Coronavirus: How dangerous a threat?

Page 294 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 20, 2021
2
84
110
That is some wild reporting even considering the source. Here is a site for three major locations in Texas - Dallas / Austin / Houston this article obviously did not do any research and are lazy. The cases and hospitalizations are similar or less than last summer and obviously less than this past winter where the deaths and hospitalizations were much higher. Take a look at the historical data in the links I have attached.

Where was the reporting when the mask mandates were lifted in Texas and numbers went down? Lazy reporting and lazy to just post it up here without any actual comments.

The worst situations the state of Texas has is in Border towns. The disease is running rampant due to various reasons that could all be stopped but the political will is all out of fcks.




Meanwhile Johns Hopkins site does not show a strain on medical facilities for the USA that is greater than this past winter.
 
Mar 20, 2021
2
84
110
Dr. Marty Makary, M.D. M.P.H.
John's Hopkins Medicine.

"Why COVID-19 Vaccines Should Not Be Required for All Americans."

Some will say that Dr. Makary is a quak. I have seen it here every time someone has a difference of opinion with respect to this virus.

I got the vaccine only after I had a very long discussion with my doctor. I'm in my 50's also and was very reluctant but decided I'm on the downhill now and can try to help stop the spread with the vax. I also despise Masks and saw the vax as a avenue to stop wearing the face diaper. I don't wear a mask at all now. I was diagnosed with adult late onset asthma last year. NO I do not think and the pulmologist did not think its a side effect or long stupid covid. Sometimes I feel like the majority who complain about long covid were hypochondriacs before the virus and this just helps add to their list.
I had an antibody test a long time ago because I was sure that I had covid back in March 2020 and it showed that I indeed had covid at some point.

The one thing I am wondering is when these "media" outlets come out with things like Pfizer might be 40something % effective and Moderna 70something % effective vs the delta do doctors recommend we get Moderna if we have only taken the Pfizer?
 
I just listened to a report about the (big) increase in Ivermectin prescriptions in this area. People are 'doctor shopping' (going to several doctors trying to get one to prescribe), and going to feed stores to get the animal version. One pharmacist said that he sometimes fills one prescription a year for it, but has already filled 25 this year. Another pharmacist said that she had never filled a prescription for it until this summer, but has now filled a few dozen.

I really don't understand this. You flat out don't trust science/government...who ever/whatever, but an animal anti-parasite drug seems like a better/safer bet than a vaccine developed specifically for SARS-CoV-2? Not to mention that it was developed by that same science/government that you don't trust. Maybe the fact that it has been around for 50 years makes them feel 'safer', but it was never tested or used like this so is it safe(r)? I hope that people don't have serious issues.

I have concerns about these doctors as well. Opioid crisis anyone?
Hydroxychloroquine redux. When the vast majority recover from an infection like is seen with covid, the ground is ripe for snakeoil. Weinsteins and other professional contrarians own a lot of the blame for the rise of ivermectin.
All three were previously infected?
See below.
I'll let dj answer your question, but 'natural immunity' is being used to describe two things at this point: your immune system's ability to fight pathogens (SARS-CoV-2 or any), and the immunity you develop from having an infection.

If you can find the Crotty thread on this topic I think that you will find it informative.
Exactly. The actual definition of natural immunity is not the same as acquired immunity even if they are often used interchangeably.
 
Yes...I understand Dr. Makary's position on those that do not have natural immunity from prior infection should take the vaccine. I was referring to his statement on natural immunity from prior COVID infection:

"Also: Some people already have 'natural immunity' – that is, immunity from prior COVID infection. During every month of this pandemic, I've had debates with other public researchers about the effectiveness and durability of natural immunity. I've been told that natural immunity could fall off a cliff, rendering people susceptible to infection. But here we are now, over a year and a half into the clinical experience of observing patients who were infected, and natural immunity is effective and going strong. And that's because with natural immunity, the body develops antibodies to the entire surface of the virus, not just a spike protein constructed from a vaccine. The power of natural immunity was recently affirmed in an Israeli study, which found a 6.7 times greater level of protection among those with natural immunity vs. those with vaccinated immunity."

"Requiring the vaccine in people who are already immune with natural immunity has no scientific support. While vaccinating those people may be beneficial – and it's a reasonable hypothesis that vaccination may bolster the longevity of their immunity – to argue dogmatically that they must get vaccinated has zero clinical outcome data to back it. As a matter of fact, we have data to the contrary: A Cleveland Clinic study found that vaccinating people with natural immunity did not add to their level of protection."
Again, you should read elsewhere too because there is (developing) science to support boosting naturally acquired immunity. I'll have to go back and look, but the Cleveland Clinic study was limited (even prefaced by them), but without rereading, I can't remember the details.

