4 ms·

My dude, if you review the literature (or just google it) you will find that there is common reference to 'subclinical' and 'asymptomatic' COVID-19. First-page

My dude, if you review the literature (or just google it) you will find that there is common reference to 'subclinical' and 'asymptomatic' COVID-19. First-page google results for 'asymptomatic COVID-19' include an article in The BMJ from four days ago titled 'Covid-19: Asymptomatic cases may not be infectious, Wuhan study indicates.' I'm not saying I buy the findings in that study, but be conservative with what you claim to be 'common knowledge.' Again, regarding CT values, continuity of positive nasal swab PCR results can be totally divorced from significantly decreased lower-respiratory-tract viral titers, as the Nature monkey paper you sent me pointed out. I ask you again: What is the mechanism by which a vaccine takes a person who would normally be symptomatic, and magically makes them asymptomatic, while having zero impact on titers of virus in the body? I'm not talking about behavior here. I'm talking about direct, biochemical mechanisms inside of the human body. The vaccine is reducing viral titers. And by reducing viral titers, it is reducing shedding into the lower airway. And by reducing shedding into the lower airway, it is reducing the number of viral particles contained in respiratory droplets expelled from the airway. And by reducing the number of viral particles that exit that airway, it is reducing transmission as it is intended. Behavior is a separate discussion entirely, but consider the mechanism I have described. It is not only reducing viral titers in those who would normally be symptomatic, it is also reducing viral titers in those who would normally be asymptomatic. Those silent carriers that are walking around among us, well, now they're walking around spreading a hell of a lot less virus. And that is a big deal, especially in places like Oklahoma, Idaho, Arizona, South Dakota, Wyoming, Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina, etc, which as I mentioned earlier, have zero state-level requirement for anyone to wear a mask at all. You are claiming [or at least not refuting svrb's argument] that vaccines have no impact on titers of virus in the body, and yet somehow they magically render people asymptomatic by a mechanism as-yet unknown to biology. That's just not how it works. And the fact that vaccines knock down the amount of virus being spread around is a big deal, especially in places where there are no mask requirements in place. Earlier you accused me of spreading false information, and asked me to apologize for spreading beliefs that can put people in danger, but have you come to see that this discussion is not as clear-cut and binary as you originally made it seem? I promise I'm not the enemy.

acqq 6y ago
The reality is exactly the opposite of what you claim: all the studies of infectiousness of SARS-CoV-2, and even of other respiratory viruses correlate with detection of high virus load in the upper respiratory tract, and don't correlate with the detection of the high virus load in the lower respiratory tract. Here the most recent meta-analysis of the most relevant studies: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(20)30172-5/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5... Your reasoning therefore completely doesn't match the results of many different studies across the world, and also doesn't fit with which people are considered infectious in practice, with all the millions of people involved. So, the study that I've quoted earlier, which detected high viral load in the upper respiratory tract of non-human primate animal model therefore suggests exactly what I've already mentioned that it suggests, namely, that we can not assume that vaccine provides sterilizing immunity unless the later studies with humans show otherwise. And that is exactly how the UK is going to proceed with their vaccination policy, as I've already documented, and also matches the statement of Pfizer's CEO. (I also note that you again try to insinuate that my claims are something that I've never even mentioned, hoping to change the topic. Please don't.)
- phobosanomaly 6y ago
  Dude. This paper you're sending me is saying exactly what I'm saying. My reasoning matches all of the papers you've sent me so far: You're saying: > "all the studies of infectiousness of SARS-CoV-2, and even of other respiratory viruses correlate with detection of high virus load in the upper respiratory tract" But, RNA fragments detected by PCR in nasal swabs != live, infectious virus. The paper you linked is saying, instead: "Our study shows that despite evidence of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding in respiratory and stool samples, viable virus appears to be short-lived. Therefore, RNA detection cannot be used to infer infectiousness." "Our findings suggest that, although patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection might have prolonged RNA shedding of up to 83 days in upper respiratory tract infection, no live virus was isolated from culture beyond day 9 of symptoms despite persistently high viral RNA loads." Residual RNA from lysed cells is sticking around and getting picked up on nasal swabs even when actual, infectious, titers of virus in the body are plummeting, and patients are no longer infectious. I used to work with RNA in a research lab! The shit is everywhere. Our experiments used to get contaminated with RNA from the lab next door all the time. I used to have to spray my bench with a bleach solution every day, sanitize my pipettes, and work at night so my RT-PCR experiments didn't get contaminated. That's in the air. Imagine how long it hangs out in the moist, snotty environment of the nasal cavity. "Nevertheless, most studies demonstrate faster viral clearance among asymptomatic individuals than those who are symptomatic." "This finding is in keeping with viral kinetics observed with other respiratory viruses such as influenza and MERS-CoV, in which people with asymptomatic infection have a shorter duration of viral shedding than symptomatic individuals." Giving these people a vaccine will help them clear the infection even faster, which will help reduce community transmission, especially in places where they're now wandering around without masks on, in full compliance with state law. I'm happy that the UK is prepared to make aggressive and forward-thinking health policy. Good for the UK, but this ain't the UK. There are a lot of countries like the US where I live, as well as my neighbor Mexico that don't have an NHS, and don't live on a small island with a well-functioning government. These vaccines will help to reduce community transmission in places where the scenes from urban hospitals can best be described as nightmarish. "No part of the world has been as devastated by the pandemic as Latin America. Mexico, Brazil, Peru and other Latin American countries — hobbled by weak health systems, severe inequality and government indifference — have several of the highest deaths per capita from the virus in the world. And unlike in Europe, the United States and many other regions, the outbreak in Latin American has not struck in waves. It hit furiously in the spring and has continued for months, with few of the respites savored elsewhere, however briefly, around the world. By the first week of September, the 10 countries with the highest deaths per capita were all in Latin America or the Caribbean." https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/world/americas/mexico-coronavirus-covid-iztapalapa.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/world/americas/mexico-cor... Again, shift your frame of reference. The rest of the world does not look like the UK and Europe. Enjoy living somewhere that isn't a charnel house. The vaccines reduce community transmission, and I can say that confidently because I have outlined a pretty clear mechanism for it and there is zero data you have presented that points in the other direction, despite the fact that you keep saying it. Celebrate that fact that we now have this tool in our arsenal. I promise I'm not the enemy. I promise I'm not conjuring things out of thin air. I'm reading all of the papers you're sending me, and I'm drawing valid scientific insights from them that are applicable to the broader world-at-large, not just the UK with the NHS at the helm, which is able to take steps that for much of the rest of the world is an unrealistic luxury.

