Evidence now suggests herd immunity likely impossible without a vaccine

[BritManToo]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Has anyone ever seen such a massive international effort indeed completion on vaccines?

Yes, HIV and the research has been ongoing for 30 years with huge amounts of government and private money poured in.

No vaccine.

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

Yes, HIV and the research has been ongoing for 30 years with huge amounts of government and private money poured in.

No vaccine.

Fair point but this is a different kind of virus and there have already been multiple novel coronavirus vaccines showing promise. It's yet another case of not all things being the same. I think HIV has been largely addressed with treatments and there is even a preventative therapy called prep. 

[BritManToo]

Just now, Jingthing said:

I think HIV has been largely addressed with treatments and there is even a preventative therapy called prep. 

Didn't stop my best pal dying of AIDs last summer.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 7/16/2020 at 11:07 AM, richard_smith237 said:

100% agree with this well written and informative post. 

 

One point to add is the potential for antigenic drift of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, whether or not there even is any drift, but if so, is the Vaccine built from and targeting the virus before its evolved, would it still be effective?

 

Then there is also how effective a vaccine is (influenza is reported as being 40-60% effective) 

Thus, IF the vaccine is only 60% effective and the the CFR of Covid-19 is 1% The vaccine could be saving 6 out of 1000 people who contract Covid-19 .

The 99% (possible CFR figures) who contacts Covid-19 don’t all get an easy ride - its estimated 85% have no or very weak symptoms and the rest have severe symptoms with 4% requiring a respirators.

 

With those numbers [CFR 1% / Vaccine 60% Effective / 15% of Covid-19 cases are serious)

 

The vaccine would be result in approximately 96 people out of 1000 who would be saved from severe impact or dieing.

 

All Estimated numbers of course, but it tells us the importance of the vaccine and that its not just saving lives but preventing people from becoming extremely ill. 

 

 

Perhaps so, but a vaccine is by no means guaranteed and probably not available for a year or so. It's just not possible to lock down that long, as the people would rebel en mass.

Also, it's just not possible to make 8 billion doses any time soon, and no guarantee even if it is safe and does work that it will last longer than the current flu vaccine. If Corona mutates by then, it's back to square one.

I doubt they even have a plan other than telling us a vaccine is coming, which some of us don't believe. I certainly won't take anything that hasn't been around a long while, to see what side effects happen from a rushed product.

IMO eventually they'll have to give up and just stop locking down to try and recover some economy from the debris of our civilization. Our world may indeed be in danger of destruction, but from what we did, and not in any way from the disease itself.

[Jingthing]

10 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Didn't stop my best pal dying of AIDs last summer.

Yes people still die from it but it is no longer a death sentence for most all infected. 

Another point is to look at the opinion of Dr. Fauci, a key historic figure in the fight against Aids. It's my impression that he believes that a novel coronavirus vaccine will happen. Again they are not the same thing. 

[thaibeachlovers]

15 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Fair point but this is a different kind of virus and there have already been multiple novel coronavirus vaccines showing promise. It's yet another case of not all things being the same. I think HIV has been largely addressed with treatments and there is even a preventative therapy called prep. 

No one should be getting HIV anymore. Use condoms ( or don't have risky sex at all ) and don't share needles. Other than contaminated blood used for transfusions and that sort of thing, which should not happen any more, what other way is there of contracting it? Tell me if it's transmissible without blood to transfer it.

[Logosone]

21 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Yes, HIV and the research has been ongoing for 30 years with huge amounts of government and private money poured in.

No vaccine.

HIV is a different kind of virus, a stealth virus. Its mutability makes a vaccine an impossibility.

 

Thankfully coronaviruses are different, they are not stealth viruses and a vaccine is a possibility.

 

Doesn't meant there will be a reliable one but since most people can fight off coronaviruses with their immune system most of us should be okay.

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

No one should be getting HIV anymore. Use condoms ( or don't have risky sex at all ) and don't share needles. Other than contaminated blood used for transfusions and that sort of thing, which should not happen any more, what other way is there of contracting it? Tell me if it's transmissible without blood to transfer it.

Bait ignored. 

Let's not let this thread be hijacked to HIV. 

[nemo38]

The average age of people dying from the virus is 82. It isn't more dangerous than a regular flu.

 

What use will a vaccine be when viruses mutate anyway?

[Tounge Thaied]

It's amazing how many virologists we have here at TV forums. ???? ???? ????

Edited July 17, 2020 by Tounge Thaied

[Tounge Thaied]

This video is a very short recap of what was and still is happening in response to the - so called - killer virus pandemic. It explains in simple terms how we were led to believe that there was an ‘never before seen’ outbreak of a tremendous deadly virus. While instead we did not witness any unique outbreak, just the unforseen panic created around a pretty ‘normal’ new Corona virus, that turned out (as independent scientists told us before the ‘pandemic’) to be comparable to a steep flu (aka as contagious and as deadly as Influenza). 

https://www.bitchute.com/video/dopzId71uVVr/

 

Souce: https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/#latest

 

[mommysboy]

I really like JT's posts.

