California no longer under lockdown - people freak out

[Phoenixmgs]

A year? We didn't even do it for a month. Lotta places didn't even *try*. I'd absolutely *love* to try it for a month

I wanna say it was like 2 months in Illinois where I'm from. The fact that you had the virus slowly moving through the essential workforce meant that once you opened back up, the virus was going to get back to the numbers it was at eventually. There was very little put in place anywhere (in the US) that wasn't just basically "let's all slowly open back up and hope covid doesn't notice". That was doomed to fail and primed to have the public call bullshit on a 2nd lockdown (since the 1st one didn't work).

Let me absolutely plain, seeing as the last few comments evidently haven't sunk in: I basically don't give a shit what the global IFR is. It's a stupid, empty statistic that is being abused to uphold claims it has no business upholding. Specifically, claims that covid-19 is kind of harmless, so let's open everything up.

The point is not how many people die, but how many people could die. There is evidence that in our age-heavy Western countries it could be over 1% if we did not take appropriate measures.



No shit.

But what happens if you don't lockdown is stuff stops anyway, because workers have to pull out of work infected or sick or with care duties, people won't go out anyway because they are being responsible or are afraid. Thus the alternative to lockdown is places take a social and economic hit anyway, plus more people get infected and die, and probably the health system collapses. We have been passing around this myth of "lives or economy", but the reality is that we were going to take a beating either way. It was only really a matter of how many lives were spared.

Ironically, of course, what we've seen is countries that took stricter control measures have also been able to reopen more quickly and widely. All these most problematic, heavy, long lockdowns are the result of mass infection, caused because some leaders thought they could trade off economic damage by allowing more spread.

I said every single post that the US IFR is not 1+% without a doubt, it's most likely not even 0.5%. Is the US not a rich western country with a age-heavy population? England's own agencies put the IFR below 0.5% as well. I don't get what you want, the IFR is not 1% anywhere (unless you single out high-risk groups). You're cherry picking the few estimates that put the IFR above 1% that you've said yourself are "plucked out one's ass" to state the IFR is 1+%. Common sense tells you the US IFR is below 1%. Probably the only way to get an IFR at 1+% is the collapse of the healthcare system.

The economy doing legit bad and just doing less than a year ago are 2 different things. For example, Japan's economy took a hit but if you compare it to the hit the US took, it looks great. I doubt any economy went up during the pandemic, which is fine, but for economists if it's not growing, then it's basically shit to them. You can do both lives and the economy (maybe you can't have growing economy but for normal people, it doesn't need to be growing). The US strat of just slowly opening up and hoping covid didn't notice was a shit strat and doesn't prove much except that it was shit strat.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

OK, stop, no. You're conflating two issues here: the minuscule risk of contracting a disease after being vaccinated against it (which is the subject of that video you posted), and the reduced efficacy of vaccines against different strains.

These are plainly very different issues. I'm talking specifically about the latter. On that, "significantly less effective" is not hyperbole.

The point is that the arrival of a vaccine does not mean that we can just return to normality, precautions-be-damned.

What I care about is the big picture stuff. Who cares if you still get mild illness from it? What does matter is that you don't need to be hospitalized or die from it, that's what the vaccines still provide against the new strains.

"Scientists who conducted a small-scale trial of the vaccine’s efficacy said it showed very little protection against mild to moderate infection, though they expressed hope that – in theory – it would still offer significant protection against more serious infection."

You can replace "in theory" with LIKELY.

Yes, the arrival of a vaccine doesn't mean things can go back to normal, it's when enough of the population has gotten either infected or vaccinated that you can go back to normal. That's why my prediction for back to normal is the summer and not last November.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

See above: we already have evidence that they are resistant. This isn't "worst-case"; this is knowledge that this is how viruses very frequently work, including human coronaviruses and other respiratory tract viruses.

What you believe is the norm-- that a vaccine is introduced and then just provides protection forever-- is not accurate. This is why we take additional iterative vaccines. This is why we take a new influenza shot every year; this is why even if you're vaccinated against Tetanus, it's still recommended to go to the doctor and have a new Tetanus jab if you get cut on a rusty nail.

Worst case is that they don't work at preventing hospitalizations and deaths, not that they don't prevent mild symptoms. I never said covid immunity will last FOREVER. It will last long enough that there isn't going to be mass reinfections that kinda bring us back to square 1. So what if you need a vaccine again in 5 years or 10 years or never, the virus will be under control either way. The flu is an anomaly (worst case scenario), it shouldn't be used as a baseline unless a new virus exhibits flu characteristics (in replication), which covid does not. Why are you EXPECTING covid to be like the flu when it doesn't share the unique characteristic that makes the flu the flu?

"This kind of stuff wouldn't happen"? Do you seriously believe that because some people in this instance were protected from Measles primarily by T-cells, therefore we can just assume that T-cells alone provide equal protection against all viruses?

