having trouble admitting that a lot of his predictions were wrong, so he is currently just bashing China. Typical Youtuber. It is kind of sad, he has got a brain on him, but he refuses to use it.
So, I think Sri Lanka might be my prime example of incompetence and intent. Sri Lankan people will be starving to death soon, and their plight was brought about by government-led, top-down, centralized decision making to "grow organic" and then attempt to subsidize their way out of the problem. Essentially, the Good Idea Fairy with a gun.
What makes more sense: that getting rid of the Sri Lankan was part of The Master Plan, or that the "Elite" think they know what's best while actually having been elevated by corrupt systems empowered by the math of compounding interest? Where do you draw the line between their intended and unintended consequences?
I don't think They give a damn about either flavor because They're almost entirely shielded from the repercussions.
You don't like that wording. That's fine we can try another. How about 'the fraction of the population who are at risk for developing severe disease (which is mostly but not entirely limited to aged populations and populations with comorbidities) will have a reduced risk of developing severe disease'. Its worrier, but if you prefer it we could go with it. Or we could stop playing gotcha games and just talk about this shit.
Given the fact that you and I cannot agree on numbers of people who have had severe disease, died from COVID, or have had adverse events related to vaccination, this seems like a futile exercise. For the record, I don't have a problem with people calculating their own risks and I have not advocated for requiring vaccinations for everyone. Nor should I be required to answer for people who have advocated for required vaccination.please explain how the vaccine adverse events rate is justified,
We've done this already Rip. I don't have a problem with these treatments being prescribed by people that know the data and believe them to be beneficial. I don't set the emphasis, but I have a hard time believing that good data is being ignored across the board simply because the drugs are off patent. I know that puts me in the minority of posters here. Perhaps I'm just being naive again.and please explain why effective treatments such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquin have not been the emphasis.
The situation is obviously different now than it was then. I'm happy to continue talking about this stuff if you like , but let's skip weird stipulations like this.
Probably not.Have you personally made any accurate predictions about the pandemic? If so, where?
That is not my claim. There was not a way to predict how durable vaccination would be. I don't think anyone was naive enough to believe that mutation would not happen. I just didn't know how long it would take and to what extent it would evade protection.There was no way to predict that the vaccines would not be robust, given the ensuing narrow targeting of the RBD? Is that your claim?
Bill Maher is becoming harder to dislike. This is pretty good: New Rule: Along for the Pride | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO) - YouTube
I'm currently reading Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. I highly recommend it, due to the background of decisions that are being made, and will be made, in response to the "crises" Whether that's covid, "climate" or "monkeypox" in the next few years.
Mike Tyson is also reading it, so technically you'll be in a book club with him too.
We all want to believe doctors and scientists are superior beings with intentions as pure as the driven snow.
We all want to respect them.
However, their conduct must be questioned and when they are at fault, they must be held accountable.
In many cases we have not been allowed to question them and they are living without accountability.
Many doctors and scientists in 2020 are trying to use their educational certificates as a titles of nobility.
They lock themselves away in ivory towers, demand unquestioning loyalty, worship and tribute.
They are not royalty and they cannot be treated as such.
They are fallible creatures.
Grantham may have a knowledge of the science, but I do not believe he is discussing this topic in good faith.
Maybe it is habit from a well-practiced career; he words his arguments with just enough ambiguity to cover his ass or wriggle out of answering when he is wrong.
As I see more and more people around me dying, debilitated or unwell after untested vaccine, lockdown and tyranny, I have very little patience for disingenuous characters, like Mr. Grantham.
In the eyes of the law, an accomplice is also culpable.
It wasn't long ago Bill Gates said our next global pandemic could/would be smallpox related.