 

But on this one I have just one word:

 

T-cells!

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Our world may indeed be in danger of destruction, but from what we did, and not in any way from the disease itself.

Would point out I played no part in the process and reject your use of 'we'.

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, Tounge Thaied said:

It's amazing how many virologists we have here at TV forums. ???? ???? ????

It's amazing how many people believe everything any government tells them.

 

Try thinking for yourself ......

How trustworthy is Trump, Boris, Prayut or any other 'world leader' you care to name?

Then ask yourself, why do I believe them (and their paid mouthpieces) this time?

Edited July 17, 2020 by BritManToo

[rumak]

5 hours ago, checkered flag said:

Plus a reefer, so you don't know or care if you get it. "Don't worry be happy"

weed sometimes worked the opposite with me....... made me  think too mutt 

[rumak]

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

Try thinking for yourself ......

good luck with that !   ????????????

[MikeN]

22 hours ago, yuyiinthesky said:

 

Please explain how a virus can spread if his hosts, which it needs to reproduce, die?

 

Everytime a host dies, it becomes unavailable for the virus to reproduce it. If survival and reproduction is the target, then this is a failure.

 

You may want to read up a little on Darwin and evolution, instead of scaremongering journalism.

Or are you one of these people which claim the virus has its own conscience, its free will and that will is to kill us?

 

 

 

With this virus you can be infectious before you start showing symptoms, and even when you do realize you are sick, you do not drop dead immediately! There is plenty of time for the virus to spread and reproduce before a host dies. You are giving the virus too much credit.

[yuyiinthesky]

7 hours ago, MikeN said:

With this virus you can be infectious before you start showing symptoms, and even when you do realize you are sick, you do not drop dead immediately! There is plenty of time for the virus to spread and reproduce before a host dies. You are giving the virus too much credit.

If you’re dead, you spread nothing but bad smell. If all around you are dead, the smell gets even worse, and any virus they all might host, dies. Sooner or later there’s no-one around you to infect any more. Extreme social distancing. And the survival of the virus - a failure. So if the virus would have a will and choose a strategy to grow and survive, killing would not be a part of it.

[J Town]

7 hours ago, yuyiinthesky said:

If you’re dead, you spread nothing but bad smell. If all around you are dead, the smell gets even worse, and any virus they all might host, dies. Sooner or later there’s no-one around you to infect any more. Extreme social distancing. And the survival of the virus - a failure. So if the virus would have a will and choose a strategy to grow and survive, killing would not be a part of it.

This virus is not defined as a living thing. It's like dangerous dirt. It HAS no mind, it can't make decisions on who or who not to infect. It has no will, it makes no strategy.

[rabas]

7 hours ago, J Town said:

This virus is not defined as a living thing. It's like dangerous dirt. It HAS no mind, it can't make decisions on who or who not to infect. It has no will, it makes no strategy.

You don't need a human like brain for life, memory, or learning. Any replicating system with genetic codes can remember, evolve, and make strategic decisions. An amoeba has no brain yet searches for food, decides what to eat, avoids danger, and evolves to become a better amoeba.

 

Viruses definitely have memory in their genes, which is how they learn to infect new things and replicate more efficiently. It  decides what and how to infect based on past experience. Viruses  are particularly good at evolving because they easily change their encoded memory. IOW, they learn easily.

 

SARS2 seems to be rather smart. Just today:

Scientists identify six different types of coronavirus with increasing severity levels

 

[GroveHillWanderer]

13 minutes ago, rabas said:

Viruses definitely have memory in their genes, which is how they learn to infect new things and replicate more efficiently. It  decides what and how to infect based on past experience.

Viruses do not have memory, they do not learn and they do not make decisions. The nature of RNA replication means that a certain level of random mutation occurs. Sometimes the mutations are beneficial to them, sometimes they're not. It's purely arbitrary, there's no learning or decision-making involved.

 

[J Town]

4 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Viruses do not have memory, they do not learn and they do not make decisions. The nature of RNA replication means that a certain level of random mutation occurs. Sometimes the mutations are beneficial to them, sometimes they're not. It's purely arbitrary, there's no learning or decision-making involved.

 

They're not even considered a living thing.

[rabas]

6 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Viruses do not have memory, they do not learn and they do not make decisions. The nature of RNA replication means that a certain level of random mutation occurs. Sometimes the mutations are beneficial to them, sometimes they're not. It's purely arbitrary, there's no learning or decision-making involved.=

Only in a narrow sense when you restrict your definitions to human or animal like organized neuron-based systems. Science often applies these terms to nature in a broader sense. Even silicon chips and metals have memory as do human genes. Human, animal genes have large amounts of memorized information. I am talking in the broader scientific sense.