acqq 6y ago

The reality is exactly the opposite of what you claim: all the studies of infectiousness of SARS-CoV-2, and even of other respiratory viruses correlate with detection of high virus load in the upper respiratory tract, and don't correlate with the detection of the high virus load in the lower respiratory tract. Here the most recent meta-analysis of the most relevant studies: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(20)30172-5/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5... Your reasoning therefore completely doesn't match the results of many different studies across the world, and also doesn't fit with which people are considered infectious in practice, with all the millions of people involved. So, the study that I've quoted earlier, which detected high viral load in the upper respiratory tract of non-human primate animal model therefore suggests exactly what I've already mentioned that it suggests, namely, that we can not assume that vaccine provides sterilizing immunity unless the later studies with humans show otherwise. And that is exactly how the UK is going to proceed with their vaccination policy, as I've already documented, and also matches the statement of Pfizer's CEO. (I also note that you again try to insinuate that my claims are something that I've never even mentioned, hoping to change the topic. Please don't.)

phobosanomaly 6y ago
Dude. This paper you're sending me is saying exactly what I'm saying. My reasoning matches all of the papers you've sent me so far: You're saying: > "all the studies of infectiousness of SARS-CoV-2, and even of other respiratory viruses correlate with detection of high virus load in the upper respiratory tract" But, RNA fragments detected by PCR in nasal swabs != live, infectious virus. The paper you linked is saying, instead: "Our study shows that despite evidence of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding in respiratory and stool samples, viable virus appears to be short-lived. Therefore, RNA detection cannot be used to infer infectiousness." "Our findings suggest that, although patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection might have prolonged RNA shedding of up to 83 days in upper respiratory tract infection, no live virus was isolated from culture beyond day 9 of symptoms despite persistently high viral RNA loads." Residual RNA from lysed cells is sticking around and getting picked up on nasal swabs even when actual, infectious, titers of virus in the body are plummeting, and patients are no longer infectious. I used to work with RNA in a research lab! The shit is everywhere. Our experiments used to get contaminated with RNA from the lab next door all the time. I used to have to spray my bench with a bleach solution every day, sanitize my pipettes, and work at night so my RT-PCR experiments didn't get contaminated. That's in the air. Imagine how long it hangs out in the moist, snotty environment of the nasal cavity. "Nevertheless, most studies demonstrate faster viral clearance among asymptomatic individuals than those who are symptomatic." "This finding is in keeping with viral kinetics observed with other respiratory viruses such as influenza and MERS-CoV, in which people with asymptomatic infection have a shorter duration of viral shedding than symptomatic individuals." Giving these people a vaccine will help them clear the infection even faster, which will help reduce community transmission, especially in places where they're now wandering around without masks on, in full compliance with state law. I'm happy that the UK is prepared to make aggressive and forward-thinking health policy. Good for the UK, but this ain't the UK. There are a lot of countries like the US where I live, as well as my neighbor Mexico that don't have an NHS, and don't live on a small island with a well-functioning government. These vaccines will help to reduce community transmission in places where the scenes from urban hospitals can best be described as nightmarish. "No part of the world has been as devastated by the pandemic as Latin America. Mexico, Brazil, Peru and other Latin American countries — hobbled by weak health systems, severe inequality and government indifference — have several of the highest deaths per capita from the virus in the world. And unlike in Europe, the United States and many other regions, the outbreak in Latin American has not struck in waves. It hit furiously in the spring and has continued for months, with few of the respites savored elsewhere, however briefly, around the world. By the first week of September, the 10 countries with the highest deaths per capita were all in Latin America or the Caribbean." https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/world/americas/mexico-coronavirus-covid-iztapalapa.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/world/americas/mexico-cor... Again, shift your frame of reference. The rest of the world does not look like the UK and Europe. Enjoy living somewhere that isn't a charnel house. The vaccines reduce community transmission, and I can say that confidently because I have outlined a pretty clear mechanism for it and there is zero data you have presented that points in the other direction, despite the fact that you keep saying it. Celebrate that fact that we now have this tool in our arsenal. I promise I'm not the enemy. I promise I'm not conjuring things out of thin air. I'm reading all of the papers you're sending me, and I'm drawing valid scientific insights from them that are applicable to the broader world-at-large, not just the UK with the NHS at the helm, which is able to take steps that for much of the rest of the world is an unrealistic luxury.