Once again, you're willing to take single isolated examples, and then consider them the last word on the entire field of virology. You're happy to assume that Covid-19 definitely won't mutate into a vaccine-resistant strain because there's no chance it'll be anything like influenza... and at the same time you're happy to assume that T-cells will provide decades and decades of complete protection, because they did against Measles once before.

It's evidence that antibodies aren't the end-all-be-all of immunity (and makes these antibody studies not very relevant towards whether immunity is short or long), it's evidence that new strains don't necessarily fuck up immunity either. I'm talking about LIKELY scenarios, not "this is 100% going to happen". Our history with diseases shows that, on average, we can "eradicate" them, that's the baseline. The flu is the outlier, the anomaly. I'm assuming covid won't mutate into a vaccine resistant strain because our history with viruses and vaccines shows that is NOT the LIKELY outcome. When did I say "definitely"? Fauci has said the same thing, he just gave fall/winter of this year his guess for the "end" while I said summer.

Do you remember what the actual point being made was? It wasn't that the vaccines definitely don't protect against mutated strains. It's that we cannot assume that they do, and use that assumption to open everything up again.

And yes, tentative evidence such as that study is highly relevant on that point. We don't have a huge body of research on the efficacy of vaccines on the newer strains; we have to use what evidence we have to form public policy. What has Phoenix provided? Literally the only thing he's brought forward which even speaks to that is a 150-year-old case study concerning Measles, and his own shallow interpretation of natural selection. I've pointed to the seasonal mutating nature of Influenza, as well as the (tentative) study above on Covid-19, simply to make the point that we cannot assume we're protected from all strains.

((On a side-note, it didn't go unnoticed that you substituted "mild" for "mild to moderate" in your ridiculous little summary there)).

If we had a cheap drug that you could take that would give us goose eggs for hospitalizations and deaths against covid, we'd have been opened up fully already. We assume certain things are LIKELY.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I can quite assure you, I'm mostly arguing because Phoenix is butchering scientific evidence. I don't think his conclusions are necessarily wrong, but he's definitely supporting them weakly.

Remember when you were telling us we'd have herd immunity when about 20% had contracted the covid-19 based on some study? Ah, how long ago that seems. I just bring that up as a reminder of undue confidence in scientific studies that might have some more personal weight to aid your reflection.

I'm only saying what the doctors in the field are saying. I'm not reading studies on my own and coming up with my own conclusions. The doctors are reading the studies and interpreting them, saying their conclusions and I'm going with what they are saying since they're doctors and I'm not. Unless you wanna say these doctors are all hacks or you know more than them. I don't know your credentials but I'm pretty sure the doctors I'm using as a source have pretty good chance of having better credentials than you.

Phoenix has made a succession of claims, often appealing vaguely to "studies" without providing them, or just basing them on his own personal understanding of natural selection. I suppose that's technically a "deluge of information"...

I'm talking quite specifically about the claim that immunity to Covid-19 lasts for many, many years. That debate hasn't even been going on for months on this forum.

I've provided links to studies about everything I've said at one point or another.

 

[Gergar12]

The Issue Is: Mayor Robert Garcia, Gianno Caldwell, and Ana Kasparian

On the political front, Washington D.C. prepared for next week’s impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump, while in California, the effort to recall Governor Gavin Newsom began to gain steam.

www.foxla.com

KASPARIAN’S CENTRAL TAKE: "I would not only like to recall Gavin Newsom, but I think we should also focus a little bit on Eric Garcetti, who has been a complete and utter disaster in Los Angeles County. I’m a native Angeleno, I was born and raised in California, I love my state, I love the people in this state, but it is an absolute wasteland right now. Every freeway bridge is full of people living in tents, there’s excrement on the sidewalks, it’s unsafe, crime has gone up, and when it comes to coronavirus, the fish rots from the head down…I have not seen competent leadership from Gavin Newsom, and I will state on this show, every single member of my family signed our names, provided our signatures, to recall him…"

Opinion | California Is Making Liberals Squirm (Published 2021)

If progressivism can’t work there, why should the country believe it can work anywhere else?

www.nytimes.com

Or as Eriza Klein who is either a social liberal or neoliberal says

“If you’re living eight or 10 people to a home, it’s hard to protect yourself from the virus,” Senator Wiener told me. “Yet what we see at times is people with a Bernie Sanders sign and a ‘Black Lives Matter’ sign in their window, but they’re opposing an affordable housing project or an apartment complex down the street.”

Or my original take:

Someone will have to suffer, either it's going to be the homeless, or someone's housing, business, or government property that suffers. I would rather it not be the homeless because at first, it seems easy to ignore them and let them be homeless while your seeing record housing prices, while your business is booming, or your government property is safe. But that has consequences of its own, when Covid-19 spreads it doesn't care about how high your home value is or how much net revenue you make, you will either die if your old or get sick, and be faced with health problems down the road. This is what we are seeing in California, record amounts of people leaving for Texas while our elected officials dine at expensive restaurants without a mask, and the homeless die, and spread the virus.

