COVID reinfections likely within one or two years

HBS Guy

Head Honcho 💉💉
Staff member
COVID reinfections likely within one or two years, models propose
Estimates based on viral evolution forecast a 50% risk 17 months after a first infection without measures such as masking and vaccination.

COVID reinfections likely within one or two years, models propose
Estimates based on viral evolution forecast a 50% risk 17 months after a first infection without measures such as masking and vaccination.

. . . .The results suggest that the average reinfection risk rises from about 5% four months after initial infection to 50% by 17 months. Overall, natural protection seems to last for less than half as long as it does for the three common-cold coronaviruses.

Townsend says he was “surprised and daunted” by his findings, which suggest that COVID-19 is likely to transition from a pandemic disease to one that’s endemic.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02825-8
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Everyone should just plan on getting Covid sooner or later.

You can choose to vaccinate or not, but you can’t choose not to get Covid.

It’s just a matter of when you get it.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Everyone should just plan on getting Covid sooner or later.

You can choose to vaccinate or not, but you can’t choose not to get Covid.

It’s just a matter of when you get it.

Shades of the Y2K nonsense.

One, it would be impossible for everyone to become infected with Covid-19, because herd-immunity would've been reached. Two, so what? With a 98%(87% over 65) survival rate, and an uninfected population of 99%(in the last 22 months so far), this isn't even worth the worry. And, finally, whether you choose to be vaccinated or not, has absolutely nothing to do with your chances of becoming infected. Viruses don't select their hosts based on their vaccination status.

I certainly don't have Covid-19. And, less than 1% of all people tested for Covid-19, have tested positive. This information is freely available to anyone. So what facts is this fear-mongering based on? Fantasy and Hollywood drama.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Shades of the Y2K nonsense.

One, it would be impossible for everyone to become infected with Covid-19, because herd-immunity would've been reached. Two, so what? With a 98%(87% over 65) survival rate, and an uninfected population of 99%(in the last 22 months so far), this isn't even worth the worry. And, finally, whether you choose to be vaccinated or not, has absolutely nothing to do with your chances of becoming infected. Viruses don't select their hosts based on their vaccination status.

I certainly don't have Covid-19. And, less than 1% of all people tested for Covid-19, have tested positive. This information is freely available to anyone. So what facts is this fear-mongering based on? Fantasy and Hollywood drama.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Yes, less than 1% of Australians have had Covid. But you can probably attribute that to the very strict measures your government has imposed. The measures taken in the U.S. are not anywhere near as strict, and 14% of our population has gotten Covid in less than 2 years.

What I'm suggesting is that it is possible to suppress the numbers of infections as long as you stay strictly locked down virtually forever. But even with strict lockdown for as long as you want, this disease is not going to magically go away, and whenever Australia reopens and goes back to normal, your infection rate is going to climb.

So you really have only two realistic options. One is to stay on strict lockdown forever. That will keep your infection rate very low like it is now.

The other is to go off lockdown, travel, congregate and interact with others like normal, but expect to get infected at some point. As seen in the U.S., when a people are not strictly locked down, the virus spreads, and it can spread quickly.

So those are your choices.

I don't think you want to stay locked down forever. So let's assume that the time is coming when those lock down measures are going to go away. Then you just live with the virus in your midst, and people can decide if they wish to do that with our without a vaccination. But thinking you're going to go back to normal, and your infection rate is going to stay at less than 1% is not realistic.
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
Yes, less than 1% of Australians have had Covid. But you can probably attribute that to the very strict measures your government has imposed.

he knows this, he has been told several times. But he'd rather parrot his hysteria then listen
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Yes, less than 1% of Australians have had Covid. But you can probably attribute that to the very strict measures your government has imposed. The measures taken in the U.S. are not anywhere near as strict, and 14% of our population has gotten Covid in less than 2 years.
With all due respect, this is just an argument from ignorance(begging the question). How do you know this? Or, are you just making assumptions? What is the objective direct link between 99% of the Australian population being uninfected for 22 months, and the Government's paternalistic and aversive policies? Are there any other factors involved?

I seriously doubt that wearing ineffective masks, or keeping 2 meters apart, is the reason why 99% of all Australians have not been infected for 22 months.

As long as we are oxygen breathers, we can be infected by viruses and bacteria. This is an indisputable fact. It is only the condition of our immune system, and our immune response, that determines whether we survive an infection or die. This is also indisputable. Vaccines only produce antigen-specific, high affinity antibodies. They offer very little resistance to other viruses or their variants. Also indisputable.

In all scientific inquiry, we don't simple use results to define cause(s). Science provides objective explanations and causal links, to support both cause and effect. These explanations are verifiable, or can be experimentally deduced/inferred. There are many other external factors that may have contributed to this outcome(climate, temperature, geography, density, seasons, biological, genetics, demographics, sanitation, disease, etc.). Not simply man-made policies.

But, if you believe that the government's paternalistic and aversive policies have saved the country from a viral apocalypse, then you must also believe that if these policies fail, then it is the people's fault. A win-win for the government. And a lose-lose for the people.

What I'm suggesting is that it is possible to suppress the numbers of infections as long as you stay strictly locked down virtually forever. But even with strict lockdown for as long as you want, this disease is not going to magically go away, and whenever Australia reopens and goes back to normal, your infection rate is going to climb.
Look Seth, even if we did absolutely nothing, everyone is not going to be infected. And everyone is not going to die. This is a baseless fear. History has already debunked this fear. As more and more people are infected, and more and more people recover, less and less people will be able to become infected. This is how man has survived for eons before vaccines, antibiotic, medical treatments, and any restrictive government policies. And, we are still here, right? In fact we are still multiplying.

