alex_korr wrote:
windschatten wrote:
alex_korr wrote:
. 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.
I think most understand the definition of the word 'transient' pretty well.
So I take it you can't back up your claim that "people who had the original SARS are still showing strong immune response to COVID"..
I can't? Did you know that 51% of the population of Singapore was able to manifest pre-existing T cell reactivity against SARS-CoV-2? Ref here
What do you think is the reason for a significant inverse correlation that has been observed between the levels of pre-existing T cell reactivity against SARS-CoV-2 and mortality rates in different countries? Did it come from eating lots of fish or something? Don't be daft.
Well, thanks for actually being honest and walking your original sensational and hyperbole statements back to what’s factual data.
You playing that irrelevant 0.02% difference card doesn’t sit well. It’s purposely misleading.
And have you looked at the latest #s from those ‘SARS-protected’ countries?
Up, up and up.
So something doesn’t add up there either.
.
Last edited by:
windschatten: Feb 5, 21 21:59