• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Contagion spreading among the vaccinated

Page 17 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Pohemi420

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2004
4,325
1,786
136
One more thing, if you're concerned about misinformation spreading, and I hope you are, why didn't you call out Zorba on his giant blunder of taking numbers about the IFR from a study that confuses the CFR and the IFR? His suggestion of an IFR of between 1 and 2 percent is WILDLY incorrect isn't it?
Get called out for being a misinformed and dishonest shithead? No biggie, just point a finger and say, "He did it first!" :rolleyes:
You're a clown.
The harm is, in a county with 10 million residents, 66% of which are probably naturally immune and get an unneeded vaccine...
...We can argue about that 66%, but if we can believe this peer-reviewed study:
So treat your sources as fact, even if that "source" was a number pulled out of your arse, disregard anything that says otherwise. :rolleyes:
Okay, clown.
Contrary to what some around here are suggesting, I don't pretend to be an expert in virology or immunity; I AM willing to and trying to learn. If something in that video is incorrect, I'd love to hear.
I'm not a "fucking moron" and find it quite shocking how all y'all have resulted to such names.
You sure argue like you think you're an expert, arguing with actual REAL medical professionals, while insisting you want to learn. So yes, you ARE a fucking moron.
If the clownshoes fit...
What you don't seem to understand is that your body can make new antibodies against a pathogen from the past.
One more time, I'd love to hear from a real expert what the best way to gauge to attack rate of Covid19 in a population would be.
I do know that because of the vaccinations the presence of antibodies against the S protein are obviously NOT a good measure. I did read somewhere that perhaps the antibodies against the N protein would because they are not made during vaccination.
So more claims with supposed anonymous, unverified sources. More telling actual real doctors what "they don't understand".

And there's been pages of this bullshit from you. Call into question or doubt linked sources from others, pass your own off as incontrovertible evidence, and misrepresent the summary by cherry-picking your needed nonsense. Continually argue with people whom are far better informed than you, and have the education and experience to back it up.

You've contributed nothing of value here, simply pages of argumentative bullshit. You're a clown, stomping around in your Ronald McDonald shoes.

Please just do the rest of us a favor and fuck off.
 
Feb 4, 2009
31,386
11,788
136
As I said in another thread the data is already here. Why question it.

Massachusetts is 73-ish percent vaccinated and as of now there are 30 people hospitalized with COVID
EE9857D1-11CB-4796-8C9E-DE3A8193AF48.png

Mississippi is a little less than half the population with a similar land mass. They are 38-ish percent one dose or more vaccinated.
They have 129 hospitalized with COVID.

AD316243-B380-434A-A6C2-D084A6512EF2.png

Honestly what else does anyone need to understand?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

abj13

Senior member
Jan 27, 2005
989
700
136
You did mention it and I did know that to be the case before you mentioned it. Are there cross-reactive antibodies against the S protein too from other coronaviruses?
Not to the RBD and not neutralizing antibodies. Can you show me a cross-neutralizing RBD antibody from seasonal coronaviruses that neutralizes SARS-CoV-2? Please link it. Researchers have even compared the how well anti-nucleocapsid antibodies perform against anti-spike or RBD antibodies. And the S protein wins, going so far that one group found anti-nucleocapsid antibodies were of such poor sensitivity and specificity that it added no value when combined with anti-spike serological assay.

So you DO agree that a sufficiently specific, widely administered T cell test would be the best way to estimate the attack rate? If you're really trying to help me learn just saying where I'm wrong is not nearly as helpful as showing what's right!
Where in that post did I say I agree with such a thing? Please quote it.

Is this right up there with your false claims about me not seeming "to understand is that your body can make new antibodies against a pathogen from the past."

Can you link that one too? I'll wait.

What did you say earlier? "You and SO many only hear what they want to hear, that is clear." When you were saying that, you meant to be referring to yourself, correct?
So wait a second. What you are saying here, and you seem quite informed about this, once you get that germinal center in your system somewhere, you're CONSTANTLY making covid19 antibodies, for the rest of your life? At detectable levels?
Did you bother to read your own links? Good grief. Why do you refuse to read your own links? First it was posting a preprint paper with a confidence interval from 0 to infinity. This is now right up there with your failure to call out the doctor regarding his false claims about not knowing "of a SINGLE disease against which a vaccine provides better protection than natural infection." Instead you called him "smart."

Once again, you've demonstrated how you don't actually care about the science, all you care about is your contradictory claims that you can't even keep straight.

"Antibodies wane! Oh, no, not that, they actually could last up to a lifetime!"
 