 

[Agema]

I'm only saying what the doctors in the field are saying

You're only saying what the doctors you're selectively picking out who say what you want to say say.

I don't know your credentials but I'm pretty sure the doctors I'm using as a source have pretty good chance of having better credentials than you.

I can assure you, on at least some of the topics we've discussed on covid-19 in the last year my credentials are better than some of the doctors you've been citing.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

The Issue Is: Mayor Robert Garcia, Gianno Caldwell, and Ana Kasparian

On the political front, Washington D.C. prepared for next week’s impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump, while in California, the effort to recall Governor Gavin Newsom began to gain steam.

www.foxla.com

KASPARIAN’S CENTRAL TAKE: "I would not only like to recall Gavin Newsom, but I think we should also focus a little bit on Eric Garcetti, who has been a complete and utter disaster in Los Angeles County. I’m a native Angeleno, I was born and raised in California, I love my state, I love the people in this state, but it is an absolute wasteland right now. Every freeway bridge is full of people living in tents, there’s excrement on the sidewalks, it’s unsafe, crime has gone up, and when it comes to coronavirus, the fish rots from the head down…I have not seen competent leadership from Gavin Newsom, and I will state on this show, every single member of my family signed our names, provided our signatures, to recall him…"

Opinion | California Is Making Liberals Squirm (Published 2021)

If progressivism can’t work there, why should the country believe it can work anywhere else?

www.nytimes.com

Or as Eriza Klein who is either a social liberal or neoliberal says

“If you’re living eight or 10 people to a home, it’s hard to protect yourself from the virus,” Senator Wiener told me. “Yet what we see at times is people with a Bernie Sanders sign and a ‘Black Lives Matter’ sign in their window, but they’re opposing an affordable housing project or an apartment complex down the street.”

Or my original take:

Someone will have to suffer, either it's going to be the homeless, or someone's housing, business, or government property that suffers. I would rather it not be the homeless because at first, it seems easy to ignore them and let them be homeless while your seeing record housing prices, while your business is booming, or your government property is safe. But that has consequences of its own, when Covid-19 spreads it doesn't care about how high your home value is or how much net revenue you make, you will either die if your old or get sick, and be faced with health problems down the road. This is what we are seeing in California, record amounts of people leaving for Texas while our elected officials dine at expensive restaurants without a mask, and the homeless die, and spread the virus.

I don't know the hard details in California but it really seems like Newsom has done a bunch of dumb things.

I never got why there's conservatives and liberals. A policy is either good or bad because it's good or bad, and both conservative or liberal policies can be shit (pun intended).

You're only saying what the doctors you're selectively picking out who say what you want to say say.



I can assure you, on at least some of the topics we've discussed on covid-19 in the last year my credentials are better than some of the doctors you've been citing.

I'm not picking any doctors based on what I want to hear, I want to know what is the truth, that is it.

What have I said that isn't what the data we have points to? Who in the scientific community thinks the IFR of covid is 1+%? You said the population of England had good vitamin d levels, and that isn't true at all.

 

[Silvanus]

What I care about is the big picture stuff. Who cares if you still get mild illness from it? What does matter is that you don't need to be hospitalized or die from it, that's what the vaccines still provide against the new strains.

"Scientists who conducted a small-scale trial of the vaccine’s efficacy said it showed very little protection against mild to moderate infection, though they expressed hope that – in theory – it would still offer significant protection against more serious infection."

You can replace "in theory" with LIKELY.

Yes, the arrival of a vaccine doesn't mean things can go back to normal, it's when enough of the population has gotten either infected or vaccinated that you can go back to normal. That's why my prediction for back to normal is the summer and not last November.

No, you can't replace "in theory" with "likely". Take the researchers at their word, rather than writing in my own optimistic assumptions that aren't in the study.

Worst case is that they don't work at preventing hospitalizations and deaths, not that they don't prevent mild symptoms. I never said covid immunity will last FOREVER. It will last long enough that there isn't going to be mass reinfections that kinda bring us back to square 1. So what if you need a vaccine again in 5 years or 10 years or never, the virus will be under control either way. The flu is an anomaly (worst case scenario), it shouldn't be used as a baseline unless a new virus exhibits flu characteristics (in replication), which covid does not. Why are you EXPECTING covid to be like the flu when it doesn't share the unique characteristic that makes the flu the flu?

I'm not. I'm pointing to a very common characteristic of viruses in various families, including human coronaviruses: the ability to mutate and render vaccinations less efficacious.

You, on the other hand, are happy to assume that Covid-19 shares characteristics with... Measles? From a one-off 150 year old study?

It's evidence that antibodies aren't the end-all-be-all of immunity (and makes these antibody studies not very relevant towards whether immunity is short or long), it's evidence that new strains don't necessarily fuck up immunity either. I'm talking about LIKELY scenarios, not "this is 100% going to happen". Our history with diseases shows that, on average, we can "eradicate" them, that's the baseline. The flu is the outlier, the anomaly. I'm assuming covid won't mutate into a vaccine resistant strain because our history with viruses and vaccines shows that is NOT the LIKELY outcome. When did I say "definitely"? Fauci has said the same thing, he just gave fall/winter of this year his guess for the "end" while I said summer.

Where are you actually getting it from that it's so common for vaccinations to work against all strains? It's certainly not from human coronaviruses.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

No, you can't replace "in theory" with "likely". Take the researchers at their word, rather than writing in my own optimistic assumptions that aren't in the study.



I'm not. I'm pointing to a very common characteristic of viruses in various families, including human coronaviruses: the ability to mutate and render vaccinations less efficacious.

You, on the other hand, are happy to assume that Covid-19 shares characteristics with... Measles? From a one-off 150 year old study?




Where are you actually getting it from that it's so common for vaccinations to work against all strains? It's certainly not from human coronaviruses.

I can't use synonyms? If scientists say something "in theory" should work, does that mean that they expect it to work or not expect it to work in your opinion? I'm pretty fucking sure, that's what they expect to happen when they say "in theory". If they didn't think it would work, they obviously wouldn't say "in theory" it should work.

There are no previous coronavirus vaccinations so how could previous coronavirus vaccinations that don't exist demonstrate a history that coronavirus vaccines won't work? I'm happy to assume covid shares basic characteristics with most viruses that have been reduced to nil via vaccines, especially when we know covid doesn't share the unique characteristic that the flu has that allows it to stick around.

We wouldn't have even discovered vaccines work if it was normal for new variants be resistant to vaccines. You do realize it took YEARS of development for the 1st vaccines to become publicly available, years that the virus would have time to mutate, yet the vaccines still worked and became one of them most important breakthroughs in science. We wouldn't be naturally immune to diseases (pre-vaccine world) after getting them once if a new variant would normally fuck up immunity. That was literally the whole logic of "pox" parties was to get kids infected with these viruses when they're young so they don't get them when they're an adult and get a more severe infection. Also, we've been using the same exact measles vaccine since the 60s, you think the measles virus hasn't mutated quite a bit since then? Just because today we get some scary new story about covid doesn't mean those stories didn't exist for previous viruses, it's just that they weren't told back then (no 24/7 news cycle) because they just aren't very relevant.

 

[Silvanus]

I can't use synonyms? If scientists say something "in theory" should work, does that mean that they expect it to work or not expect it to work in your opinion? I'm pretty fucking sure, that's what they expect to happen when they say "in theory". If they didn't think it would work, they obviously wouldn't say "in theory" it should work.

He didn't say "in theory it should work", though; you're again rewriting what was said to be supportive. This is exactly what Dr. Madhi said;

Extrapolating from that [the separate trial on Johnson and Johnson], there’s still some hope that the AstraZeneca vaccine might well perform as well as the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in a different age demographic that are at highest risk of severe disease.

So, not "should"; might. There's some hope. And that hope is based on a study of a different vaccine. Dr Madhi is clearly speaking very cautiously, here.

There are no previous coronavirus vaccinations so how could previous coronavirus vaccinations that don't exist demonstrate a history that coronavirus vaccines won't work? I'm happy to assume covid shares basic characteristics with most viruses that have been reduced to nil via vaccines, especially when we know covid doesn't share the unique characteristic that the flu has that allows it to stick around.

I'm not saying that coronavirus vaccines don't work. They do work. Don't read that anti-vax bullshit into what I'm writing.

We did not have previous coronavirus vaccinations, but we did have previous coronavirus immunities. And researchers looking at immunity to other coronaviruses such as SARS have said: "Thus, SARS patients might be susceptible to reinfection >3 years after initial exposure [...] Because antibodies play an important role in protective immunity against SARS-CoV ."

We wouldn't have even discovered vaccines work if it was normal for new variants be resistant to vaccines. You do realize it took YEARS of development for the 1st vaccines to become publicly available, years that the virus would have time to mutate, yet the vaccines still worked and became one of them most important breakthroughs in science. We wouldn't be naturally immune to diseases (pre-vaccine world) after getting them once if a new variant would normally fuck up immunity. That was literally the whole logic of "pox" parties was to get kids infected with these viruses when they're young so they don't get them when they're an adult and get a more severe infection. Also, we've been using the same exact measles vaccine since the 60s, you think the measles virus hasn't mutated quite a bit since then? Just because today we get some scary new story about covid doesn't mean those stories didn't exist for previous viruses, it's just that they weren't told back then (no 24/7 news cycle) because they just aren't very relevant.

That's a bit absurd: obviously we would have discovered vaccinations regardless: all that would be required is for vaccines to offer some level of lasting protection, which obviously they do. But that doesn't mean the protection lasts forever, and that you can just assume it'll work against all variations.