EDIT:
"Cleveland Clinic recommends those who are eligible receive the COVID-19 vaccine. "

"We recently shared research that provides insight into how the immune system protects the body after a confirmed COVID-19 infection. The study followed Cleveland Clinic caregivers over five months as the vaccination process was beginning. The data showed that the vaccine was extremely effective in preventing COVID-19 infection. In addition, we found that none of the previously infected employees who remained unvaccinated were re-infected over the duration of the study. This information could help guide vaccination efforts should there be a shortage of vaccine supply and in countries where vaccine supply is limited.

"This is still a new virus, and more research is needed. It is important to keep in mind that this study was conducted in a population that was younger and healthier than the general population. In addition, we do not know how long the immune system will protect itself against re-infection after COVID-19. It is safe to receive the COVID-19 vaccine even if you have previously tested positive, and we recommend all those who are eligible receive it."

It is impressive that none of the caregivers got re-infected because even if they aren't working directly with SARS-CoV-2 patients, hospitals and clinics have to be pretty high risk environments.
 
Last edited:
Some will say that Dr. Makary is a quak. I have seen it here every time someone has a difference of opinion with respect to this virus.

I got the vaccine only after I had a very long discussion with my doctor. I'm in my 50's also and was very reluctant but decided I'm on the downhill now and can try to help stop the spread with the vax. I also despise Masks and saw the vax as a avenue to stop wearing the face diaper. I don't wear a mask at all now. I was diagnosed with adult late onset asthma last year. NO I do not think and the pulmologist did not think its a side effect or long stupid covid. Sometimes I feel like the majority who complain about long covid were hypochondriacs before the virus and this just helps add to their list.
I had an antibody test a long time ago because I was sure that I had covid back in March 2020 and it showed that I indeed had covid at some point.

The one thing I am wondering is when these "media" outlets come out with things like Pfizer might be 40something % effective and Moderna 70something % effective vs the delta do doctors recommend we get Moderna if we have only taken the Pfizer?
Makary isn't a quack, but as a surgical oncologist he isn't a top expert on disease (edit: obviously he's a cancer expert, but not a virologist), nor should any of us want/expect him to be. There is developing/increasing research/evidence that naturally acquired immunity CAN be boosted by a vaccine. Two important things of note from his interview: he stressed the importance of getting vaccinated, he used the Cleveland Clinic employee report as his basis for 'no scientific support (yet)'. IMO, based on things I have read, there is scientific support for vaccines boosting naturally acquired immunity. Actually one of the links that you shared a few weeks ago discussed it.

Quacks at Johns Hopkins are pretty few and far between (and when they do pop up they don't last long).
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Ultrairon
Why do you guys even bother arguing anymore?

Everyone in this thread is already convinced they are right, whom are you trying to convince?
For the most part I'm not expecting to convince anyone. But if I share something that helps someone, that's good. I don't think that we are very far apart really though.

For example, ultrairon can't understand why vaccinated people would care about others' vaccination status. I shared why from my perspective. They may completely disregard my perspective or maybe think about it. They also just shared that post vaccine they haven't worn a mask. I'll share that I still wear a mask indoors just in case I am asymptomatic because I don't want to take a chance on getting other people sick (work requires masks, and the only other indoor place I go is the store).
 
Reactions: Tricycle Rider
Counterpoint.

So I finally read that link, and I cannot see where they show that it is wrong to say that the study in question showed that PhD's were the education group with the highest level of hesitancy in May (the most recent data point).

I don't get the point of inserting "[among the vaccine hesitant]" in the quote of the press release, nor how it is backed up by the text in said press release.

This is the first half of the press release:

»A study conducted by researchers from Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh has found that vaccine hesitancy has decreased among US adults by one-third between January and May 2021. While tentative people are concerned about COVID-19 vaccine safety and potential side effects, those with stronger views tend to distrust the government. The researchers published their results on medRxiv, a preprint website, and announced their results today, ahead of peer-reviewed publication.

The researchers, Robin Mejia, special faculty at the CMU Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences and senior author on the paper, and Wendy C. King, associate professor of epidemiology in Pitt’s Graduate School of Public Health and first author, reviewed the responses of approximately 1 million Americans per month to assess trends in vaccine acceptance.

The researchers partnered with the Delphi Group at CMU, who run an ongoing national COVID-19 survey in collaboration with the Facebook Data for Good group.

The survey asked people whether they would take a vaccine were it offered to them today. People who said “probably not” or “definitely not” were considered to be vaccine hesitant.

Mejia and King analyzed the data by race, education, US region and Trump support in the 2020 election to assess time trends and how each group’s outlooks changed regarding vaccination. The data from May provides the current relationship between a broad range of factors and vaccine acceptance.

