141–150 of 324 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're past that now. It's known as Pfizer in the official language of too many cities and countries.
No, we are not past that. Just because it is used wrongly it does not mean that it needs to stay that way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's one: https://www.contagionlive.com/view/immune-response-from-mrna...
The study itself says that the immune response to the vaccine is not as diverse as a natural infection. That's how the study tried to figure out who had been infected: "Natural exposure induces a dominant Ab response against the nucleocapsid protein (NP), but since NP is not in the vaccine, there is no vaccine induced response against it. In this way vaccinated people who had a prior natural exposure can be classifie…
>Simply looking at one aspect of immunity - detectable antibodies in the blood - is a very incomplete way of looking at the overall level of protection
You seem to have no idea what you are reading. Of course vaccines aren't going to have antibodies against the nucleocapsid -- they only generate antibodies against the spike! The vaccines only ask the human body to develop immunity to the spike!
And you know what actually neutralizes the virus? Mostly antibodies against the spike because that is where all the important parts of infecting a cell originate from.
>For example, it's well known that mucosal immunity is important
You are right about mucosal antibodies -- but your statement is also proving to be false as more research comes out. The latest research shows IgG antibodies from vaccination in the mucosal regions too. Apparently our nose is not just waiting for IgA from a natural infection (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.06.21256403v...)
>It's also concerning that there is evidence that while people who have been vaccinated are much less likely to be infected. If they do get infected, they are more likely to be infected with one of the variants than unvaccinated
You also completely misrepresented this (and frankly, it's disappointing you couldn't even link to the actual publication -- it's https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.06.21254882v...). The framing of this is disingenuous. Vaccines provide nearly complete protection against the non-variant form of COVID-19. They provide a little less protection against variant COVID-19s. Your non-protected human body is the same way -- it's more likely to get a variant too. It isn't that if you get infected after vaccination, it's because you were more susceptible to variants, it's that everyone is more likely to get one of the variants. Your risk is still minimized way more than than if you weren't vaccinated!
It it a Biontech vaccine. Pfizer is only the manufacturer. After all, you also do not call the MacBook a Foxconn Laptop.
That’s why Pfizer is behind the whole waving of intellectual property rights so they don’t have to pay Biontech a dime and why the German government is against the waving of rights.
https://www.pfizer.com/news/hot-topics/why_pfizer_opposes_th...
Specifically this section:
Which brings me to the second question. Is the proposed waiver going to improve the supply situation or create more problems? And my answer is categorically the latter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're past that now. It's known as Pfizer in the official language of too many cities and countries.
Can't we all just hate on the now official name for the vaccine of "Comirnaty"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you already have an appointment the only debate should be whether you will need an additional third booster shot in the future if the strain in India breaks out and is different enough. The key thing you should notice about the COVID vaccine detractors is their inability to distinguish between vaccines and the wildly different technology between the different vaccines, alongside their inability acknowledge the geo…
> acknowledge the geopolitical hurdles Each of those vaccines come from a UN/WHO member country. Geo politically power is wielded by globalist financial elites. These elites generally believe the world is overpopulated. Bill himself is well known for his this belief. Bill as an example runs a charitable foundation that only ever seems to make money. These conspiracies are not constituted of a flat earth and aliens. T…
So you'd be fine with a Taiwanese vaccine then? That's the only country I know of that has significant medical R&D and is one of the few countries not in the UN or WHO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The vaccines target specific (and multiple) regions of the spike protein, so a given mutation of the protein is not likely to make a vaccine null and void (hence the current success of the vaccines against variants). A "natural" COVID infection could lead to similar protection, or less; but it's not likely that a natural infection gives you some kind of AAA protection. Being infected can also hurt you, after all. The…
It's not quite no downside. It may be inconvenient (especially if you live in a country where you can't necessarily get time off work to seek medical treatment) and you're quite likely to have a sore arm. Some people experience fever, headaches, or other annoying symptoms for a day or even longer. I had a powerful craving for a kebab, at like 0400 when all the kebab shops are closed, maybe a coincidence, but maybe no…
to be fair, you could have scheduled your shot at a different time so the kebab shops would have been open amirite
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the trials were comprehensive enough to prove both efficacy and safety, why did they not catch the AZ & JnJ blood clotting issues? One theory is that these problems primarily afflict those under 40 and this population was not adequately represented in the clinical trials.
Blood clots happen at a rate of something like 1 in 100,000 people, the trial had something like 20,000 people getting the vaccine in it. Statistically its not surprising it wasn't caught. That the risk is probably not equally distributed just furthers that. For the trial to pick up the blood clots, it would probably have to administer the vaccine to at least half a million people if not more (and you would need othe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I advocate getting vaccinated (I am myself) but if people don't want to put foreign substances into their bodies, we should respect their choices, especially since the long-term risk profile is unknown (we are pretty sure it's safe, but who can know?)
> we should respect their choices Honestly, why should I do that? I would if their choices only affected themselves. People have a right to control their own destiny. But their choices affect me, and, more importantly, those I care about. So no, I don't respect anyone's "choice" to be an unvaccinated asshole, increasing the chance that people I care about will die. I don't respect the "choice" to aide a foreign micro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m curious, what is your education background in? Do you have some sort of medical education or this is a regurgitation of some sources you’ve read as a hobbyist? I ask this because you seem to talk from a place of authority and fact and i respect that but typically thought of Ycomb as a place comp sci folks usually congregate.
Maybe you should ask for sources instead. Authority is the wrong thing to trust in science
I literally saw the opposite headline about Pzifer versus a strain in India today The actual article said "modest antibody evading capabilities“ I hate that the internet has become this way
The real immunity comes from the T cells which will create new antibodies when needed, and may adjust those to variations in the strain.