 

If you add the words 'in a human sense' throughout your statement then I would agree. If you insist your statement is universal, then you will need to defend the idea that computers cannot perform logical operations or use memory, or learn. AI people will  strenuously disagree.

[rabas]

21 minutes ago, J Town said:

They're not even considered a living thing.

 

"For about 100 years, the scientific community has repeatedly changed its collective mind over what viruses are." --  Scientific American: Are Viruses Alive?

Edited July 18, 2020 by rabas

[xylophone]

On 7/17/2020 at 8:17 AM, checkered flag said:

The renown virologist and epidemiologist CMarshall, has just spoken to us. We should all believe it now. Its full or hope and optimism. Which of the three stooges is he?

The cancel culture really want to remove optimism and hope that's promoted by POTUS.

I don't think cmarshall stands a chance against the trump supporters, especially when the "optimism and hope" is being promoted by his followers.

 

A picture paints a thousand words.......

 

[ukrules]

We do seem to be forgetting about something here, a very large percentage of the population don't get ill at all with this virus, and plenty appear to have a mild 'inconvenience' of an infection which passes quickly and easily.

 

This is already immunity in a large percentage of the population, the question is what causes it, do we have this immunity already and if not, how to get it?

 

Looking back into history we know that immunity can and does happen from 'similar' viruses, a major example being that of cowpox and smallpox. The mild generally non lethal cowpox was found to prevent the much more lethal smallpox - it stopped it dead and that was back in the 1700's.

 

Whatever immune response happened when someone caught cowpox, often dairy farmers when it was first noticed, protected against a subsequent smallpox infection, they simply didn't get it.

 

This means they had an acquired immunity.

 

Something similar is going on with COVID, we're already on the way to herd immunity as there are a lot of what they call 'asymptomatics' being found when contact trace tests are being done. Technically they're infected as they breathed it in but the test is almost certainly detecting the rna from the dead virus particles that are left behind after the immediate immune response destroyed it. This leaves them without an illness but with a positive test.

 

The PCR test was never designed to be a diagnostic and the Nobel prize winning inventor warned against this at the time.

 

I'm sure there are plenty of scientists out there looking for the virus which does what cowpox did for smallpox - induce immunity. Something that induces immunity can be thought of as a natural vaccine - like cowpox.

 

We know about the previous 4 coronarivus colds but that doesn't mean there's not plenty more of them, after all 2 of them were only found recently. There is speculation that there could be plenty more coronaviruses doing the rounds for centuries and we would never really know about them as they're so harmless.

 

Here's a recent link for some light reading : https://www.technologynetworks.com/immunology/news/common-cold-coronaviruses-could-help-produce-anti-sars-cov-2-immune-cells-337504

 

 

Edited July 18, 2020 by ukrules

[Logosone]

12 minutes ago, ukrules said:

We do seem to be forgetting about something here, a very large percentage of the population don't get ill at all with this virus, and plenty appear to have a mild 'inconvenience' of an infection which passes quickly and easily.

 

This is already immunity in a large percentage of the population, the question is what causes it, do we have this immunity already and if not, how to get it?

 

This.

 

And yes, of course we are on the way to herd immunity, how could it be otherwise?

 

It is possible the immunity will not last forever, but immunity is a fact.

 

Of course there are 5000 coronaviruses that were found in bats, the chances of future, more deadly viruses can not be discounted.

 

What are the odds, when the planet is vastly overpopulated with old and obese people that a virus appears that strikes down old and obese people? Michel Foucault when told of the AIDS virus refused to believe it, 'it's too perfect' he said. Same again now.

[Heppinger]

On 7/16/2020 at 7:20 AM, ukrules said:

Don't despair, there's one thing missing from this article that's also missing from every other article that's been doing the rounds lately - all on the same subject.

 

There's no mention of B cells whatsoever. It's almost like the journalists don't know what they are, either that or they're choosing to ignore it completely as it makes for a better headline and more clicks.

They also fail to stipulate the difference between covid-19 and coronavirus.   I guess if people knew that a coronavirus can include the common cold then they wouldn't be scared sh*tless and so keen to relinquish their freedoms.

[Jingthing]

9 minutes ago, Heppinger said:

They also fail to stipulate the difference between covid-19 and coronavirus.   I guess if people knew that a coronavirus can include the common cold then they wouldn't be scared sh*tless and so keen to relinquish their freedoms.

Rubbish about colds. 

This version of coronavirus is massively more lethal than the common cold. 

If people are comforted by blatant misinformation as you posted, that's really a shame. 

It's not about fear. It's about facts. Wearing masks is not too much to ask. There are limits to freedoms when you're endangering other people. 

[Jingthing]

11 hours ago, J Town said:

This virus is not defined as a living thing. It's like dangerous dirt. It HAS no mind, it can't make decisions on who or who not to infect. It has no will, it makes no strategy.

Very true. Also they are completely apolitical and don't have a concept of borders.