4 ms·

I have been reading the papers, I'm just giving you the benefit of the doubt of having read them and seen something I missed. I read scientific papers in biolog

I have been reading the papers, I'm just giving you the benefit of the doubt of having read them and seen something I missed. I read scientific papers in biology all the time over the course of making a living, and I know how difficult they are to actually understand and interpret. I see PhDs and MDs make mistakes in interpreting them all the time. I make mistakes and miss things when reading them all the time. That's why graduate students, and professors, and medical residents, and doctors often read and discuss them in journal clubs, seminars, and conferences. The process is very similar to what we are doing right now. I just read the paper you cited there. They're not determining titers of infectious virus in the upper respiratory tract with any other method than PCR. So, yeah, I'm right. I had just assumed you had read the papers and seen something I missed. You're making me second-guess myself, but I'm doing a pretty good job of cruising through these papers and understanding what they're actually doing. Again, from the other paper you sent me, "RNA detection cannot be used to infer infectiousness." The Pfizer CEO, Albert Bourla is a 'business executive and veterinarian." Uğur Şahin MD, chief executive of Germany’s BioNTech, and whose main fields of research are cancer and immunology, and whose company actually developed the underlying technology of the mRNA vaccine jointly released with Pfizer had this to say: '"I'm very confident that transmission between people will be reduced by such a highly effective vaccine - maybe not 90% but maybe 50% - but we should not forget that even that could result in a dramatic reduction of the pandemic spread," he said.' https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54949799 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54949799 No sterilizing immunity required. I'm measuring my interpretation relative to actual scientists. Not just a random CEO who held a press conference. Albert, although he probably doesn't have as deep an understanding of the biology as Uğur, probably knows a hell of a lot more about manufacturing processes, and global distribution networks. Imagine reducing asymptomatic transmission by 50%! That's insane. That's so awesome! It's going to cut transmission of this virus in half, even by a conservative estimate. If I was able to sit down with Uğur, (who obviously has a much deeper understanding of the mechanism of action than I do) I'm willing to bet that his mechanism isn't so different than mine. Sounds like he and I agree on a lot!

acqq 6y ago
The papers I've read use virus growth in cells, and even electron microscopy. I don't even know how you managed to claim now that only PCR is used in all the relevant papers. It's no use for me even trying to discuss with you when your "reading" ends with recognizing that some paper mentions "PCR" and then claiming you're right in general, and all the epidemiologists and virologists aren't. Anyway, AstraZeneca study just came out, and apparently even when the vaccine efficacy was 90%, the number of asymptomatic cases in the group where that was also measured dropped only 27% percent, which suggest again that the societies can't depend on vaccine providing sterilizing immunity -- it still appears that the vaccinated will be able to transmit the virus, just like the materials that I've referred to suggested. That's why the UK starts with vaccinating first the most vulnerable, they know it's about protecting from illness, not about making the vaccinated impossible to transmit, as it's covered in many news in the UK -- the expectation is that, at the end, the immunity of population will only be reached once everybody is vaccinated. You can claim that nobody but you gets it, and that your "theory" is better than what's observed in many papers, but it's also a certain symptom.
- phobosanomaly 6y ago
  Can't measure viral titer with an electron microscope. All the papers are measuring viral titer in the upper airway with PCR. They may be confirming virus is present with other technologies, but the only way they're measuring viral titer is with PCR. I don't claim that nobody but me gets it. The head of BioNTech seems to be saying exactly what I'm saying. I don't claim to say anything different from him. Let's both come together to draft a public health statement that we both would feel comfortable releasing to the public. I'll go first: Although new vaccine technologies will (1) aid in preventing members of the public from becoming severely ill with COVID-19, (2) will help significantly reduce the number of people contracting the virus in a clinically meaningful sense, and (3) will help to significantly reduce transmission in a community setting, it will be important for members of the public to continue wearing masks and maintaining social distancing until such a significant portion of the population is vaccinated that infection rates as-measured by nasal-swab PCR begin to show significant decreases, and ICU capacity is restored. Based on this, we will incrementally re-open and relax restrictions as deemed appropriate. Sound ok to you?

acqq 6y ago

The papers I've read use virus growth in cells, and even electron microscopy. I don't even know how you managed to claim now that only PCR is used in all the relevant papers. It's no use for me even trying to discuss with you when your "reading" ends with recognizing that some paper mentions "PCR" and then claiming you're right in general, and all the epidemiologists and virologists aren't. Anyway, AstraZeneca study just came out, and apparently even when the vaccine efficacy was 90%, the number of asymptomatic cases in the group where that was also measured dropped only 27% percent, which suggest again that the societies can't depend on vaccine providing sterilizing immunity -- it still appears that the vaccinated will be able to transmit the virus, just like the materials that I've referred to suggested. That's why the UK starts with vaccinating first the most vulnerable, they know it's about protecting from illness, not about making the vaccinated impossible to transmit, as it's covered in many news in the UK -- the expectation is that, at the end, the immunity of population will only be reached once everybody is vaccinated. You can claim that nobody but you gets it, and that your "theory" is better than what's observed in many papers, but it's also a certain symptom.

phobosanomaly 6y ago
Can't measure viral titer with an electron microscope. All the papers are measuring viral titer in the upper airway with PCR. They may be confirming virus is present with other technologies, but the only way they're measuring viral titer is with PCR. I don't claim that nobody but me gets it. The head of BioNTech seems to be saying exactly what I'm saying. I don't claim to say anything different from him. Let's both come together to draft a public health statement that we both would feel comfortable releasing to the public. I'll go first: Although new vaccine technologies will (1) aid in preventing members of the public from becoming severely ill with COVID-19, (2) will help significantly reduce the number of people contracting the virus in a clinically meaningful sense, and (3) will help to significantly reduce transmission in a community setting, it will be important for members of the public to continue wearing masks and maintaining social distancing until such a significant portion of the population is vaccinated that infection rates as-measured by nasal-swab PCR begin to show significant decreases, and ICU capacity is restored. Based on this, we will incrementally re-open and relax restrictions as deemed appropriate. Sound ok to you?