The largest decrease in hesitancy between January and May by education group was in those with a high school education or less. Hesitancy held constant in the most educated group (those with a PhD); by May PhD’s were the most hesitant group. While vaccine hesitancy decreased across virtually all racial groups, Black people and Pacific Islanders had the largest decreases, joining Hispanics and Asians at having lower vaccine hesitancy than white people in May.«

---

It flat out confirms that by May PhD's were the most hesitant group (by education). And it is super easy to actually check the numbers in the paper.

The "fact-checking" site in question (thruthorfiction.com) seems super low-grade, funded by clicks and staffed by an editor and two journalists.

---

And so what if PhD's were the education group that was most vaccine hesitant in May?
 
Meanwhile, the number of first jabs are nearing a halt here in Denmark.

47,013 people have had their first shot this past week so our total is 4,329,975 people with their first shot (74 % of the total population). At this rate it will take more than a month before we get to 90 % of the invited (12 years old or older) vaccinated. Here you can see the development of the number of first shots:

 
So I finally read that link, and I cannot see where they show that it is wrong to say that the study in question showed that PhD's were the education group with the highest level of hesitancy in May (the most recent data point).

I don't get the point of inserting "[among the vaccine hesitant]" in the quote of the press release, nor how it is backed up by the text in said press release.

This is the first half of the press release:

»A study conducted by researchers from Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh has found that vaccine hesitancy has decreased among US adults by one-third between January and May 2021. While tentative people are concerned about COVID-19 vaccine safety and potential side effects, those with stronger views tend to distrust the government. The researchers published their results on medRxiv, a preprint website, and announced their results today, ahead of peer-reviewed publication.

The researchers, Robin Mejia, special faculty at the CMU Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences and senior author on the paper, and Wendy C. King, associate professor of epidemiology in Pitt’s Graduate School of Public Health and first author, reviewed the responses of approximately 1 million Americans per month to assess trends in vaccine acceptance.

The researchers partnered with the Delphi Group at CMU, who run an ongoing national COVID-19 survey in collaboration with the Facebook Data for Good group.

The survey asked people whether they would take a vaccine were it offered to them today. People who said “probably not” or “definitely not” were considered to be vaccine hesitant.

Mejia and King analyzed the data by race, education, US region and Trump support in the 2020 election to assess time trends and how each group’s outlooks changed regarding vaccination. The data from May provides the current relationship between a broad range of factors and vaccine acceptance.

The largest decrease in hesitancy between January and May by education group was in those with a high school education or less. Hesitancy held constant in the most educated group (those with a PhD); by May PhD’s were the most hesitant group. While vaccine hesitancy decreased across virtually all racial groups, Black people and Pacific Islanders had the largest decreases, joining Hispanics and Asians at having lower vaccine hesitancy than white people in May.«

---

It flat out confirms that by May PhD's were the most hesitant group (by education). And it is super easy to actually check the numbers in the paper.

The "fact-checking" site in question (thruthorfiction.com) seems super low-grade, funded by clicks and staffed by an editor and two journalists.

---

And so what if PhD's were the education group that was most vaccine hesitant in May?
So what? Shrugs.

My takes.

1) the data found that 90% of 4 year college grads were not hesitant. That does not match any reality as it exists in the US, so what value is the survey at all?

2) potentially related to 1. This study was never actually published.
 
[
Some will say that Dr. Makary is a quak. I have seen it here every time someone has a difference of opinion with respect to this virus.

I got the vaccine only after I had a very long discussion with my doctor. I'm in my 50's also and was very reluctant but decided I'm on the downhill now and can try to help stop the spread with the vax. I also despise Masks and saw the vax as a avenue to stop wearing the face diaper. I don't wear a mask at all now. I was diagnosed with adult late onset asthma last year. NO I do not think and the pulmologist did not think its a side effect or long stupid covid. Sometimes I feel like the majority who complain about long covid were hypochondriacs before the virus and this just helps add to their list.
I had an antibody test a long time ago because I was sure that I had covid back in March 2020 and it showed that I indeed had covid at some point.

The one thing I am wondering is when these "media" outlets come out with things like Pfizer might be 40something % effective and Moderna 70something % effective vs the delta do doctors recommend we get Moderna if we have only taken the Pfizer?
Late onset asthma isn't that uncommon even though most people develop asthma in childhood. I have known quite a few people that developed it much later than usual. My asthma developed at about age 5 then I virtually grew out of it at around 20 and never had much trouble/ if any with it between 20 and 50 or so but the last five years have seen it return although not as severe as it was in childhood but sometimes bad enough. I am getting the vaxx this week for obvious reasons. Long covid seems to affect younger women more than anyone else similar to chronic fatigue. Doctors are still unsure why.
 
Mar 20, 2021
2
84
110
So what? Shrugs.

My takes.

1) the data found that 90% of 4 year college grads were not hesitant. That does not match any reality as it exists in the US, so what value is the survey at all?

2) potentially related to 1. This study was never actually published.
They Say - "It flat out confirms that by May PhD's were the most hesitant group (by education). And it is super easy to actually check the numbers in the paper." You say - "So what? Shrugs." It seems strange to me that folks with PhD's would be hesitant unless they are reading some data or info that has driven them to that conclusion?

Looking for uneducated rednecks who support one political party that refuse to be vaxed, should not be the focus yet is appears that it is. Nearly 40% of Mississippi is black. The rest is essentially white. They have a super high obesity rate across all demo's. They have the least amount of people vaxed. The focus is out of whack and the more you everyone stick to that one line of uneducated rednecks the push back will grow.

Maybe the focus should be on forcing the FDA to hurry up?
 
Mar 20, 2021
2
84
110
[

Late onset asthma isn't that uncommon even though most people develop asthma in childhood. I have known quite a few people that developed it much later than usual. My asthma developed at about age 5 then I virtually grew out of it at around 20 and never had much trouble/ if any with it between 20 and 50 or so but the last five years have seen it return although not as severe as it was in childhood but sometimes bad enough. I am getting the vaxx this week for obvious reasons. Long covid seems to affect younger women more than anyone else similar to chronic fatigue. Doctors are still unsure why.
My asthma almost exactly mirrors yours. I had asthma as a child and it was gone by maybe the age of 6 or 8. The last year and now have been a change for me. I thought it was allergies to something only it was not.

I heard today that fauci says moderna booster is no good.

Anyone have thoughts on getting the moderna 1- 2 after getting Pfizer 1-2?
 
weird, I didn't get a paywall.
I had two free articles to read. Great article. Especially part why vaccines are failing to halt transmission with Delta but are still effective against serious Covid.

Delta changed the game indeed. It will hit everyone sooner than later and then I hope it will be like cold when everybody will have some form of imunity to it. I hope worse variant will not emerge. For sure I know I wouldnt want to be unvaccinated.
 
It seems strange to me that folks with PhD's would be hesitant unless they are reading some data or info that has driven them to that conclusion?
They didn't become more hesitant, they held on to the level of hesitancy they already had. And I'd think that the majority of American PhD's have their degree outside of Science.

In general, I think PhD's are more ideologically motivated than the average American, and less ideologically flexible.
 
They Say - "It flat out confirms that by May PhD's were the most hesitant group (by education). And it is super easy to actually check the numbers in the paper." You say - "So what? Shrugs." It seems strange to me that folks with PhD's would be hesitant unless they are reading some data or info that has driven them to that conclusion?
If it wasn't clear, my 'so what' response was my suggestion not to dwell too much on a weird standalone result from a survey that looks like it totally missed what it was intending to examine. Drawing conclusions from this data is not very worthwhile. But this data has been posted around social media by the usual subjects because, whether it is true or not, it reaffirms a lot of the narratives that many people want to be true.

I would guess the venn diagram of people who shared this story and the people who think Fauci is the villain of the pandemic are about concentric. The lab leak story that Fauci funded the research that 'created COVID' is another story in the same genre.

They didn't become more hesitant, they held on to the level of hesitancy they already had. And I'd think that the majority of American PhD's have their degree outside of Science.
I think you have it reversed. 75-80% of the doctorates awarded are in Science and engineering. The other fields don't have the same job demand, nor the financial infrastructure to pay an entry level 'salary' and tuition waivers. (Thank you NIH). Overall, there are a lot of people with advanced degrees that believe in "woo" medicine no matter the discipline. But they still are a relatively small group. Only about 2.5m people in the US have a PhD.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
We are legion.

Engineers are grouped with science fields, but I don't think they contribute that many to the pile. But I don't know the exact numbers offhand. Med/bio PhDs are so devalued, that one of those just gets you entry into another 5+ year unofficial program of study that really didn't exist until the grant boom of the 90s minted so many new PhDs that the whole system needed to create another tier to account for them.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
They didn't become more hesitant, they held on to the level of hesitancy they already had. And I'd think that the majority of American PhD's have their degree outside of Science.

In general, I think PhD's are more ideologically motivated than the average American, and less ideologically flexible.
I shared this when this 'info' was shared...I'm not surprised that PhD's would have analysis to paralysis about vaccination, because that's just how many of them are wired. Everyone on my team has a Master's, but we collaborate with a lot of PhD's on a weekly/monthly basis.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS