Cali is seeing unexpected rise in cases for vaccinated citizens...

Gonzo3705

Head Coach
Gold Member
Oct 21, 2006
12,487
14,701
113
The Bay or the Sierras
Because it is crap. People wear all kinds of masks made of all kinds of things. Problem. They touch their face and mask continually because they are uncomfortable and then touch everything else. Problem. They pull them down to talk constantly because no one can hear. Problem. I could go on. Could they help in a very small way? probably. Enough to mandate the masks especially for vaccinated people? hell no.
You described a person wearing the mask problem, not the mask. You are coming across more as a mask complainer at this point and not challenging their efficacy.

Summers during college I worked construction. I had to wear a hard hat and many times paired with a mask. It wasn't my favorite thing to do but I indeed survived.
 

damcde

All-American
Gold Member
Oct 22, 2007
4,547
8,623
113
It’s so puzzling why people are losing faith in the CDC


It is puzzling to see why people can't seem to understand how science works. You can only go off of the data that you currently have. When that data is extremely sparse, then you have to make the best decision from what you have. As I said yesterday, we will see what happens as we see more data from other places. Just because one piece shows one result, another 5 can come out next week that are better and show the exact opposite. Which then things will change again.

I will point out that of this ends up to be true, and the CDC did not enforce masks but it was shown that they knew about this data, then people would be complaining that they did nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HuskerDrummer5

biscuitbagger3

All-American
Gold Member
Aug 9, 2009
4,641
5,177
113
I'm not sure how ****ing stupid people are but............

imagine a hole that is 1" and the virus is 25 times smaller, which it is........

which means the virus would be .04"

this is simple math used so a simpleton can understand it...........

I thought you believed in science????????
Imagine thinking this is at all relevant. Because you think this is a credible talking point about masks shows you’re clueless AF.
 

Cash68847

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 9, 2017
11,938
18,687
113
Considering that this isn’t the case for pretty much any other respiratory virus, I would bet that this will face the same problem as the vaccines. Which is that immunity to severe disease will hold for a long time, but immunity to reinfection will wane after a year or so. I don’t need an article to describe to me how respiratory immunity works.

I have said from the very beginning that immunity to complete transmission would not be long lasting. Honestly the immunity to transmission was much much better than I thought it would be at the beginning. However, immunity to severe disease, which is what really matters in the end, still remains very strong. Which again, is to be expected.



Interesting indeed, although this is limited data so far. A couple things still need to be done. 1. Is this happening in asymptomatic vaccinated? 2. Is the virus actually alive? You can clear virus but still have remnants around that show up on PCR.

I am curious to see what comes out of other places. UK and Israel still disagree on vaccine effectiveness, with one saying about 80 percent and the other at 40. This is the crappy part about the beginning stages of something like this. You can have a study say that there is the same viral load one week, and then the next week 5 say that it isn’t the same, or confirm. But unfortunately this is the side of science that will be used against it.



They are comparing a number that you know for certain, vs. a number that you don’t have a clear denominator for. You know who has been vaccinated. However, you have very unclear number of people who have been previously infected. Trying to compare them is really not fair. But I am pretty sure that Alex knows that as he has been doing this type of shvt the entire pandemic.
Do you still think the vaccine is more effective than actually getting covid and beating it or do you see it as being pretty similar?
 

whiteshoes97

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 30, 2004
12,900
10,754
113
It is puzzling to see why people can't seem to understand how science works. You can only go off of the data that you currently have. When that data is extremely sparse, then you have to make the best decision from what you have. As I said yesterday, we will see what happens as we see more data from other places. Just because one piece shows one result, another 5 can come out next week that are better and show the exact opposite. Which then things will change again.

I will point out that of this ends up to be true, and the CDC did not enforce masks but it was shown that they knew about this data, then people would be complaining that they did nothing.
The CDC said that viral load seemed to be the same whether people were vaccinated or not…. But gathered this data largely from vaccines that were not distributed in the United States?
 

damcde

All-American
Gold Member
Oct 22, 2007
4,547
8,623
113
The CDC said that viral load seemed to be the same whether people were vaccinated or not…. But gathered this data largely from vaccines that were not distributed in the United States?
But that isn’t true. The data is for the Pfizer vaccine (BNT162b2) which is the most prevalent vaccine here in the US. And then the AstraZeneca (ChadOX), which although is not used here but the same technology as the J and J. Although the figure that people are assuming that they are referring to is only ChadOX.


Looking at the paper briefly, I am pretty sure this is not what they were talking about. They specifically said that they took 100 samples and compared to viral load, which is not in this paper. In the recommendation, after the discussion of this paper there is this quote “Unpublished data are consistent with this, and additional data collection and studies are underway to understand the level and duration of transmissibility from Delta vaccine breakthrough infections in the United States and other settings.” This unpublished data is very likely what they were talking about yesterday.

 

damcde

All-American
Gold Member
Oct 22, 2007
4,547
8,623
113
Do you still think the vaccine is more effective than actually getting covid and beating it or do you see it as being pretty similar?

I don’t know if I ever said that the vaccine is more effective than natural infection.

It is very hard to directly compare, as there have only been a few studies to do so. However, those that do, for the mRNA vaccines pretty much every single one I have seen show that the antibody levels are higher after both shots. Although the antibody levels for those with previous infection rise up to the same level after one dose. There was a study showing that after the vaccine, a group of cells called Germinal Center B cells stick around for many weeks (at least 12). It is these cells that typically turn into your very good antibody producing cells. It is harder to see GC B cells following natural infection (mostly access to location of where they are), but I would be surprised if they stick around for that long after natural infection. However, this is all for IgG, which is good for protection against severe disease. But all signs point to the vaccine winning out here.

IgA is what mainly protects the upper respiratory tract, and what you likely need to block all infection. Vaccines, outside of intranasal, are traditionally not great at inducing an IgA response. However the mRNA vaccines actually induced a pretty solid IgA response. Which is why they were much better at blocking transmission. However, it would be expected that natural infection would be better at inducing IgA, which seems to be the case. Although there are some conflicting results, as a paper they came out a month ago show pretty much no IgA for natural infection. Regardless, the IgA islikely going to decline and wane within 6-12 months. Although it would be expected to see that waning decline for the vaccines since they started with lower levels. So maybe win for natural infection, bu in the end, they both will be moot.

T cells, particularly CD8 T cells are better with natural infection. At first there was a concern that there wasn’t too much of a T cell response after vaccines, but several researchers at La Jolla (Weiskopf, Crotty and Sette) have had a few studies showing that there is a good T cell response generated by the vaccine. However, T cells typically respond to several proteins of viruses, including internal proteins thay antibodies typically don’t recognize. With the vaccine only having the spike protein, you are going to limit the T cell response to one protein. So natural infection will have an advantage here. What that advantage actually comes out to be as far as protective immunity, isn’t really known. But how T cells work, they

However, the vaccine has the huge advantage of not making you sick and being to spread it to others. And not putting you in the hospital (outside of some rare 1-10 in a million doses side effect) Vs. natural infection, where the cumulative hospitalization rates are higher in all age groups.

Also they have the big advantage of being able to be boosted when immunity starts to want (like IgA), or if the virus mutates out of even the IgG response. It isn’t uncommon for vaccines to have multiple strains, such as the polio vaccine and HPV vaccine).
 
Last edited:

Cash68847

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 9, 2017
11,938
18,687
113
I don’t know if I ever said that the vaccine is more effective than natural infection.

It is very hard to directly compare, as there have only been a few studies to do so. However, those that do, for the mRNA vaccines pretty much every single one I have seen show that the antibody levels are higher after both shots. Although the antibody levels for those with previous infection rise up to the same level after one dose. There was a study showing that after the vaccine, a group of cells called Germinal Center B cells stick around for many weeks (at least 12). It is these cells that typically turn into your very good antibody producing cells. It is harder to see GC B cells following natural infection (mostly access to location of where they are), but I would be surprised if they stick around for that long after natural infection. However, this is all for IgG, which is good for protection against severe disease. But all signs point to the vaccine winning out here.

IgA is what mainly protects the upper respiratory tract, and what you likely need to block all infection. Vaccines, outside of intranasal, are traditionally not great at inducing an IgA response. However the mRNA vaccines actually induced a pretty solid IgA response. Which is why they were much better at blocking transmission. However, it would be expected that natural infection would be better at inducing IgA, which seems to be the case. Although there are some conflicting results, as a paper they came out a month ago show pretty much no IgA for natural infection. Regardless, the IgA islikely going to decline and wane within 6-12 months. Although it would be expected to see that waning decline for the vaccines since they started with lower levels. So maybe win for natural infection, bu in the end, they both will be moot.

T cells, particularly CD8 T cells are better with natural infection. At first there was a concern that there wasn’t too much of a T cell response after vaccines, but several researchers at La Jolla (Weiskopf, Crotty and Sette) have had a few studies showing that there is a good T cell response generated by the vaccine. However, T cells typically respond to several proteins of viruses, including internal proteins thay antibodies typically don’t recognize. With the vaccine only having the spike protein, you are going to limit the T cell response to one protein. So natural infection will have an advantage here. What that advantage actually comes out to be as far as protective immunity, isn’t really known. But how T cells work, they

However, the vaccine has the huge advantage of not making you sick and being to spread it to others. And not putting you in the hospital (outside of some rare 1-10 in a million doses side effect) Vs. natural infection, where the cumulative hospitalization rates are higher in all age groups.

Also they have the big advantage of being able to be boosted when immunity starts to want (like IgA), or if the virus mutates out of even the IgG response. It isn’t uncommon for vaccines to have multiple strains, such as the polio vaccine and HPV vaccine).
So the short answer is we don’t know yet.
 

jbskers

Athletic Director
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
13,323
3,617
113
It is puzzling to see why people can't seem to understand how science works. You can only go off of the data that you currently have. When that data is extremely sparse, then you have to make the best decision from what you have. As I said yesterday, we will see what happens as we see more data from other places. Just because one piece shows one result, another 5 can come out next week that are better and show the exact opposite. Which then things will change again.

I will point out that of this ends up to be true, and the CDC did not enforce masks but it was shown that they knew about this data, then people would be complaining that they did nothing.
the science says masks don't work but that hasn't stopped the CDC from recommending them
 

damcde

All-American
Gold Member
Oct 22, 2007
4,547
8,623
113
So the short answer is we don’t know yet.

Of course we don't know 100 percent yet. This shvt isn't just done in a few months, it takes years to show this type of stuff. But we can look at the data we have now and try and make educated hypothesis of where things stand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gonzo3705

jbskers

Athletic Director
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
13,323
3,617
113
Yeah the science doesn’t say that at all.
show me the peer reviewed studies on the masks?
Even your lord Fauci said in his emails they don't work
I also posted up the math about how they don't work............ I thought you believed in science?
 

damcde

All-American
Gold Member
Oct 22, 2007
4,547
8,623
113
show me the peer reviewed studies on the masks?
Even your lord Fauci said in his emails they don't work
I also posted up the math about how they don't work............ I thought you believed in science?

Here is a review full of peer reviewed studies on masks. I am sure that you will go back to the Dutch study that sent a few hundred people out in public with masks on, in a place that did not have a mask mandate. Which is pretty much useless from a design standpoint, hence why they had a hard time getting it published.

Fauci said that they were going to help in February/Early March. Before it was known that the majority of people infected either were asymptomatic or had very mild symptoms. Then in mid March, data from the cruise ships, and then a couple of studies looking at spread in China which suggested that up to 80 percent of spread was from these people. Hence why by the end of March, Fauci and pretty much every other expert changed their tune about masks.