Feb 4, 2009
31,386
11,788
136
So given the severity of the situation, we have to give a non-so-fully-tested vaccine instead of waiting. Ok then. So this is now the new precedent .
There have been approximately a billion doses given with hundred of millions fully vaccinated. At what point do you consider this safe? Will you ever consider it safe even if fully approved and billions fully vaccinated?
 
Mar 11, 2004
21,553
3,702
126
There have been approximately a billion doses given with hundred of millions fully vaccinated. At what point do you consider this safe? Will you ever consider it safe even if fully approved and billions fully vaccinated?
That's a rhetorical question, right? Or are you really that stupid yourself? Doesn't matter how long since or how many people get it without issue, it will forever be a rushed (and thus somehow not working or not just not working but actively harmful) vaccine to him. The truth is, he's just going to that because idiots like you can't seem to see through his bullshit and thus you'll forever be duped, when he's an anti-vaxxer dumbass intentionally choosing to be a dumbass and will be a dumbass about everything even tangentially related to this forever.
 
Feb 4, 2009
31,386
11,788
136
That's a rhetorical question, right? Or are you really that stupid yourself? Doesn't matter how long since or how many people get it without issue, it will forever be a rushed (and thus somehow not working or not just not working but actively harmful) vaccine to him. The truth is, he's just going to that because idiots like you can't seem to see through his bullshit and thus you'll forever be duped, when he's an anti-vaxxer dumbass intentionally choosing to be a dumbass and will be a dumbass about everything even tangentially related to this forever.
nah I suspect a paid troll. I am confident he’s had his Sputnik vaccination.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

eikelbijter

Senior member
Aug 27, 2009
299
156
116
Get called out for being a misinformed and dishonest shithead? No biggie, just point a finger and say, "He did it first!" :rolleyes:
You're a clown.

So treat your sources as fact, even if that "source" was a number pulled out of your arse, disregard anything that says otherwise. :rolleyes:
Okay, clown.

You sure argue like you think you're an expert, arguing with actual REAL medical professionals, while insisting you want to learn. So yes, you ARE a fucking moron.
If the clownshoes fit...

So more claims with supposed anonymous, unverified sources. More telling actual real doctors what "they don't understand".

And there's been pages of this bullshit from you. Call into question or doubt linked sources from others, pass your own off as incontrovertible evidence, and misrepresent the summary by cherry-picking your needed nonsense. Continually argue with people whom are far better informed than you, and have the education and experience to back it up.

You've contributed nothing of value here, simply pages of argumentative bullshit. You're a clown, stomping around in your Ronald McDonald shoes.

Please just do the rest of us a favor and fuck off.
SO angry, it's incredible.

Anyways, even the CDC website states that N protein antibodies might be a good way to separate those with natural infections from the ones vaccinated, and that at least SOME of the S protein antibodies targeted for testing DO occur after vaccination and thus are not suitable. I'm not pulling stuff out of my "arse" and MOST of the time I'm not even close to making the supposed points you guys are railing against.

I keep asking questions which nobody answers, instead it's nothing but insults and name calling.

I've asked MULTIPLE times now what the best way to estimate the attack rate of Covid in a population was, but nothing but crickets.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi420

cscpianoman

Golden Member
Feb 10, 2005
1,097
237
116
Just checked with our ICU - 9 of 10 of the patients have COVID. Many of them are young. Walked past the rooms with several intubated and proned. Here we go again. How many times does this need to happen? 2? 3? 7?
 

eikelbijter

Senior member
Aug 27, 2009
299
156
116
Not to the RBD and not neutralizing antibodies. Can you show me a cross-neutralizing RBD antibody from seasonal coronaviruses that neutralizes SARS-CoV-2? Please link it. Researchers have even compared the how well anti-nucleocapsid antibodies perform against anti-spike or RBD antibodies. And the S protein wins, going so far that one group found anti-nucleocapsid antibodies were of such poor sensitivity and specificity that it added no value when combined with anti-spike serological assay.


Where in that post did I say I agree with such a thing? Please quote it.

Is this right up there with your false claims about me not seeming "to understand is that your body can make new antibodies against a pathogen from the past."

Can you link that one too? I'll wait.

What did you say earlier? "You and SO many only hear what they want to hear, that is clear." When you were saying that, you meant to be referring to yourself, correct?

Did you bother to read your own links? Good grief. Why do you refuse to read your own links? First it was posting a preprint paper with a confidence interval from 0 to infinity. This is now right up there with your failure to call out the doctor regarding his false claims about not knowing "of a SINGLE disease against which a vaccine provides better protection than natural infection." Instead you called him "smart."

Once again, you've demonstrated how you don't actually care about the science, all you care about is your contradictory claims that you can't even keep straight.

