.
Does learning about mutations, which might lessen the effectiveness of vaccines, make you any more interested in reducing infections?
Does new information impact your thinking?
You have some new information? Fancy.
But really, no. You know why? Because you have no idea what you're talking about. Fathom this - people who had the original SARS are still showing strong immune response to COVID. COVID only shares about 80% of the genetic makeup with SARS-v1. These mutations are what - 0.02 percent differentiated from the original wuhan strain? Yeah.
Oh and your pseudo-lawyerly manner of communicating is annoying af. Has anyone mentioned this to you before? If not, there it is.
From that 'Fathom' of yours, you have no idea what you're talking about either.
Enjoy the frequent use of the word: 'Transient':
https://www.nature.com/...67-020-18450-4#Sec10
.
From your paper:
These results suggest a measurable impact of immunity to coronaviruses on future risk, but this protection may be transient.
Meaning - we do not really know. There really is not anything precise in the field of epidemiology. It is all about educated guesses. They mention that the immunity remains effective for one year or more, which is expected as viruses mutate and change. That's normal.
But continue to advocate for the others to suffer the lockdown consequences just because you're probably in a vulnerable segment of the population.
Next races on the schedule: none at the moment
windschatten wrote:
alex_korr wrote:
CallMeMaybe wrote:
The point of this thread was to think about mutations and vaccine effectiveness. Does learning about mutations, which might lessen the effectiveness of vaccines, make you any more interested in reducing infections?
Does new information impact your thinking?
You have some new information? Fancy.
But really, no. You know why? Because you have no idea what you're talking about. Fathom this - people who had the original SARS are still showing strong immune response to COVID. COVID only shares about 80% of the genetic makeup with SARS-v1. These mutations are what - 0.02 percent differentiated from the original wuhan strain? Yeah.
Oh and your pseudo-lawyerly manner of communicating is annoying af. Has anyone mentioned this to you before? If not, there it is.
From that 'Fathom' of yours, you have no idea what you're talking about either.
Enjoy the frequent use of the word: 'Transient':
https://www.nature.com/...67-020-18450-4#Sec10
.
From your paper:
These results suggest a measurable impact of immunity to coronaviruses on future risk, but this protection may be transient.
Meaning - we do not really know. There really is not anything precise in the field of epidemiology. It is all about educated guesses. They mention that the immunity remains effective for one year or more, which is expected as viruses mutate and change. That's normal.
But continue to advocate for the others to suffer the lockdown consequences just because you're probably in a vulnerable segment of the population.
Next races on the schedule: none at the moment