 

[Agema]

I'm not picking any doctors based on what I want to hear, I want to know what is the truth, that is it.

You've decided what the truth is. That's why you're arguing when people disagree with things you claim using evidence.

What have I said that isn't what the data we have points to? Who in the scientific community thinks the IFR of covid is 1+%?

That you're even asking that question suggests how little you understand.

You said the population of England had good vitamin d levels, and that isn't true at all.

That's a very misleading interpretation of what I said. I was clear that there are high risk groups more likely to have Vit D deficiency.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

He didn't say "in theory it should work", though; you're again rewriting what was said to be supportive. This is exactly what Dr. Madhi said;



So, not "should"; might. There's some hope. And that hope is based on a study of a different vaccine. Dr Madhi is clearly speaking very cautiously, here.



I'm not saying that coronavirus vaccines don't work. They do work. Don't read that anti-vax bullshit into what I'm writing.

We did not have previous coronavirus vaccinations, but we did have previous coronavirus immunities. And researchers looking at immunity to other coronaviruses such as SARS have said: "Thus, SARS patients might be susceptible to reinfection >3 years after initial exposure [...] Because antibodies play an important role in protective immunity against SARS-CoV ."



That's a bit absurd: obviously we would have discovered vaccinations regardless: all that would be required is for vaccines to offer some level of lasting protection, which obviously they do. But that doesn't mean the protection lasts forever, and that you can just assume it'll work against all variations.

From your article:
"Scientists who conducted a small-scale trial of the vaccine’s efficacy said it showed very little protection against mild to moderate infection, though they expressed hope that – in theory – it would still offer significant protection against more serious infection."

Dr. Madhi from that quote is talking about hoping the AstraZeneca vaccine does as well as the Johnson&Johnson one, which isn't the same thing as hoping it'll stop severe disease and death. He is testing to see how much the vaccine stops any form of illness from very mild to death (not just severe disease). We've seen no one that has gotten any of the vaccines need hospitalization or die from covid (regardless of variant).

I thought you meant that we had vaccines for previous coronaviruses (pre-covid) that haven't worked. That didn't make much sense to me since this is the first vaccine we've developed (and tested and deployed) for any coronavirus. We do have a vaccine sitting in a lab for SARS-COV-1 but it was only developed and never went through any trials or anything. I thought you were citing a history of previous coronavirus vaccines that hadn't worked out too well.

Again, those studies into antibodies don't dictate the whole picture of how immunity works, which is hard to take their estimates seriously as to how long one would be immune to something. Dr. Madhi in the very article you linked to said one line down from where you quoted that T-cell immunity might be important. The thing is we really don't have a clear understanding what makes for long or short lived immunity. The most we have to go off is the history of viruses and assume covid immunity will be "in the ballpark" of past viruses, which is more than a few months or so. There's no reason to expect mass reinfections prior to achieving herd immunity, which will greatly then lower the virus being able to mutate if it can no longer spread obviously.

If the first few vaccines we developed didn't work, don't you think vaccine development would have been written off as something that doesn't work (especially considering the time it took to develop them back then)? If the average virus mutates so fast within a year that it becomes resistant to the vaccine, we wouldn't have all these vaccines we currently have because those all took YEARS to develop meaning those viruses had years to develop variants vs just basically one year with covid.

You've decided what the truth is. That's why you're arguing when people disagree with things you claim using evidence.



That you're even asking that question suggests how little you understand.



That's a very misleading interpretation of what I said. I was clear that there are high risk groups more likely to have Vit D deficiency.

I don't care what the truth is, just care what it is. Oh and here's Dr. Paul Offit saying schools should be open and to call him an expert would be a massive understatement. I'm taking the advice of people who know their shit and nothing else.

So basically the majority of the data we have along with official agencies' analysis doesn't support your "decided" truth.


How is the following anything other than you think most people in England don't need vitamin d supplements?

Most people (~80%) in my country generally don't need supplements at all. For the others, 400 IU supplements are fine, added to diet and metabolism, for the vast majority. People with unusually high risks of deficiency will normally already have medical advice as required.

Here's Dr. John Campbell taking a vitamin d test to find out he's insufficient in vitamin d and he takes 2,000-3,000 IUs a day. 400 IUs is way too low.

"The results of the 2008–2012 NDNS study clearly demonstrate that intakes of vitamin D in the UK are far too low throughout all age ranges taking into account SACN reference nutrient intake (RNI) values."

Vitamin D Serum Levels in the UK Population, including a Mathematical Approach to Evaluate the Impact of Vitamin D Fortified Ready-to-Eat Breakfast Cereals: Application of the NDNS Database

Vitamin D status is relatively poor in the general population, potentially leading to various conditions. The present study evaluates the relationship between vitamin D status and intake in the UK population and the impact of vitamin D fortified ready-to-eat ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Agema]

So basically the majority of the data we have along with official agencies' analysis doesn't support your "decided" truth.