Like I said, science isn't black and white. When you have limited data, you can only make you conclusions based on what you know. So a lot of conclusions were made based off of how SARS-CoV-1 worked. And it was found out pretty early on that those conclusions were very wrong.
 

JET11

Sophomore
Gold Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,007
847
113
It is puzzling to see why people can't seem to understand how science works. You can only go off of the data that you currently have. When that data is extremely sparse, then you have to make the best decision from what you have. As I said yesterday, we will see what happens as we see more data from other places. Just because one piece shows one result, another 5 can come out next week that are better and show the exact opposite. Which then things will change again.

I will point out that of this ends up to be true, and the CDC did not enforce masks but it was shown that they knew about this data, then people would be complaining that they did nothing.

The issue is more transparency. They need to SHOW the data they are using to back their changing opinions. How hard is it to do that in a succinct fashion? It's the CDC for Christ sake.

Get graphs, get charts, get studies out there and make them widely available for public consumption. Plaster this data on the front page of their website. Make a helpful video connecting the dots for the big dumb idiots. Get this stuff to every major network and news organization on the planet and make it clear. It can't be that hard.

Science is about providing EVIDENCE to support your claims, and we're severely lacking right now in that department from the people who are entrusted with our liberty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whiteshoes97

whiteshoes97

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 30, 2004
12,900
10,754
113
The issue is more transparency. They need to SHOW the data they are using to back their changing opinions. How hard is it to do that in a succinct fashion? It's the CDC for Christ sake.

Get graphs, get charts, get studies out there and make them widely available for public consumption. Plaster this data on the front page of their website. Make a helpful video connecting the dots for the big dumb idiots. Get this stuff to every major network and news organization on the planet and make it clear. It can't be that hard.

Science is about providing EVIDENCE to support your claims, and we're severely lacking right now in that department from the people who are entrusted with our liberty.
Very well put. I’d add that issuing rash public policy edicts that have had massive impacts on millions of peoples lives over the last 16 months seems to be done without much caution
 

damcde

All-American
Gold Member
Oct 22, 2007
4,547
8,623
113
The issue is more transparency. They need to SHOW the data they are using to back their changing opinions. How hard is it to do that in a succinct fashion? It's the CDC for Christ sake.

Get graphs, get charts, get studies out there and make them widely available for public consumption. Plaster this data on the front page of their website. Make a helpful video connecting the dots for the big dumb idiots. Get this stuff to every major network and news organization on the planet and make it clear. It can't be that hard.

Science is about providing EVIDENCE to support your claims, and we're severely lacking right now in that department from the people who are entrusted with our liberty.

I actually agree that they should have shown the actual data for the comparison. Because what has happened now is that all of these websites have run with a paper that I am 99 percent positive isnt even the data they were talking about (did not have the experiment explained by the CDC). Even if it was a simple single figure, they should have shown it.

I also won’t disagree that the CDC’s handling of a lot of messaging has been poor. For example the messaging of why they changed the mask back in April. The data was there, and it was clear why they did it (along with scientists across the entire world). But they did a crappy job of talking about that data. Scientists do a shvtty job of explaining things to the public, which is why we are in this mess.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JET11

Lar Gand

Blackshirt
Gold Member
May 6, 2012
3,015
3,048
113
I actually agree that they should have shown the actual data for the comparison. Because what has happened now is that all of these websites have run with a paper that I am 99 percent positive isnt even the data they were talking about (did not have the experiment explained by the CDC). Even if it was a simple single figure, they should have shown it.

I also won’t disagree that the CDC’s handling of a lot of messaging has been poor. For example the messaging of why they changed the mask back in April. The data was there, and it was clear why they did it (along with scientists across the entire world). But they did a crappy job of talking about that data. Scientists do a shvtty job of explaining things to the public, which is why we are in this mess.

Remember, the White House at that time was running interference and not allowing the true message to get out there.