And no, viruses don't just go away. They just become dormant. Not because there are fewer hosts to infect, but because of other internal and external factors.

So you really have only two realistic options. One is to stay on strict lockdown forever. That will keep your infection rate very low like it is now.
Do you think that locking families and people away in the homes(prison), is a realistic solution to any viral problem? It is not the infection rate of a virus that is important(like colds and flus), it is the mortality rate that is important. Just how lethal is this virus? What is the percentage of people outside of the high-risk groups who have died from Covid-19? Should we lock-up all our citizens forever, or just whenever the next viral outbreak occurs?

The other is to go off lockdown, travel, congregate and interact with others like normal, but expect to get infected at some point. As seen in the U.S., when a people are not strictly locked down, the virus spreads, and it can spread quickly.
Again, what is the causal link that supports this assumption? This is not our first flu and cold season. And, there are many treatment for those with this virus. You are making many assumptions here. Viral infection graphs are typically bell-shaped. There are many factors that contribute to this activity. And, freedom of movement is just a small part of the whole. With 99% of Australians uninfected, and 98% of Australians who have recovered, my argument would be that the numbers wouldn't increase at all.

This is only your narrative. And, these are only your two assumptions. Neither assumption is real or correct. People will never be locked down forever. They will eventually rebel. Not everyone will be infected. For over 22 months, 99% of all Australians have not been infected(less than 1% have tested positive). There is just no evidence supporting this narrative, other than unsupported assumptions and subjective biases.

Look, if you can point out where my logic is faulty/inconsistent, where my facts are false, where my science is wrong, or even explain what this hysterics is, then I am more than willing to listen. The only arguments I've heard are, "Do it, because everyone else is doing it.". Or, "Do it, so we can get back to normal.". The rest is just insults, insinuations, sarcasms, fake outrage and incredulity. All attacking me, but not the logic or the facts that support my position.

Look my argument has always been. Do whatever makes you feel safe. I know exactly what vaccines do. I know how the immune system works. And I know how impractical social distancing and masks are. But I am not you. And, I will never presume to tell you what to do. I simply ask the same from you. Or, to at least not troll valid arguments, without depositing a counter-argument. As long as your choices don't affect my choices, good luck to you.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
With all due respect, this is just an argument from ignorance(begging the question). How do you know this? Or, are you just making assumptions? What is the objective direct link between 99% of the Australian population being uninfected for 22 months, and the Government's paternalistic and aversive policies? Are there any other factors involved?
The glaring difference is this: In the U.S., restrictions on people are lax. Masking and social distancing rules are not enforced. They are voluntary for the most part. There are no travel restrictions, check points, etc. No one gets arrested for gathering with others. No one gets arrested or fined for not wearing a mask. Foreign visitors are not placed into enforced quarantine. Like today for example ... I went to the grocery store. Some people were wearing masks, some weren't. Earlier this month my wife and I went to Talladega, Alabama, to see the NASCAR races. This giant facility was packed to the gills with thousands of people, and I didn't see a single person wearing a mask, and there was no social distancing going on.

But in Australia, your rules are strict, very strict by U.S. standards.

14% of our people have gotten Covid compared to your less than 1% in the 22 months that this has been around. Some studies believe that the real percentage is much higher than 14%. That 14% number comes from confirmed cases, and the study suggests that there are likely to be more than twice as many cases that are not reported.

But whatever the actual percentage is, the glaring difference between the two countries is pretty obvious. Strict vs lax.

Look Seth, even if we did absolutely nothing, everyone is not going to be infected. And everyone is not going to die. This is a baseless fear.
I know everyone is not going to die, and I never said everyone was going to die. Through some sort of luck of the draw, not everyone is going to get infected. But I expect that within 5-10 years most Americans, probably a large majority, will have been infected with Covid at some point. Americans were willing to shut down for a while when this first started, but they grew weary of it. As more people have either already had it or they got vaccinated, Americans have grown weary of the masking and distancing and not being able to get together, and frankly, they're just not doing it as much anymore. I expect they are going to do it less and less as time goes on. Americans in general are losing their fear of this virus, and they want to get on with life, and that's what they're doing.

Do you think that locking families and people away in the homes(prison), is a realistic solution to any viral problem? It is not the infection rate of a virus that is important(like colds and flus), it is the mortality rate that is important. Just how lethal is this virus? What is the percentage of people outside of the high-risk groups who have died from Covid-19? Should we lock-up all our citizens forever, or just whenever the next viral outbreak occurs?
No.

What I think you should do is this. Make vaccinations available and free of charge to anyone who wants to get vaccinated. If you don't want to get a vaccination, don't get one.

Protect your most vulnerable - the elderly and sick - by taking measures to keep them as safe as possible.

Then go back to normal. Open up. Drop the restrictions and mandates and go back to normal. School, work, travel, tourism, gathering - all of it. Go back to normal.

But just accept that there will be more infections when you do that. The virus is going to circulate and many people will get it. Don't freak out about it and lock the country down. Like me, most vaccinated people will shake it off easily. Most unvaccinated people will also recover, although statistics show that unvaccinated people are more likely to get seriously sick or die than are vaccinated people. But that is a choice people should be allowed to make. And as a society, we should just live with it.

Again, what is the causal link that supports this assumption? This is not our first flu and cold season. And, there are many treatment for those with this virus. You are making many assumptions here. Viral infection graphs are typically bell-shaped. There are many factors that contribute to this activity. And, freedom of movement is just a small part of the whole. With 99% of Australians uninfected, and 98% of Australians who have recovered, my argument would be that the numbers wouldn't increase at all.


I just don't believe this. I think whenever Australia comes out of its lockdown - removes all restrictions and goes back to pre-Covid behavior - your infection rate is going to rise. I'm not saying you should stay in lockdown endlessly. We certainly aren't in the U.S. I'm just telling you what I expect will happen in Australia based upon our experience in the U.S.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
No.

What I think you should do is this. Make vaccinations available and free of charge to anyone who wants to get vaccinated. If you don't want to get a vaccination, don't get one.

Protect your most vulnerable - the elderly and sick - by taking measures to keep them as safe as possible.

Then go back to normal. Open up. Drop the restrictions and mandates and go back to normal. School, work, travel, tourism, gathering - all of it. Go back to normal.

But just accept that there will be more infections when you do that. The virus is going to circulate and many people will get it. Don't freak out about it and lock the country down. Like me, most vaccinated people will shake it off easily. Most unvaccinated people will also recover, although statistics show that unvaccinated people are more likely to get seriously sick or die than are vaccinated people. But that is a choice people should be allowed to make. And as a society, we should just live with it.
Totally agree with this. Except, only around 15% of unvaccinated people become seriously ill, or require hospitalization. So, definitely not most. Our immune response is the same, whether you are vaccinated or not. Except it's response is a little quicker. History and the population stats, do not support the theory that there is any direct causal relationship between even the strictest lockdowns and the spread of any virus. And remember, all mutated strains of the original virus will always be weaker in some respects, from its original virus.

If you want these things to happen, simply tell your leaders this. They actually work for you. Aren't all vaccines free to the public in the US?

I just don't believe this. I think whenever Australia comes out of its lockdown - removes all restrictions and goes back to pre-Covid behavior - your infection rate is going to rise. I'm not saying you should stay in lockdown endlessly. We certainly aren't in the U.S. I'm just telling you what I expect will happen in Australia based upon our experience in the U.S.
No person in their right mind would agree that locking down 26M people indefinitely is a good and practical solution for stopping/reducing/diminishing the spread of this virus. Yet, this is what the government's intelligent solution has been for the last 19 months. Once people started realizing just how intrusive, restrictive, and invasive these policies were, cops needed to received new mandates to force people to comply. New laws were created to be enforced.

No matter how many tautologies you can come up with, you can't have it both ways. Either you support this manufactured idea that this virus is so dangerous, that any government action or policies are completely justified. Or, you believe that our personal freedoms are far more important than any threat of our being infected. Especially from a virus that is no more lethal than the measles. Or, a virus where only around 1% of the population is even infected(in Australia). Of which 98% have fully recovered. Once you can see past all the fear-mongering, half-truths, and theatrics, this insanity will become much clearer.

The glaring difference is this: In the U.S., restrictions on people are lax. Masking and social distancing rules are not enforced. They are voluntary for the most part. There are no travel restrictions, check points, etc. No one gets arrested for gathering with others. No one gets arrested or fined for not wearing a mask. Foreign visitors are not placed into enforced quarantine. Like today for example ... I went to the grocery store. Some people were wearing masks, some weren't. Earlier this month my wife and I went to Talladega, Alabama, to see the NASCAR races. This giant facility was packed to the gills with thousands of people, and I didn't see a single person wearing a mask, and there was no social distancing going on.
This is so good to hear Seth. I seriously doubt that any real cop with any social consciousness would ever consider not wearing a mask, keeping 2 meters apart, congregating in groups(churches, weddings, birthdays, funerals, etc.), or refusing to be vaccinated, as a criminal offence. So, good on them. And, I hope that their actions will speak louder than their words.

14% of our people have gotten Covid compared to your less than 1% in the 22 months that this has been around. Some studies believe that the real percentage is much higher than 14%. That 14% number comes from confirmed cases, and the study suggests that there are likely to be more than twice as many cases that are not reported.

But whatever the actual percentage is, the glaring difference between the two countries is pretty obvious. Strict vs lax.
With respect Seth, you are just making another argument from ignorance. Do you really think that in Australia, we can enforce the wearing of masks, or the monitoring of social-distancing, any better than you can in the US? I will agree, that we seem to have far more sheep in Australia, than in America. But, more and more Australians are starting to come out of the closet and resist this nonsense. This is the raw verifiable data.

45.4M total infected in the US / 330M total population of the US = 0.137 Or 13.7% of the US population.

The rest would just be speculation without facts or data.

I just don't get it. What are you clinging to?

You have a mortality rate of 1.6%(1.1 in Australia). This means that 98.4% of Americans will recover(99.9% in Australia). This fact should end any argument of how deadly this virus is.
Noting that 86.3% of 330M Americans(99.5% in Australia) are not even infected, should have ended any argument about this virus's virulence over the last 22 months.
The sheer numbers of unvaccinated recoveries(before/after vaccines), should have ended the argument regarding the effectiveness of vaccines.
Mandating vaccines for even recovered Covid-19 victims, who already have the best antibodies for Covid-19, makes this argument even more ridiculous.
The idea of man fighting to protect people against a microorganism smaller than the wavelength of light is just ludicrous at best.
The understanding of genetic-based vaccines, and artificially-induced antibodies, makes the choice of using this vaccine almost a no-brainer. Except for those in the high-risk categories.

What are people clinging to? Certainly not the facts. I just don't get it. Why are you peddling compliancy in spite of these facts? It is the people who have the power to change things. The government is counting on the people's apathy, ignorance, and indifference. And, through their media and print outlets, they will continue to control how the people think, and what the people think. Remember, their political livelihood depends on keeping the people confused and ignorant. The less the people know, the better for them. But I can only, "..lead a horse to water...".
 

chris155au

Active member
COVID reinfections likely within one or two years, models propose
Estimates based on viral evolution forecast a 50% risk 17 months after a first infection without measures such as masking and vaccination.

COVID reinfections likely within one or two years, models propose
Estimates based on viral evolution forecast a 50% risk 17 months after a first infection without measures such as masking and vaccination.

. . . .The results suggest that the average reinfection risk rises from about 5% four months after initial infection to 50% by 17 months. Overall, natural protection seems to last for less than half as long as it does for the three common-cold coronaviruses.

Townsend says he was “surprised and daunted” by his findings, which suggest that COVID-19 is likely to transition from a pandemic disease to one that’s endemic.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02825-8
The FOREVER pandemic.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Totally agree with this. Except, only around 15% of unvaccinated people become seriously ill, or require hospitalization. So, definitely not most. Our immune response is the same, whether you are vaccinated or not. Except it's response is a little quicker. History and the population stats, do not support the theory that there is any direct causal relationship between even the strictest lockdowns and the spread of any virus. And remember, all mutated strains of the original virus will always be weaker in some respects, from its original virus.

If you want these things to happen, simply tell your leaders this. They actually work for you. Aren't all vaccines free to the public in the US?



No person in their right mind would agree that locking down 26M people indefinitely is a good and practical solution for stopping/reducing/diminishing the spread of this virus. Yet, this is what the government's intelligent solution has been for the last 19 months. Once people started realizing just how intrusive, restrictive, and invasive these policies were, cops needed to received new mandates to force people to comply. New laws were created to be enforced.

No matter how many tautologies you can come up with, you can't have it both ways. Either you support this manufactured idea that this virus is so dangerous, that any government action or policies are completely justified. Or, you believe that our personal freedoms are far more important than any threat of our being infected. Especially from a virus that is no more lethal than the measles. Or, a virus where only around 1% of the population is even infected(in Australia). Of which 98% have fully recovered. Once you can see past all the fear-mongering, half-truths, and theatrics, this insanity will become much clearer.



This is so good to hear Seth. I seriously doubt that any real cop with any social consciousness would ever consider not wearing a mask, keeping 2 meters apart, congregating in groups(churches, weddings, birthdays, funerals, etc.), or refusing to be vaccinated, as a criminal offence. So, good on them. And, I hope that their actions will speak louder than their words.



With respect Seth, you are just making another argument from ignorance. Do you really think that in Australia, we can enforce the wearing of masks, or the monitoring of social-distancing, any better than you can in the US? I will agree, that we seem to have far more sheep in Australia, than in America. But, more and more Australians are starting to come out of the closet and resist this nonsense. This is the raw verifiable data.

45.4M total infected in the US / 330M total population of the US = 0.137 Or 13.7% of the US population.

The rest would just be speculation without facts or data.

I just don't get it. What are you clinging to?

You have a mortality rate of 1.6%(1.1 in Australia). This means that 98.4% of Americans will recover(99.9% in Australia). This fact should end any argument of how deadly this virus is.
Noting that 86.3% of 330M Americans(99.5% in Australia) are not even infected, should have ended any argument about this virus's virulence over the last 22 months.
The sheer numbers of unvaccinated recoveries(before/after vaccines), should have ended the argument regarding the effectiveness of vaccines.
Mandating vaccines for even recovered Covid-19 victims, who already have the best antibodies for Covid-19, makes this argument even more ridiculous.
The idea of man fighting to protect people against a microorganism smaller than the wavelength of light is just ludicrous at best.
The understanding of genetic-based vaccines, and artificially-induced antibodies, makes the choice of using this vaccine almost a no-brainer. Except for those in the high-risk categories.

What are people clinging to? Certainly not the facts. I just don't get it. Why are you peddling compliancy in spite of these facts? It is the people who have the power to change things. The government is counting on the people's apathy, ignorance, and indifference. And, through their media and print outlets, they will continue to control how the people think, and what the people think. Remember, their political livelihood depends on keeping the people confused and ignorant. The less the people know, the better for them. But I can only, "..lead a horse to water...".
So I bolded and colored the things I want to respond to. I think you'll find that my responses are somewhat nuanced rather than being just black and white, yes or no, answers. In order ...

First one: My understanding of how the virus lives and spreads is that it is transmitted from person to person through the droplets we exhale. My understanding is that the virus cannot live very long outside a living body. So it's not like it just floats around like pollen or dust, covering large distances and continuing to live. If I am infectious and I exhale, I don't think the virus I exhale is going to float 20 miles and infect someone on the other side of the county. My understanding is that there needs to be some level of proximity between the exhaled virus and the person who inhales the virus from that person for it to cause an infection because, outside the body, the virus has a short life span.

If this is true, then it is simply logical that limiting interaction between people will result in fewer infections than by not limiting those interactions. Oregon is a good case study. Last summer, the rate of infection got low enough that our governor ended virtually all precautions - masking, distancing, gathering. People breathed a sigh of relief and started going back to normal. Almost immediately, we saw infections, hospitalizations, and deaths spike up, and she reinstated the restrictions. You may recall me talking about overloaded hospitals and ICUs a while back. That was during that spike. That was also when I got Covid. Since then, infections have gone down to a more manageable level. Nationally, we saw the same thing in Nov-Dec of 2020. What were people doing? They were traveling and gathering for the holidays. They had been locked down for most of the year, and they wanted to get together for the holidays, and unsurprisingly, infections spiked up.

And finally on this point, is there any country in the free world with more draconian restrictions on its population than Australia? And is there any country in the free world with a lower rate of infection than Australia?

So for these reasons, I don't agree with you that there is no causal relationship between lockdowns and infection rates. I think that the more you limit contact with other people, the lower the infection rate.

Don't take that as blanket approval of these measures. I'm going to get to that. For the purposes of this part of our discussion, I think it is just an objective fact that by limiting contact with other people, you reduce the infection rate.

Second one: This is that black and white assertion you make. "Either you support ... or you don't." It's not that simple.

In early 2020 when we were first becoming aware of this disease, we didn't know what we were dealing with. I remember my own thoughts back then. They were sort of "ho hum", another Asian virus that will come and go. Well I was wrong. We also didn't know how lethal this disease might turn out to be. We didn't know if it was like the "black death" that would take out half the population or if it would be like the flu or something in between. We just didn't know, but we did start hearing about deaths, and, of course, there were no vaccines for this. It also sounded like medical science was taken by surprise by this, existing medicines were not effective, and the best thing doctors seemed to be able to do for the seriously ill was to put them on a ventilator, and even then, people were dying.

So it made sense then to institute precautions like social distancing, masking, and restricting gatherings. Back then, with so little knowledge about this disease, I and the general public agreed with restrictions. I can remember that there was a run on all kinds of supplies because people were planning on locking down in their homes for the long run, without being ordered to by the government. I can remember normally busy freeways during rush hours being almost empty. The government wasn't forcing this; people were locking down because they wanted to lock down.

Now, 22 months later, we know this disease pretty well. We know that it isn't the "black death" that is going to decimate us. We know that most healthy unvaccinated people can survive this. We know that vaccinated people can have shorter illness time and that their survivability rate is very good, significantly better than for unvaccinated people. About 58% of the U.S. is now fully vaccinated and that percentage continues to rise. We also know that just under 14% of the population has had Covid, so whatever percentage of those people are not vaccinated can be added to the percentage of vaccinated people as being somewhat protected from this disease. Now, there are vaccinations for children and booster shots for people who are already vaccinated.

So, as I've said over and over, it's time to get back to normal. We can go back to normal because of what we know now that we didn't know then. We can go back to normal because we can reasonably understand that the majority of healthy unvaccinated people can survive this disease, or you can proactively defend against it by getting vaccinated. And we also understand who is most vulnerable to this disease - the elderly and people with compromised immune systems - and we can take precautions to protect them.

So, you see, it's not a black and white choice between fear of the disease and personal freedom. It is taking reasonable precautions according to the situation. Look, do you want to live in a bomb shelter for the rest of your life? Of course not. But if you were living in London in WW2, and the German bombers were coming, would you go to a bomb shelter? Yes, but you're not going to stay there forever. It's sort of the same thing.

So that is the nuance I mentioned earlier. Then was then. Now is now. They are not the same.

You also stated in that paragraph that Covid is no more lethal than measles. But what I notice is that you didn't compare Covid to the flu. In the U.S. between 2010 and 2020 the number of annual deaths from complications from the flu varied from 12-52,000. But in 22 months we've had 756,000 deaths from complications related to Covid.

So let's not kid ourselves. Covid is a more serious disease than the flu.

So we were right to take precautions and accept restrictions initially. But that was then, and times have changed.

Third one: Apparently Australia does enforce the restrictions far more stringently than we do in the U.S. That is my impression from listening to you guys and from reading about it. And yes, your population is far more compliant with those restrictions than Americans are - a cultural difference between our two countries. You are/were an American, and that cultural difference shows in your writings, btw.

Fourth one: I've already pretty much addressed the issue of how deadly this disease is. We know a lot more about it now than we did when it first emerged. It may be no more deadly than measles, as you say, but it is more deadly than the common flu by a long shot. It should be neither underestimated or overestimated.

Last one: You should be able to glean from my writings that I am not "peddling compliancy." I am peddling reasonable, measured precautions to a threat, especially when we don't understand the threat, and when we didn't know if we had any real defense against it. I am peddling that now that we understand the threat, now that there have been medical advances, now that we do have a proactive defense to the threat if we choose to take it, we can and should go back to normal. It's time for your country to take down the roadblocks and checkpoints and police enforcement, and go back to normal.

In the U.S., the big debate now is over vaccination mandates. Basically, people are being told to vaccinate or be fired from their jobs, this being led and backed up by the Biden administration. I heartily oppose this. I am pro voluntary vaccination, but I am anti-mandate under threat. We understand the threat this virus poses, we have defenses against it, and we don't need to be firing people. As you might expect, there is a lot of resentment and push-back in the U.S. on vaccination mandates.

Final note: I believe the vaccination helped me greatly when I got Covid last July. I felt like my body's defenses were able to go into hyper-drive to wipe it out very quickly. I didn't even pass it to my wife, even though I know I was infected for several days before I felt sick.

I assume I should now have natural antibodies against the disease, but there doesn't seem to be any consensus (yet) on how long those antibodies stick around. A booster shot is now coming available, and I am planning on getting it.

I'm 66, and I work part time in an educational setting. This puts me at a higher risk of infection than people who work alone or in a small group. I worked with a class of 40 students all day last Monday and Wednesday, and on Thursday we were notified that one of the students had just tested positive. It will be interesting to see if more of them come down with it, or if it will be limited to just that one. When that happened last July, 25% of the class all got it (and me), and they postponed the whole class, and sent them all home for a month or so. (Btw, I feel fine 4 days later, so I don't think I got infected again.) But because of the risk I take by working, I'm not going to rely on the waning effectiveness of the vaccination I got last February or my own natural defenses when I don't know how long they will last. I'm going to get the booster.

As far as I'm concerned, the original vaccination did no harm, and it helped when I got sick. For me, this is a calculation of risk/reward, and getting the booster is the choice I'm going to make.

Seth
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
First one: My understanding of how the virus lives and spreads is that it is transmitted from person to person through the droplets we exhale. My understanding is that the virus cannot live very long outside a living body. So it's not like it just floats around like pollen or dust, covering large distances and continuing to live. If I am infectious and I exhale, I don't think the virus I exhale is going to float 20 miles and infect someone on the other side of the county. My understanding is that there needs to be some level of proximity between the exhaled virus and the person who inhales the virus from that person for it to cause an infection because, outside the body, the virus has a short life span.

If this is true, then it is simply logical that limiting interaction between people will result in fewer infections than by not limiting those interactions. Oregon is a good case study. Last summer, the rate of infection got low enough that our governor ended virtually all precautions - masking, distancing, gathering. People breathed a sigh of relief and started going back to normal. Almost immediately, we saw infections, hospitalizations, and deaths spike up, and she reinstated the restrictions. You may recall me talking about overloaded hospitals and ICUs a while back. That was during that spike. That was also when I got Covid. Since then, infections have gone down to a more manageable level. Nationally, we saw the same thing in Nov-Dec of 2020. What were people doing? They were traveling and gathering for the holidays. They had been locked down for most of the year, and they wanted to get together for the holidays, and unsurprisingly, infections spiked up.

And finally on this point, is there any country in the free world with more draconian restrictions on its population than Australia? And is there any country in the free world with a lower rate of infection than Australia?

Whenever you create your own narrative, your conclusion will always fit. It is not just about the half-truths that you use to support your narrative, it is about the important facts that you seem that leave out. Or, just fail to mention for context.

Firstly, viruses are not living organisms. Therefore, they don't die, live outside of a host, or have a short life span. The only thing that a virus does is reproduce itself, by using their host's genetic materials. That's about it. In its dormant state(non-living), it can be carried miles away by air currents. It can also be deposited, and lay dormant onto different surfaces. These dormant viruses can indeed be suspended in the air. These are the modes that viruses use to potentially infect its host.

Once the host is infected, the virus uses the host's immune response to infect more hosts(transmission). People who are asymptomatic(or medically asymptomatic), do not transmit active viruses. In this stage the virus does not float miles away. Do raindrops float for miles away? This applies to viruses suspended in mucus droplets as well. Mucous droplets are more dense than air. So gravity takes over. Although, some of the droplets can be small enough to be suspended in the air for a small period of time. These viruses can also last for a small period of time on various surfaces as well.

When people say that a virus dies, it only means that they loose their ability to replicate itself. Or, its ability to infect its hosts. Even sunlight can do this. But viruses are not alive. So death to a virus is only a relative term at best.


ourth one: I've already pretty much addressed the issue of how deadly this disease is. We know a lot more about it now than we did when it first emerged. It may be no more deadly than measles, as you say, but it is more deadly than the common flu by a long shot. It should be neither underestimated or overestimated.
I must have missed your explanation of just how deadly this disease is. Outside of people in the high risk group, what makes a disease with a 1-2% mortality rate, a dangerous and deadly disease? The measles is more dangerous.

So let's not kid ourselves. Covid is a more serious disease than the flu.
No Seth, the SARS-CoV-2 virus IS a flu virus. All Coronaviruses belong to the same family of viruses, that cause colds and influenza. All Coronaviruses infect the respiratory tract. All Coronaviruses produce the same flu-like symptoms. All Coronaviruses have spike proteins typical of a flu virus. And, all Coronaviruses belongs to the same family of spiked flu viruses. The only mutation is that this virus can withstand our higher core body temperatures. Which normally would kill most other flu viruses.

So, is it more serious than the flu? NO, it is simply just a slightly more serious flu. But a less serious flu than its parent(SARS). But it is still the flu none the less. And, it is treated the same way as any other flus.

I understand, and mostly agree with what you are saying. So, I apologize for not addressing your full post. But let me just clear some things up first. When you don't understand the why things happen, you start making assumptions to explain why things happen. If lighting killed someone, the Gods were angry with him. If the crops failed, then more human/animals needed to be sacrificed. And the more and more we repeated these beliefs, the more and more these beliefs became truth. It is answers that provide the fuel for the superego.

You are doing exactly the same thing, by ignoring any other possible factors. Or dismissing indisputable facts. And, it is facts that end beliefs.

You know in your rational mind, that there is no way that man can to stop man from being infected by any virus. Viruses are just too small, and do their damage while inside of the cell(unlike bacteria). Therefore, difficult to treat.

You know in your rational mind, that it is impossible to keep 330M people 2 meters apart, or prevent people from gathering. Or, to ignore the mechanical and physical flaws/limitations in the wearing of masks.

Your know in your rational mind, that genetically inducing the immune system to produce antigen-specific antibodies, is not as effective as the production of our natural antibodies. And no, these mRNA and DNA based vaccines are not the same as our childhood vaccines. There are no live or altered versions of the entire pathogen in these vaccines. These vaccines only carry a code, that forces the immune system to start producing specific antibodies, to attack anything in the body with these coded spikes. So other variants, and other viruses are ignored as pathogens by these vaccine induced antibodies. Thus, these vaccines only weaken our immune system over time.

With all earlier vaccines, there were many other markers in which our natural antibodies could use to identify pathogens. But these coded proteins, and their vectors, were just easier to mass-produce, and get out to the market. Thus more profits could be made sooner.

You know in your rational mind, that the only thing that should matter about any virus, is how likely it is to kill you. That's it. Do you know how many diseases(and non-diseases), that are much more likely to kill you, than Covid-19? It doesn't matter how many people are infected by this virus. It doesn't matter how many vaccinated or unvaccinated people need to be hospitalized. If your immune system is weak, then you could die from even a cold virus. But with a 98% survival/recovery rate, it would seem that this virus is not that lethal. This also means that a 98% survival rate, means that almost every victim's immune system must be working just fine.

You know that a truer figure of the number of still active cases of Covid-19 in the US, is 8.36% https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/coronavirus-recovered

45,050,910(total cases in 22 months) - 16,306,656(recoveries) - 726,196(deaths) = 28,018,058(still active cases in the US). Therefore,

28,018,058(true active cases) / 333,532,490(population as of Oct. 22nd, 2021) x 100% = 8.36% of the entire population that is still infected. Not 14%.


Second one: This is that black and white assertion you make. "Either you support ... or you don't." It's not that simple.
I think that it is Seth. Either you support the idea that this virus, with a less than 2% mortality rate for almost 2 years, is worth loosing our freedoms, jobs or choices over, or you don't. Do you believe that any person should be fired from their job for refusing to be vaccinated? Do you believe that any living breathing adult should be forced to become vaccinated against their will? Even if they are uninfected, or have already recovered? Do you believe that all humans should have the right to decide what goes into their own bodies? Do you see the abuse of power, and further government intrusions that these mandates could lead to? All because of our ignorance and apathy? So NO, it is just that simple. The rest is just more arguments from ignorance, and gap-filling rationalizations.

I sincerely hope that this is not the future of the world. A world where people are waiting for the next vaccine to take. We have already seen what happens when we overuse antibiotics. And, now we want to do the same with cheaply made vaccines? Vaccines, that are made without the actual virus or its antigens. This is madness.

The only logic I can see here, is if you were trying to reduce the population over time. By producing so many antigen-specific, high-affinity antibodies, that would eventually out compete against all of our natural immune-induced antibodies. This would mean that over time even a variant of a simple rhinovirus could potentially have a high morbidity and mortality rate. Our immune system does not need help. There is merit to the meme, "what doesn't kill you, will only make you stronger.". With respect to our immune system.

I choose not to be vaccinated because I don't see a reason why I should. But I see many reasons why I shouldn't. And, I am in the high risk group. But the downsides far outweighs the upsides.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Whenever you create your own narrative, your conclusion will always fit. It is not just about the half-truths that you use to support your narrative, it is about the important facts that you seem that leave out. Or, just fail to mention for context.

Firstly, viruses are not living organisms. Therefore, they don't die, live outside of a host, or have a short life span. The only thing that a virus does is reproduce itself, by using their host's genetic materials. That's about it. In its dormant state(non-living), it can be carried miles away by air currents. It can also be deposited, and lay dormant onto different surfaces. These dormant viruses can indeed be suspended in the air. These are the modes that viruses use to potentially infect its host.

Once the host is infected, the virus uses the host's immune response to infect more hosts(transmission). People who are asymptomatic(or medically asymptomatic), do not transmit active viruses. In this stage the virus does not float miles away. Do raindrops float for miles away? This applies to viruses suspended in mucus droplets as well. Mucous droplets are more dense than air. So gravity takes over. Although, some of the droplets can be small enough to be suspended in the air for a small period of time. These viruses can also last for a small period of time on various surfaces as well.

When people say that a virus dies, it only means that they loose their ability to replicate itself. Or, its ability to infect its hosts. Even sunlight can do this. But viruses are not alive. So death to a virus is only a relative term at best.
Fair enough. This was something I hadn't researched myself. I should not have used the terms "alive", "dead", or "die" to describe the virus. A better term would have been "able to infect" or "able to cause sickness". Some quick googling resulted in different studies with different results. Everything from 4 hours to several days, depending on conditions.

No Seth, the SARS-CoV-2 virus IS a flu virus. All Coronaviruses belong to the same family of viruses, that cause colds and influenza. All Coronaviruses infect the respiratory tract. All Coronaviruses produce the same flu-like symptoms. All Coronaviruses have spike proteins typical of a flu virus. And, all Coronaviruses belongs to the same family of spiked flu viruses. The only mutation is that this virus can withstand our higher core body temperatures. Which normally would kill most other flu viruses.

So, is it more serious than the flu? NO, it is simply just a slightly more serious flu. But a less serious flu than its parent(SARS). But it is still the flu none the less. And, it is treated the same way as any other flus.
If the common flu and coronavirus are both the flu, fine. My point wasn't word definitions. My point was that the common flu killed between 12-52,000 people annually in the U.S., while Covid has killed hundreds of thousands in 22 months. When we judge our risk from this disease, those numbers tell us that Covid is more lethal than the common flu. As I said, we should neither overestimate it or underestimate it.

You know that a truer figure of the number of still active cases of Covid-19 in the US, is 8.36% https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/coronavirus-recovered

45,050,910(total cases in 22 months) - 16,306,656(recoveries) - 726,196(deaths) = 28,018,058(still active cases in the US). Therefore,

28,018,058(true active cases) / 333,532,490(population as of Oct. 22nd, 2021) x 100% = 8.36% of the entire population that is still infected. Not 14%.

Your math is correct, but I wasn't measuring "active" cases. I was making a statement of all cases. I was saying that 14% (rounded up from the actual 13.8) of the population has had (or presently has) the virus. All cases. I use the same math as you and the same source, it's just that I was measuring all cases, past and present.


I can't see the future, but if 14% of the population has had Covid in the past 22 months, what percentage of the population is going to have had it 10 years from now? I suspect that the answer is going to be a lot more than 14%. And the more important implication is that I think it is likely that most people are going to get Covid at some point in their lifetime if they live another 10-20 years or more. That likelihood plays into the choices we have and the decisions we make. For example, if the likelihood of contracting the illness in our lifetime is 1% or 50%, that matters.

I think that it is Seth. Either you support the idea that this virus, with a less than 2% mortality rate for almost 2 years, is worth loosing our freedoms, jobs or choices over, or you don't.
I already explained that. I supported these cautionary measures initially when we didn't understand the lethality of this virus. We understand it now. I have said over and over that it is time to go back to normal, and that means that our various freedoms should not be infringed upon.

Do you believe that any person should be fired from their job for refusing to be vaccinated? Do you believe that any living breathing adult should be forced to become vaccinated against their will?
Again, I have already answered those questions. No and No. Again, I am pro vaccination, but I am anti mandate.

Do you believe that all humans should have the right to decide what goes into their own bodies?
Yes.

Do you see the abuse of power, and further government intrusions that these mandates could lead to? All because of our ignorance and apathy? So NO, it is just that simple. The rest is just more arguments from ignorance, and gap-filling rationalizations.
I see these vaccine mandates as an abuse of power, yes.

The only logic I can see here, is if you were trying to reduce the population over time.
For a number of reasons, I don't believe that.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
If the common flu and coronavirus are both the flu, fine. My point wasn't word definitions. My point was that the common flu killed between 12-52,000 people annually in the U.S., while Covid has killed hundreds of thousands in 22 months. When we judge our risk from this disease, those numbers tell us that Covid is more lethal than the common flu. As I said, we should neither overestimate it or underestimate it.
I agree that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is more serious than the the common flu. This is because its mutation allows for it to reach our lower respiratory tract. The common flu virus usually stays in the upper respiratory tract. But the Covid-19 mortality rate is still less than that of the measles. But both are still dangerous if the immune system is compromised or weak. There are many many diseases that are far more lethal than Covid-19. Yet we don't shut the government down, and suspend the liberties of the people, do we?

For a number of reasons, I don't believe that.
Since I don't know what those reasons are, I can't respond. But, I don't either. But, other than a cash-cow for the drug industries, it is the only logical explanation that would explain, why the media and government are still pushing that vaccine mandates are rational. Why would you force everyone(recovered or uninfected) to be vaccinated?

Now they are even talking about yearly booster shots, just to make sure. This would mean initially 4 shots to be fully vaccinated. Then there will be vaccines for the variants. And then boosters for their variants. And then vaccines for any new virus. This is just becoming insane.

I can't see the future, but if 14% of the population has had Covid in the past 22 months, what percentage of the population is going to have had it 10 years from now? I suspect that the answer is going to be a lot more than 14%. And the more important implication is that I think it is likely that most people are going to get Covid at some point in their lifetime if they live another 10-20 years or more. That likelihood plays into the choices we have and the decisions we make. For example, if the likelihood of contracting the illness in our lifetime is 1% or 50%, that matters.
There is no historical evidence that supports this somewhat cynical view of the future. IMHO.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
I agree that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is more serious than the the common flu. This is because its mutation allows for it to reach our lower respiratory tract. The common flu virus usually stays in the upper respiratory tract. But the Covid-19 mortality rate is still less than that of the measles. But both are still dangerous if the immune system is compromised or weak. There are many many diseases that are far more lethal than Covid-19. Yet we don't shut the government down, and suspend the liberties of the people, do we?



Since I don't know what those reasons are, I can't respond. But, I don't either. But, other than a cash-cow for the drug industries, it is the only logical explanation that would explain, why the media and government are still pushing that vaccine mandates are rational. Why would you force everyone(recovered or uninfected) to be vaccinated?

Now they are even talking about yearly booster shots, just to make sure. This would mean initially 4 shots to be fully vaccinated. Then there will be vaccines for the variants. And then boosters for their variants. And then vaccines for any new virus. This is just becoming insane.



There is no historical evidence that supports this somewhat cynical view of the future. IMHO.
So I googled it, and the typical adult over 30 will get the flu twice over 10 years. Since Covid is a kind of flu, why would my expectation that most people will contract Covid sooner or later be a “somewhat cynical view of the future”?
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
So I googled it, and the typical adult over 30 will get the flu twice over 10 years. Since Covid is a kind of flu, why would my expectation that most people will contract Covid sooner or later be a “somewhat cynical view of the future”?
I'm sure that if you looked long enough, you would find someone saying that shit is good enough to eat.

Again you have created another presumptive strawman, that no matter how I answer, I would be just feeding your assumption. For example, "If oxygen and hydrogen are gases, then why is water not a gas?". "If all adults over 30 will get the flu within 10 years, than why shouldn't I expect most people to be infected with Covid-19?". This is a false equivalency. The SARS-CoV-2 virus, is a different virus to the Influenza A or B virus. Both viruses have different properties, morbidity and virulence. One is seasonal and the other is not.

But lets just ignore any and all of the other variables, including achieving our natural herd immunity. Lets also just ignore how many people have never had the flu in their lives, Or, how many people have not had the flu twice in 10 years. Let's even ignore the zero evidence used to justify this assertion. Do you think that anyone making this assertion is peddling optimism?? And, your expectations are seems to be only the product of your selective bias. So YES it is a somewhat an unfounded cynical view of the future. IMHO

I would've thought that we will see fewer and fewer people being infected by this disease. Not more people being infected. Have you ever wondered why there are no outbreaks of polio, bubonic plague, smallpox, or the measles? Should your logic also apply to these illnesses as well?
 
Top