If you think that, you evidently don't know what I believe despite me writing it down several times.

I certainly don't think you get my understanding of epistemology, nor how to interpret science.

How is the following anything other than you think most people in England don't need vitamin d supplements?

That article is in a sense neither here nor there, in that it is repeating data from the UK government, which is pretty much what I reported: 80% of Britons (pre-covid) were Vit D sufficient and those that aren't are identified high risk groups already advised to take supplements.

Here's Dr. John Campbell taking a vitamin d test to find out he's insufficient in vitamin d and he takes 2,000-3,000 IUs a day. 400 IUs is way too low.

Well, the study you've cited suggests that ~1.4 micrograms of Vit D contributes about 1-6nmol/L of blood metabolite. 400 IUs is 10micrograms. So if Dr Cambpell is taking 50-60 micrograms a day, it is literally mathematically impossible he has such a low blood metabolite level. I jest of course: it is possible, because the study may be unsafe, or the test he took may have been inaccurate, or he's taking pills with terrible absorption, or Dr. Campbell is extremely unrepresentative of the average person and maybe has some sort of problem metabolising Vit D.

Who knows?

What I do know, is that you don't use one guy taking a homemade Vit D test to assess the entire population's Vit D sufficiency and recommended daily intake.

 

[Silvanus]

From your article:
"Scientists who conducted a small-scale trial of the vaccine’s efficacy said it showed very little protection against mild to moderate infection, though they expressed hope that – in theory – it would still offer significant protection against more serious infection."

Dr. Madhi from that quote is talking about hoping the AstraZeneca vaccine does as well as the Johnson&Johnson one, which isn't the same thing as hoping it'll stop severe disease and death. He is testing to see how much the vaccine stops any form of illness from very mild to death (not just severe disease). We've seen no one that has gotten any of the vaccines need hospitalization or die from covid (regardless of variant).

That part of the article you're quoting is referring to Dr. Madhi's direct quote that I gave fully above. Dr Madhi said that he hoped it worked against severe disease, but that hope is based solely on a comparison with the J&J vaccine.

I thought you meant that we had vaccines for previous coronaviruses (pre-covid) that haven't worked. That didn't make much sense to me since this is the first vaccine we've developed (and tested and deployed) for any coronavirus. We do have a vaccine sitting in a lab for SARS-COV-1 but it was only developed and never went through any trials or anything. I thought you were citing a history of previous coronavirus vaccines that hadn't worked out too well.

Again, those studies into antibodies don't dictate the whole picture of how immunity works, which is hard to take their estimates seriously as to how long one would be immune to something. Dr. Madhi in the very article you linked to said one line down from where you quoted that T-cell immunity might be important. The thing is we really don't have a clear understanding what makes for long or short lived immunity. The most we have to go off is the history of viruses and assume covid immunity will be "in the ballpark" of past viruses, which is more than a few months or so. There's no reason to expect mass reinfections prior to achieving herd immunity, which will greatly then lower the virus being able to mutate if it can no longer spread obviously.

"Might be important". "Might be". But you seem to be willing to assume that immunity will be just as strong, even without antibodies, as long as T-cells are around-- in direct contradiction of what the researchers are saying: that antibodies are important, and patients could be susceptible to reinfection.

If the first few vaccines we developed didn't work, don't you think vaccine development would have been written off as something that doesn't work (especially considering the time it took to develop them back then)? If the average virus mutates so fast within a year that it becomes resistant to the vaccine, we wouldn't have all these vaccines we currently have because those all took YEARS to develop meaning those viruses had years to develop variants vs just basically one year with covid.

No, I don't think that at all. Inoculation was already a practice since ancient times, so the principle that previous recovered infection can protect from future infection was established already. And the first vaccines developed by Jenner did work.

You're attributing to me things that I'm not saying. I'm obviously not saying that mutation renders the vaccine useless within a year; that's utterly absurd. I'm saying that some viruses mutate to the point that new vaccines are needed, sometimes a year or a few years later. This is not controversial: it's universally medically recognised.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

If you think that, you evidently don't know what I believe despite me writing it down several times.

I certainly don't think you get my understanding of epistemology, nor how to interpret science.



That article is in a sense neither here nor there, in that it is repeating data from the UK government, which is pretty much what I reported: 80% of Britons (pre-covid) were Vit D sufficient and those that aren't are identified high risk groups already advised to take supplements.



Well, the study you've cited suggests that ~1.4 micrograms of Vit D contributes about 1-6nmol/L of blood metabolite. 400 IUs is 10micrograms. So if Dr Cambpell is taking 50-60 micrograms a day, it is literally mathematically impossible he has such a low blood metabolite level. I jest of course: it is possible, because the study may be unsafe, or the test he took may have been inaccurate, or he's taking pills with terrible absorption, or Dr. Campbell is extremely unrepresentative of the average person and maybe has some sort of problem metabolising Vit D.

Who knows?

What I do know, is that you don't use one guy taking a homemade Vit D test to assess the entire population's Vit D sufficiency and recommended daily intake.

You keep pushing the 1% IFR narrative. I don't care what one's understanding is, it's basic math.

According to this table, not a single age group is 80% sufficient. The best age group 4-10 are 58% deficient.


There's a reason Dr. Fauci takes 6,000 IUs a day. It's not that surprising one that takes 2,000 IUs a day is deficient because that's not a lot of vitamin d.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

That part of the article you're quoting is referring to Dr. Madhi's direct quote that I gave fully above. Dr Madhi said that he hoped it worked against severe disease, but that hope is based solely on a comparison with the J&J vaccine.





"Might be important". "Might be". But you seem to be willing to assume that immunity will be just as strong, even without antibodies, as long as T-cells are around-- in direct contradiction of what the researchers are saying: that antibodies are important, and patients could be susceptible to reinfection.



No, I don't think that at all. Inoculation was already a practice since ancient times, so the principle that previous recovered infection can protect from future infection was established already. And the first vaccines developed by Jenner did work.

You're attributing to me things that I'm not saying. I'm obviously not saying that mutation renders the vaccine useless within a year; that's utterly absurd. I'm saying that some viruses mutate to the point that new vaccines are needed, sometimes a year or a few years later. This is not controversial: it's universally medically recognised.

That part just says scientists think in theory it will work, that wasn't directly taken from Dr. Madhi because it said scientists plural or the reporter did a shit job at writing.

I didn't say that. I said antibodies aren't the only key to immunity because we know that from other viruses. Thus, doing antibody studies on when they wane doesn't really have relevance. We know that covid immunity doesn't need antibodies because we'd have a mass of reinfections already because IIRC those antibody studies have been saying like 6 months for antibodies being around or maybe 3 months (because that was being thrown around early on). I would've got it again if immunity was only 6 months. T-cell immunity may or may not be key but we know antibodies are the end-all-be-all either.

I'm saying the norm is that viruses don't mutate to become resistant to vaccines (not that they can't), that's why I've continually been saying the vaccines are EXPECTED/LIKELY to work against different variants. You keep saying I'm going by best-case scenarios when I'm just going with likely-case scenarios.

 

[Agema]

You keep pushing the 1% IFR narrative. I don't care what one's understanding is, it's basic math.

??

No, I've said that some studies have shown 1+% IFR, that those studies are quite possibly accurate, that the mean across multiple studies for Western countries comes out about 0.6-0.8%, and I suspect the end IFR before vaccines and stuff will be closer to 0.5%.

According to this table, not a single age group is 80% sufficient. The best age group 4-10 are 58% deficient.

I'm guessing you defined deficiency as under 50 nmol/L; this is not the recognised measure of deficiency in the UK. Secondly, it states only 48% of 4-10s have under 50 nmol/L.

Deficiency is set as <25 nmol/L in the UK. That table therefore shows 10% of 4-10s are deficient. Deficiency in the other age groups is 21-23%, which is why I said ~80% of the population don't need vitamin D supplements. The recommendation of 10ug (400 IU) a day comes from an actual, proper study conducted by the government, which found that was all that was needed to prevent deficiency for people in winter.

 

[Silvanus]

That part just says scientists think in theory it will work, that wasn't directly taken from Dr. Madhi because it said scientists plural or the reporter did a shit job at writing.

Dude, you're still subtly rewriting it: the wording is "expressed hope that in theory it would". And the only section in the whole article that elaborates on it is that quote from Madhi.

If you think there's some other unmentioned basis for that belief, then... present it. Because it's not in the article; you're reading into it something that isn't there.

I didn't say that. I said antibodies aren't the only key to immunity because we know that from other viruses. Thus, doing antibody studies on when they wane doesn't really have relevance. We know that covid immunity doesn't need antibodies because we'd have a mass of reinfections already because IIRC those antibody studies have been saying like 6 months for antibodies being around or maybe 3 months (because that was being thrown around early on). I would've got it again if immunity was only 6 months. T-cell immunity may or may not be key but we know antibodies are the end-all-be-all either.

It "doesn't have relevance" that antibodies wane? Are you serious?

Look, if you're saying that antibodies waning is irrelevant, then that means you believe we can be just as immune with t-cells alone and without antibodies. You're the one here attributing "end-all-be-all" status to something here: you're ascribing it to t-cells, if you're willing to believe that they alone provide all the protection we need and antibodies "aren't relevant".

That's in direct contradiction to the researchers. They didn't say antibodies are all that matters, but they clearly said they're important and without them reinfection is possible. It's right there in the link, in unambiguous terms.

I'm saying the norm is that viruses don't mutate to become resistant to vaccines (not that they can't), that's why I've continually been saying the vaccines are EXPECTED/LIKELY to work against different variants. You keep saying I'm going by best-case scenarios when I'm just going with likely-case scenarios.

But you have no human coronavirus vaccinations to base this on. You're solely basing it on the hope that it's like some other viruses and not like others.

And what few studies actually have been done, which show there's a discrepancy in how well vaccines work on different strains... with those, you're willing to assume that it's all fine based on the researchers saying "we hope". No solid basis, just theoretical possibility.

It would be incredibly negligent for any government to base public policy on conjectures and hopes, rather than caution.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Dude, you're still subtly rewriting it: the wording is "expressed hope that in theory it would". And the only section in the whole article that elaborates on it is that quote from Madhi.

If you think there's some other unmentioned basis for that belief, then... present it. Because it's not in the article; you're reading into it something that isn't there.



It "doesn't have relevance" that antibodies wane? Are you serious?

Look, if you're saying that antibodies waning is irrelevant, then that means you believe we can be just as immune with t-cells alone and without antibodies. You're the one here attributing "end-all-be-all" status to something here: you're ascribing it to t-cells, if you're willing to believe that they alone provide all the protection we need and antibodies "aren't relevant".

That's in direct contradiction to the researchers. They didn't say antibodies are all that matters, but they clearly said they're important and without them reinfection is possible. It's right there in the link, in unambiguous terms.



But you have no human coronavirus vaccinations to base this on. You're solely basing it on the hope that it's like some other viruses and not like others.

And what few studies actually have been done, which show there's a discrepancy in how well vaccines work on different strains... with those, you're willing to assume that it's all fine based on the researchers saying "we hope". No solid basis, just theoretical possibility.

It would be incredibly negligent for any government to base public policy on conjectures and hopes, rather than caution.

They wouldn't say "in theory" if it didn't align with their understanding of how vaccines/immunity work. Based on that knowledge, it should work and they hope that. Like if I'm working on a PC and I say in theory something something something, it means I expect said thing to happen. If the vaccines still working didn't align with the known knowledge, they just would've said they hope and nothing else like I hope restarting a PC fixes said some problem I have no clue about. But if the keyboard stops working but there's still the NumLock light on (so it still has power), I will say restarting the PC in theory will work because the keyboard driver probably merely got corrupted in memory.

It's not hope, it's probability. Most viruses (that are all from different "families" of virus) mostly share XYZ to a degree so this virus probably shares that too. We know why the flu is an anomaly and we know covid does not share what makes the flu an anomaly so it probably won't be like the flu. It's basic logic you apply to all kinds of different things, it doesn't mean it's guaranteed or anything, just likely.

We didn't do those type of studies before on previous viruses, this very well can be par for the course. We didn't do constant genome mapping of say measles. All these same covid stories very likely could've been stories for measles too if we did all this same stuff back then and had a 24/7 news cycle that needed to inundate us with constant pointless information. I'm not basing public policy on this, you don't need to base it on predictions because you'll have the real-time data of number of infections and the trends (up or down) like we do right now. I predict infections will be very low in the summer like last summer (even more so since more have been infected + vaccinated) and then those numbers won't go back up in the fall because we'll have enough infected and vaccinated by that point for herd immunity. You don't have to base any policy on that, we'll have the real-time data to know whether that prediction is true or not. What to base policy is stuff like say kids not spreading covid so schools can be open or people not transmitting outside (science says so) so stupid governors don't close outdoor dining at restaurants.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

??

No, I've said that some studies have shown 1+% IFR, that those studies are quite possibly accurate, that the mean across multiple studies for Western countries comes out about 0.6-0.8%, and I suspect the end IFR before vaccines and stuff will be closer to 0.5%.



I'm guessing you defined deficiency as under 50 nmol/L; this is not the recognised measure of deficiency in the UK. Secondly, it states only 48% of 4-10s have under 50 nmol/L.

Deficiency is set as <25 nmol/L in the UK. That table therefore shows 10% of 4-10s are deficient. Deficiency in the other age groups is 21-23%, which is why I said ~80% of the population don't need vitamin D supplements. The recommendation of 10ug (400 IU) a day comes from an actual, proper study conducted by the government, which found that was all that was needed to prevent deficiency for people in winter.

Again, based on common sense, how could those 1% studies be accurate when I can double the US infection count (which there's no way it's not at least double) and get an IFR of under 1% in a wealthy country with a higher than average elderly population?

Technically insufficient as defined by the paper, which is a UK study. Vitamin d is no longer just viewed as important for bone health and avoiding rickets, which is what the UK's recommendations are based off. We need more vitamin d than we've thought. The fact that the UK recommendation is a 400 IU supplement daily shows how behind the times they are. What you need to not get rickets and what your immune system needs are 2 different values.

"Considering the percentage of people below 25 nmol/L (defined as deficient in vitamin D status) or below 50 nmol/L (defined as insufficient in vitamin D status)"

My fault, I totally misread that table a bit combining values that shouldn't be combined. Pretty much all age groups above 10 years old are 60+% insufficient in vitamin d.