Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection'
-
I mean really if it's $20 every 6 months... ok no problem, but if it's $600 every six month, that can be a real problem for many.
-
@Dashrender said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
@DustinB3403 said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
@Dashrender said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
So, with that in mind - does a vaccine even matter? Does that mean needing a vaccine every 3-6 months to maintain any type of defense? Just imagine the cost of that thing!!
But how about considering the cost of life and productivity lost from those potential deaths. Certainly a vaccine re-up is cheaper overall.
Says the person with a regular paycheck.
Because I have a regular paycheck is this even more concerning. Imagine if massive swaths of the world population is unable to work ever 3-6months to what will eventually be a "cold"
-
@Dashrender said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
I mean really if it's $20 every 6 months... ok no problem, but if it's $600 every six month, that can be a real problem for many.
Even at $20 every 6 month that can be a lot of money.
-
With a condition like this - I see it much more likely to reduce the population severely by those it affects badly... for the rest of use, it will be more like the common cold and flu - a yearly PITA.
I'm sure cold and flu started the same way.
Of course, the public won't be happy with that answer.
-
@Dashrender said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
So, with that in mind - does a vaccine even matter? Does that mean needing a vaccine every 3-6 months to maintain any type of defense? Just imagine the cost of that thing!!
The point of a vacaine is to inform the body long term. A vaccine is not simply the natural antibody response.
Whether it is a yearly or a one time does not matter, yes a vaccine matters.
-
Until the companies making vaccines have their indemnity removed there ain't no way we'll be anywhere near one of them.
Don't believe everything you read as far as "experts" go either.
"Cases" "Spiking" have nothing to do with virus movement through a population as is being inferred. That's a lie. It just means more testing with test results being positive.
-
@JaredBusch said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
@Dashrender said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
So, with that in mind - does a vaccine even matter? Does that mean needing a vaccine every 3-6 months to maintain any type of defense? Just imagine the cost of that thing!!
The point of a vacaine is to inform the body long term. A vaccine is not simply the natural antibody response.
Whether it is a yearly or a one time does not matter, yes a vaccine matters.
And any improvement is still improvement. Now if they fell to zero in an hour, that would suck. But falling by 90% over a year.... well it is still a big deal.
A common mistake is looking for perfection and giving up on anything less. Just because a solution isn't a perfect one, doesn't imply it's not the best one.
We want to do what's best, not what's perfect.
-
@PhlipElder said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
"Cases" "Spiking" have nothing to do with virus movement through a population as is being inferred. That's a lie. It just means more testing with test results being positive.
Um.... what? No, it does not. That's why they use testing rates and infection rates per test and other factors in determining spikes. You are stating something as if that's not accounted for.
This is a standard myth that people repeat, but it doesn't hold up in actual fact. Cases are actually spiking.
Also, regardless of cases or testing, that hospitals are at record capacity is more important and is the real spike that matters and is completely unable to be explained away with fake news sound bites.
-
@PhlipElder said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
"Cases" "Spiking" have nothing to do with virus movement through a population as is being inferred. That's a lie. It just means more testing with test results being positive.
Umm, not how it works. It is impossible to have cases without it moving through the population.
Additionally, for most locations, but certainly not all, increased testing and thus increased case count does not affect the overall positivity rate.
I will 100% agree that case count should never be the prime report. Positivity rate and hospital availability should be.
Case count without positivity means dick.
-
@JaredBusch Um, yes, that is how it works.
A person testing positive indicates the presence only.
Explain to me the "How" a positive test means anything more than that. How does it indicate that the virus is moving.
Call.
-
Increases in testing DO produce an increase in results, but there are three factors that people like to ignore...
- More tests primarily come from more people being sick in the first place.
- That the spikes aren't correlated with an increase in tests when we call them spikes but in an increase in the positives per test.
- And that increasing testing, when there isn't a spike in cases, would obviously show a decrease in positive results per test. But the opposite is seen in a spike.
So that an increase in testing is causing the spike should be super obviously impossible. I
-
@PhlipElder said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
How does it indicate that the virus is moving.
Because people have to get exposed. How do you get exposed without movement? Call.
-
@scottalanmiller Why are we testing asymptomatic? What's the purpose of that?
Death rates are lower than one tenth of one percent for populations younger than 70.
What is going on here?
-
Illinois officially works the right way IMO. But until recently, the news never reported this way. simply stating "cases"
-
@PhlipElder said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
Death rates are lower than one tenth of one percent for populations younger than 70.
What is going on here?What's wrong with that? What's the question? Why bring this unrelated statement up that has nothing to do with what we were discussing. Sounds like you are trying to make an emotional plea as the logic doesn't stand up.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
@PhlipElder said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
How does it indicate that the virus is moving.
Because people have to get exposed. How do you get exposed without movement? Call.
Again, meaningless.
The population being tested could have been carrying the antibodies for how long?
There are a whole lot of assumptions in there that never seem to get explained when challenged.
-
@PhlipElder said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
@scottalanmiller Why are we testing asymptomatic? What's the purpose of that?
because anyone infected is contagious. Welcome to Health 101.
-
@PhlipElder said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
Why are we testing asymptomatic? What's the purpose of that?
Logically to learn about who is and isn't sick or been exposed. It would be crazy to avoid testing people based on symptoms. How would we learn anything that way?
-
@scottalanmiller Because "Cases" and "Spike" are being used to lockdown populations while death rates have been relatively static or falling.
-
@PhlipElder said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
@scottalanmiller said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
@PhlipElder said in Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection':
How does it indicate that the virus is moving.
Because people have to get exposed. How do you get exposed without movement? Call.
Again, meaningless.
The population being tested could have been carrying the antibodies for how long?
There are a whole lot of assumptions in there that never seem to get explained when challenged.
People are not tested for antibodies. They are tested for the virus.
