(08-16-2020 08:29 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(08-16-2020 07:14 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Herd immunity = millions and millions of deaths. That is the wrong thinking and will cost more lives.

What kind of nonsense are you reading? Give us a link to where you got such a bass ackwards idea.

Fear mongering. If it was that dangerous there would be dead bodies in the streets.

The population adapted to AIDS. It will adapt to this too.

David, if you were a parent in a dual-income family, you'd understand. Let me explain. Those of us that had to put our kids in daycare because we both worked learned something very quickly. A young child, exposed to all of the germs of the other young children at the facility, was going to be a human petrie dish for the first two months of daycare. Sick as much as healthy. However, after those two months are over, your child could literally lick the inside of a toilet and not miss a beat, as their immune systems were much better prepared to deal with the onslaught of germs in our population. The sick and feeble need the isolation, however the healthy needs exposure to build up their immunity. It is that simple.

(08-16-2020 08:53 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  David, if you were a parent in a dual-income family, you'd understand. Let me explain. Those of us that had to put our kids in daycare because we both worked learned something very quickly. A young child, exposed to all of the germs of the other young children at the facility, was going to be a human petrie dish for the first two months of daycare. Sick as much as healthy. However, after those two months are over, your child could literally lick the inside of a toilet and not miss a beat, as their immune systems were much better prepared to deal with the onslaught of germs in our population. The sick and feeble need the isolation, however the healthy needs exposure to build up their immunity. It is that simple.

This!! David, read this thread and learn something........

Covid is not good for the aged and infirm. For the vast, vast majority of all others - it’s like getting the flu.

.........and here we are quarantining the healthy....

(08-16-2020 05:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  And the tests being done are almost always just for the antibodies because that test is easier and quicker.

Other way around

Active Virus tests are faster and the ones done most frequently (mucus membrane culture). They detect an active case. Antibody tests take longer (blood) and they detect a previous infection.

(08-16-2020 06:49 PM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  Yes, it CAN prevent it altogether in a particular person, not just lessen the duration. If you reduce the incidence from 80/4000 to 40/4000 then 40 people didn't get infected.

You were talking about the vaccine just lessening symptoms by a few days. That's Tamiflu.

Go back and read what I wrote. Two different things. I responded to a claim about vaccines or bonafide cures.

There is no bonafide cure... and likely won't be. See Tamiflu (that's not the only one, which is why I just mentioned it generically) Relenza and Xofluza come to mind. All have the same 48 hour stipulation and only shorten the symptoms. They are not a cure

As to the vaccine, while I understand now what you intended to say, it still needed to be corrected, because it absolutely is not a vaccine in the sense of Polio or Measles or other vaccines that have much higher efficacy rates and can actually 'effectively' wipe out a disease... not in an individual, but in a population.

Even then, look again at the labels on flu vaccines... they describe 'effectiveness' as preventing common symptoms. They do not describe it as 'no trace' of the disease... sort of like (but not exactly) how some herpes drugs can eliminate the symptoms and make you not at risk of spread, but you still have the disease.

It is important to be more clear when we are still learning about diseases. The odds of a vaccine that is meaningfully more effective than 'good flu hygiene practices' is pretty low. In combination, it might be pretty effective, but still not eliminate it. Herd immunity may not be possible, but it too will help immensely. It is an 'and', not an 'or'. The 'or' is shutting down an economy and literally quarantining people until you develop a vaccine AND a cure, which is a complete non-starter and would absolutely cause many more deaths than we've seen from COVID.

(08-16-2020 07:14 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Herd immunity = millions and millions of deaths. That is the wrong thinking and will cost more lives.

If by this you mean like how millions die from the flu over a period, then I agree... but this sort of fear-mongering leads to even worse decisions... i.e. you're so worried about a 10 yr old (who isn't likely to be hurt long term by it) getting covid that you keep them out of school... and the don't get good meals or socialize or have supervision and education, so they take drugs and die. The death rate from chronic malnutrition, lack of social development and drug use is MUCH higher in young teens than COVID.

As viruses go through a population they weaken. This has been known forever. If a virus kills a host then the virus dies also. Viruses want to thrive. So therefore they mutate to keep their hosrs ALIVE. You can read ANY study on epidemics before this one and it will tell you what we did is the complete opposite of what should have been done.

(08-17-2020 09:19 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  As viruses go through a population they weaken. This has been known forever. If a virus kills a host then the virus dies also. Viruses want to thrive. So therefore they mutate to keep their hosrs ALIVE. You can read ANY study on epidemics before this one and it will tell you what we did is the complete opposite of what should have been done.

In fairness, what you do is to try and isolate and contain it... and only when that fails, you try and safely develop herd immunity.

There's a reason almost the whole world did basically the same thing. You certainly don't take a new disease with only a few cases here and ENCOURAGE it to spread.... especially when you know so little about it.

(08-17-2020 09:38 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-17-2020 09:19 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  As viruses go through a population they weaken. This has been known forever. If a virus kills a host then the virus dies also. Viruses want to thrive. So therefore they mutate to keep their hosrs ALIVE. You can read ANY study on epidemics before this one and it will tell you what we did is the complete opposite of what should have been done.

In fairness, what you do is to try and isolate and contain it... and only when that fails, you try and safely develop herd immunity.

There's a reason almost the whole world did basically the same thing. You certainly don't take a new disease with only a few cases here and ENCOURAGE it to spread.... especially when you know so little about it.

People have been living and dying since we crawled out of the primordial ooze (figure of speech). Nothing is going to ever change that. I will continue to contend that it is not your job (and that is a collective you and nothing personal) to save me from nature. I will live and I will die, and I should be allowed to do it on my own terms. This entire exercise is bullshiit. Elected officials and the medical community have NO right to order us around.

(08-17-2020 09:13 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-16-2020 06:49 PM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  Yes, it CAN prevent it altogether in a particular person, not just lessen the duration. If you reduce the incidence from 80/4000 to 40/4000 then 40 people didn't get infected.

You were talking about the vaccine just lessening symptoms by a few days. That's Tamiflu.

Go back and read what I wrote. Two different things. I responded to a claim about vaccines or bonafide cures.

There is no bonafide cure... and likely won't be. See Tamiflu (that's not the only one, which is why I just mentioned it generically) Relenza and Xofluza come to mind. All have the same 48 hour stipulation and only shorten the symptoms. They are not a cure

As to the vaccine, while I understand now what you intended to say, it still needed to be corrected, because it absolutely is not a vaccine in the sense of Polio or Measles or other vaccines that have much higher efficacy rates and can actually 'effectively' wipe out a disease... not in an individual, but in a population.

Even then, look again at the labels on flu vaccines... they describe 'effectiveness' as preventing common symptoms. They do not describe it as 'no trace' of the disease... sort of like (but not exactly) how some herpes drugs can eliminate the symptoms and make you not at risk of spread, but you still have the disease.

Dude, just admit you weren't clear in your first post. Here's what you wrote:

Agreed. Flu vaccine is only 50% effective and there is no cure, only a 'shorten the symptoms' treatment that puts the immune system on overdrive... shortening you from 4-5 days to 3-4, IF you take it within 24 hours iirc.

1) Nowhere did you mention Tamiflu, or Relenza, etc. Don't lecture me because you weren't clear.
2) Nothing I said needed to be corrected. I said what I intended to say and was pretty straightforward. Once again, I don't need a lesson because you misunderstood. The flu vaccine absolutely can prevent a person from getting the flu. It's really a simple concept. The fact that it doesn't provide long term immunity like the MMR is immaterial. It is still a vaccine. And you don't spread influenza if you get the vaccine AND don't get the infection. I never said it was 100% effective. In fact, I explained why it wasn't.
3) I know you work for a hospital system and have a good sense of medical knowledge but you do not have years of medical training and 25 years of patient care experience. You made a post that, when read, implied that the flu vaccine shortened symptoms. I corrected it. Nothing more, nothing less. I get now that you simply weren't clear but nothing I wrote needed correcting. I generally agree with what you say and am not on the other side of this issue from you.

Peace

(08-17-2020 10:56 AM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  Dude, just admit you weren't clear in your first post. Here's what you wrote:

Agreed. Flu vaccine is only 50% effective and there is no cure, only a 'shorten the symptoms' treatment that puts the immune system on overdrive... shortening you from 4-5 days to 3-4, IF you take it within 24 hours iirc.

You can keep saying this, but how is that not clear to you?

Flu vaccine is only 50% effective.... AND....There is no cure, only a 'shorten the symptoms' treatment. Are you perhaps missing that 'and'? I was agreeing with those two specific comments by others.

Quote:1) Nowhere did you mention Tamiflu, or Relenza, etc.

Technically I did and you quoted me. As I said, I referred to them generically as 'shorten the symptoms' treatments and not 'cures'.

If you'd like to take issue with that, I suppose we can debate that, but this doesn't seem to be what you're saying. They are (as a class of drugs) what I was referring to.

If you want to get this picky, I should point out that many flu vaccines are quadrivalent, meaning they help with 4 strains, not 3. I don't think that detail misleads anyone, just as describing but not naming the antivirals doesn't mislead anyone

Quote:2) Nothing I said needed to be corrected. I said what I intended to say and was pretty straightforward. Once again, I don't need a lesson because you misunderstood. The flu vaccine absolutely can prevent a person from getting the flu. It's really a simple concept. The fact that it doesn't provide long term immunity like the MMR is immaterial. It is still a vaccine. And you don't spread influenza if you get the vaccine AND don't get the infection. I never said it was 100% effective. In fact, I explained why it wasn't.

Unless I missed it, your explanation is that it is only (or mostly) effective against the strains in each years mix. I have demonstrated that while it may be MORE effective against strains in the mix, it is still not that effective.... at around 70%.

I believe this to be an important distinction to this conversation in that even if we DO develop a vaccine, I wouldn't expect it to be anywhere near 100% effective. I only brought up other vaccines like MMR, Polio etc as vaccines that people consider to be near 100% effective. Their long-term effects is immaterial to this point. LOTS of people won't take it anyway, simply because it will be brand new and relatively untested (not completely, but as compared to flu vaccines with decades of tests)

This is a question of what a vaccine is reasonably expected to do. I'd expect it to be about as effective as a flu vaccine... and not nearly as effective as a Polio vaccine.

Quote:3) I know you work for a hospital system and have a good sense of medical knowledge but you do not have years of medical training and 25 years of patient care experience. You made a post that, when read, implied that the flu vaccine shortened symptoms. I corrected it. Nothing more, nothing less. I get now that you simply weren't clear but nothing I wrote needed correcting. I generally agree with what you say and am not on the other side of this issue from you.

Peace

This is a question of English grammar, not medical knowledge. The only medical knowledge I have presented comes from the CDC/the packaging labels on the drugs.

I've demonstrated that my comment that you quoted is accurate as it stands.

Quote:Influenza vaccine can prevent infection altogether if you are exposed to one of the 3 strains included in each years vaccine.

This is your comment and I still take issue with it. 'can prevent infection altogether' to me implies near 100% effectiveness. Without that word, I wouldn't infer near 100% efficacy. It's true that it can prevent infection if you are hit with one of the strains in the mix.... I don't think its true that it can prevent infection altogether if you are hit with one of the strains in the mix... just 'mostly'.

Again, this is important because it deals with peoples expectations once we have a vaccine. A vaccine that only say 50% of people will take that is only 70% effective isn't as good as one that more like 90% of people take that is near 100% effective.

It is not a 'magic bullet'... and that was the point of the 'agreed' comment.

Based on other things you've said since then, it still seems that you believe that the flu vaccine is very highly effective. I do not.