Endemic=ALWAYS a part of our lives

23 Sep 2021 06:55 #1 by homeagain

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

23 Sep 2021 09:22 #2 by FredHayek
Agree, but as we develop new methods of curing it and the fear of the newness drop off, people will learn to live with it like the seasonal flu and the common cold. Our ancestors learned to live with polio, cholera, and typhoid. Plus our bodies will develop their own antibodies to fight the multiple variants. It will be interesting to see if it lowers the life expectancy rate. Might save Social Security a lot if seniors start dying years earlier.

Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

15 Nov 2021 13:55 #3 by homeagain

homeagain wrote: www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasa...ual-gmail-definition

AND we come to acceptance.....WHEN?


FOR SC ......is this the new norm?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

15 Nov 2021 18:21 #4 by Rick
Have you not figured out this is about control and not about saving lives or science?

The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

16 Nov 2021 09:00 #5 by homeagain
ACTUALLY,it is about how little we pay attention until too late.....LAURIE GARRETT (posted before) was writing about THIS EXACT issue years ago.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

16 Nov 2021 09:33 #6 by Rick

homeagain wrote: ACTUALLY,it is about how little we pay attention until too late.....LAURIE GARRETT (posted before) was writing about THIS EXACT issue years ago.

Some of us have been paying attention for a long time and our voices are being silenced by the media. Social media is even banning decent and information that may harm the WH narrative. At least you're paying attention now, many are still lost in the trust they have in this inept government.

The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

16 Nov 2021 10:16 - 16 Nov 2021 10:18 #7 by ScienceChic
It was always going to become endemic, and scientists said that from the very beginning. With as fast as it spread around the globe and the millions that it infected, and now the number of cross-species infections, SARS-CoV-2 is here to stay. The goal in the beginning, before we had vaccines, was to reduce spread by reducing contact and thereby save lives. The measures that were put into place were based on proven practices since time began - limited time spent in the presence of those who are sick. Since this virus has a long asymptomatic incubation period during which individuals are infectious, there was no way to know who was sick and who wasn't at first which meant uncontrolled spread unless everyone stayed home.

Once vaccines were created, tested, and rolled out, the next goal became to get as many vaccinated as possible, in order of highest risk to lowest, so as to reduce spread and severe symptoms resulting in hospitalization and death.

Now that the vaccines are out, and data continues to be collected on immunity and infections, it's clear that those who are unvaccinated are at highest risk of severe symptoms resulting in hospitalization and death. Those who have been infected naturally have some protection, but not nearly as much as those who have been vaccinated. The vaccines are not perfect, some work better than others, and all seem to need a booster to improve waning immunity over time, just like most of our other vaccines - nothing unexpected there.

The next step is the creation and implementation of effective drug therapies that can reduce the severity of symptoms and chances of death in those who become infected, which at some point most everyone will just like the flu. This will hopefully allow those who haven't been vaccinated, or in whom immunization is limited or complicating health factors are present, to be saved rather than going on ventilators.

What's unfortunate in all of this is that we have a higher percentage of unvaccinated people than we should. Yes, there will always be those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons, and they deserve our compassion and utmost care in taking precautions to prevent infecting them; however, those who have willfully refused to get vaccinated simply because they don't trust "Big Pharma" or "Big Brother" and blatantly ignore the cold hard data (not the bullshit on YouTube, social media, or FOX news) staring them in the face will continue to be reservoirs of infection so that this keeps spreading, thus providing the opportunity for it to mutate into something far worse. We've been damn lucky that it doesn't impact kids or healthy adults as much as the 1918 flu did, but at some point either this (particularly with the diversity of animal species its infecting) or some other virus will. Hopefully, by then, our leaders will have pulled their heads out of their asses, figured out how to better communicate with the public, how to improve our supply chains, local manufacturing (hello 3D printing), healthcare infrastructure, and stockpiles of emergency supplies so we don't go through such a shitshow next time (like telling people not to wear masks, not because they weren't effective, but because they didn't want the public to make a run like they did with toilet paper on the miniscule supplies available and needed for healthcare workers). That's where the focus needs to be - on proactively working out these logistical problems for the next time.

"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

16 Nov 2021 12:53 #8 by ramage
" Those who have been infected naturally have some protection, but not nearly as much as those who have been vaccinated." SC

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections


www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

Conclusions This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

16 Nov 2021 13:35 - 16 Nov 2021 13:36 #9 by homeagain
"This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.''

PER ARTICLE POSTED.....just another POV....NO solid information,WITH proof.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

16 Nov 2021 14:53 - 16 Nov 2021 14:54 #10 by ramage
You realize of course, that when scientists have information that should be disseminated quickly they publish and appropriately note that their research has not been peer-reviewed. A process that can take 6-12 months or more. Your response was expected.

www.science20.com/news_articles/how_reliable_peer_review

s4be.cochrane.org/blog/2018/01/16/peer-r...eliable-information/
"Is there bias associated with peer-review?

Peer-review is by no means perfect. It is itself subject to bias, as most things in research are. Evidence from a peer-reviewed article does not make it reliable, based only on that fact.

For example, there is evidence suggesting poor interrater agreement among peer-reviewers, with a strong bias against manuscripts that report results against reviewers’ theoretical perspectives [5]. Although a study reported in the Journal of General Internal Medicine showed that reviewers agreed barely beyond chance on recommendations to accept/revise vs. reject, editors nevertheless placed considerable weight on reviewer recommendations [6]. In addition, it has been shown that large numbers of public reviews are more thorough in reviewing academic articles than a small group of experts [7].

There is also ongoing debate about reviewer bias in the single-blind peer review process. Some suggest that if reviewers know the identity of authors, there may be implicit bias against women [8] and those with foreign last names or from less prestigious institutions [9]. Therefore, some researchers argue that double-blind peer review is preferable [10].

In addition, some argue that, for multidisciplinary articles, it is difficult to recruit reviewers who are well-versed in all the relevant methodologies since they which tend to cover multiple different topics in a single study, which works against authors of such papers [3].

Some advice from the latter citation.

"Critically appraise the article yourself, especially the Methods section

Don’t just read the abstract or main results. Read the paper from start to finish, especially the Methods section. Critically appraise the paper yourself, with help from some of the other ‘Key Concept’ blogs from our series. Ask yourself, which features could lead to bias? And just as importantly, what is not included but should be included which could cause bias?"

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.151 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum
sponsors
© My Mountain Town (new)
Google+