"Antibodies wane! Oh, no, not that, they actually could last up to a lifetime!"
Alright, thanks for that info about cross-reactivity. So, again, what is the best way then to estimate the attack rate of Covid in any one population?

So is it not true that the titer of Covid 19 antibodies goes down after a while? Isn't that what the booster shots are all about?
 

eikelbijter

Senior member
Aug 27, 2009
299
156
116
From the CDC:

"IgM and IgG antibodies can arise nearly simultaneously (4); however, IgM (and IgA) antibodies decay more rapidly than IgG (4, 6). "

Is your problem with my statement that I said "wane" and not "decay"?

 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi420

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
9,242
5,353
146
I keep asking questions which nobody answers, instead it's nothing but insults and name calling.

I've asked MULTIPLE times now what the best way to estimate the attack rate of Covid in a population was, but nothing but crickets.
You aren't being put upon. Ask questions in a reasonable manner, and quit acting like a jackass, people won't treat you like one. Also stop spewing anti-vax propaganda, especially if you don't understand what you're talking about.

What do you mean by 'the attack rate of COVID in a population'? Like the infection rate? Chance of infection is a little easier to estimate, but it's really hard to estimate the 'rate of infection' of a population because it depends on too many factors. Generally that's done backwards, you see how fast people were infected then estimate from there. (at least i think)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba

eikelbijter

Senior member
Aug 27, 2009
299
156
116
You aren't being put upon. Ask questions in a reasonable manner, and quit acting like a jackass, people won't treat you like one. Also stop spewing anti-vax propaganda, especially if you don't understand what you're talking about.

What do you mean by 'the attack rate of COVID in a population'? Like the infection rate? Chance of infection is a little easier to estimate, but it's really hard to estimate the 'rate of infection' of a population because it depends on too many factors. Generally that's done backwards, you see how fast people were infected then estimate from there. (at least i think)
Per the CDC: "Overall attack rate is the total number of new cases divided by the total population." I'm not a doctor but I believe that is not a new term ;-)


Of course it's done "backwards" as it describes something that has happened already, but anywho, as far as I know, and I'm REALLY trying to learn here, before vaccinations started, one could get a least somewhat of an estimate by measuring Covid19 specific antibodies. As someone else pointed out here, not N protein ones because the cross-reactivity from ones seasonal Corona viruses would give too many false positives. Am I correct here? If I'm not can you PLEASE just explain why instead of calling me names?
 

eikelbijter

Senior member
Aug 27, 2009
299
156
116
Just checked with our ICU - 9 of 10 of the patients have COVID. Many of them are young. Walked past the rooms with several intubated and proned. Here we go again. How many times does this need to happen? 2? 3? 7?
Don't you agree that IF those who've not been vaccinated or have immunity from previous infections get infected, and with as quickly as Delta spreads that might happen quite fast, this pandemic will be over? DrBeen thinks so. Other pandemics have come and gone, even without vaccinations at all.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
9,242
5,353
146
Per the CDC: "Overall attack rate is the total number of new cases divided by the total population." I'm not a doctor but I believe that is not a new term ;-)


Of course it's done "backwards" as it describes something that has happened already, but anywho, as far as I know, and I'm REALLY trying to learn here, before vaccinations started, one could get a least somewhat of an estimate by measuring Covid19 specific antibodies. As someone else pointed out here, not N protein ones because the cross-reactivity from ones seasonal Corona viruses would give too many false positives. Am I correct here? If I'm not can you PLEASE just explain why instead of calling me names?
Yeah, we were actually antibody testing in some places... NY for instance ran an antibody test in APR2020.
Unfortunately, it's time consuming and costly to do so, and aside from 'well that's nifty' it doesn't really mean much to anyone that would care. It's great info for after-action reports, but when you're in the shit with collapsing hospital infrastructure, it's a bit like counting the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Extrapolated however, we could have seen upwards of ~60M infections in the US as of APR2020. Likely lower, due to increased infection rates in populous areas vs rural areas, but close enough to be an uncomfortably large number.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
9,242
5,353
146
Don't you agree that IF those who've not been vaccinated or have immunity from previous infections get infected, and with as quickly as Delta spreads that might happen quite fast, this pandemic will be over? DrBeen thinks so. Other pandemics have come and gone, even without vaccinations at all.
Duh, if you reach herd immunity, you stop the pandemic. You'll also have (tens of?) millions dead however, which isn't a good look. Also, every other country has to participate. If they don't reach herd immunity at the same time, you can have the virus spread back to the US once everyone's antibodies have cooled off... or a variant spreads to which the populous has no antibodies for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv
Feb 4, 2009
31,386
11,788
136
SO angry, it's incredible.

Anyways, even the CDC website states that N protein antibodies might be a good way to separate those with natural infections from the ones vaccinated, and that at least SOME of the S protein antibodies targeted for testing DO occur after vaccination and thus are not suitable. I'm not pulling stuff out of my "arse" and MOST of the time I'm not even close to making the supposed points you guys are railing against.

I keep asking questions which nobody answers, instead it's nothing but insults and name calling.

I've asked MULTIPLE times now what the best way to estimate the attack rate of Covid in a population was, but nothing but crickets.
Because you are pointless.
You are not a medical professional
You are not trained as a medical professional
You cite dubious data that is designed for medical professionals
You act like you can accurately interpret data that is meant for medical professionals
When wrong you don’t admit to being wrong
When proven wrong you say *not a quote* “but some” AND you refuse to acknowledge some means most don’t
You ignore data from medical professionals in this very thread

Add all this together and it becomes pretty obvious you have a goal and you will not stop peddling unverifiable bullshit
Here is a chance to partially redeem yourself. Scroll up to post 403. Why does Mississippi have multiple times more hospitalized with a lower population than Massachusetts? Why is their daily death rate multiple time that of Massachusetts given they are less than half the size. What is different in those two pictures that could explain the variance.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
9,242
5,353
146
Here is a chance to partially redeem yourself. Scroll up to post 403. Why does Mississippi have multiple times more hospitalized with a lower population than Massachusetts? Why is their daily death rate multiple time that of Massachusetts given they are less than half the size. What is different in those two pictures that could explain the variance.
Massachusetts is harder to remember how to spell, so the COVID viruses can't google maps their way as there as easily. Everyone knows that.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,379
25,149
136
Because you are pointless.
You are not a medical professional
You are not trained as a medical professional
You cite dubious data that is designed for medical professionals
You act like you can accurately interpret data that is meant for medical professionals
When wrong you don’t admit to being wrong
When proven wrong you say *not a quote* “but some” AND you refuse to acknowledge some means most don’t
You ignore data from medical professionals in this very thread

Add all this together and it becomes pretty obvious you have a goal and you will not stop peddling unverifiable bullshit
Here is a chance to partially redeem yourself. Scroll up to post 403. Why does Mississippi have multiple times more hospitalized with a lower population than Massachusetts? Why is their daily death rate multiple time that of Massachusetts given they are less than half the size. What is different in those two pictures that could explain the variance.
It was amusing when he claimed to be the only person discussing the issue rationally.
 
Feb 4, 2009
31,386
11,788
136
Massachusetts is harder to remember how to spell, so the COVID viruses can't google maps their way as there as easily. Everyone knows that.
Funny but seriously why need more data than that. The effectiveness is right there and easy to understand.
I don’t care if someone who recovered from Covid does regular antibody tests to make sure they are still protected. Who the fuck has time or money to do that long term.
I don’t care that some of those testing have long term immunity. That just means most who recover from Covid do not have long term immunity per what is understood now.
What is shown people who are vaccinated go to the hospital less and die less often. Basic stuff.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
9,242
5,353
146
actually I preferred the entrance acting like I have a big brain. Then people who really have big brains showed up...
The best way to get the right answer to a question on the internet is to post the wrong answer. I've suspected for years that some of our more .. vociferous right wing posters on this forum are actually left wing individuals trying to really cement this board as a bastion of rational thought in an ocean of horror otherwise labeled as The Internet.
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
8,950
3,834
136
Add all this together and it becomes pretty obvious you have a goal and you will not stop peddling unverifiable bullshit
I have the opposite impression - I have no idea what his 'goal' here is. I still dont' know what point he's trying to make or what his 'thesis' is that he's defending, or what he's arguing against. If he had a purpose in the beginning it seems like it rapdily degenerated into endless pointless quibbling for the sake of it, just arguing out of pure egotism.

Best I can make out is he's another of the 'herd immunity through infection' crowd, who I have encountered repeatedly on the internet since the start. I still don't know what it is about that idea that is so appealing to them, though. Some sort of machismo thing, maybe?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,379
25,149
136
I have the opposite impression - I have no idea what his 'goal' here is. I still dont' know what point he's trying to make or what his 'thesis' is that he's defending, or what he's arguing against. If he had a purpose in the beginning it seems like it rapdily degenerated into endless pointless quibbling for the sake of it, just arguing out of pure egotism.

Best I can make out is he's another of the 'herd immunity through infection' crowd, who I have encountered repeatedly on the internet since the start. I still don't know what it is about that idea that is so appealing to them, though. Some sort of machismo thing, maybe?
At least the thesis made logical (if evil) sense early on that the sooner everyone just caught it and lived or died we could get back to normal. Now it makes zero sense as we have an alternative that gives the same or better immunity and nobody dies.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY