Closer than we think?https://reason.com/2020/07/01/covid...han-antibody-tests-suggest-say-2-new-studies/
Herd immunity
- Thread starter steelcurtain55.
- Start date
I really hope so, but this nature study from last week suggests weaker antibodies in those with weaker or asymptomatic infections. It can still buy time until a vaccine is good to go, but could leave the possibility of reinfection for some. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0965-6
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-hopes-fade-for-swedens-herd-immunity-experiment-2020-6?amp
Yea - because it worked so well in Sweden. NOT!
Reason Magazine is owned and published by the Reason Foundation, which is an American libertarian think tank founded in 1978. It is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization that is supported by donations and sale of its publications. Its largest donors are the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation ($1,522,212) and the Sarah Scaife Foundation ($2,016,000), according to disclosures.
yes, noted public health champions, the koch's and scaife's, are on to something no one else has figured out. and they have no bias!!!
yes, noted public health champions, the koch's and scaife's, are on to something no one else has figured out. and they have no bias!!!
So you're saying that these two studies don't exist?[/QUOTE]
oh, i'm sure they exist. i'm not sure i'd call them real "stuidies."
from the article: "First, a few caveats: Both studies are based on small sample sizes and neither have yet been vetted by peer review."
oh, i'm sure they exist. i'm not sure i'd call them real "stuidies."
from the article: "First, a few caveats: Both studies are based on small sample sizes and neither have yet been vetted by peer review."[/QUOTE]
as was almost every study we've talked about the past 3 months including the studies which were retracted
It's a news story. This is a perfect example of judging a story by who published it rather than the actual facts. I mean do you think that the Koch's made up the Karolinska Institute in Sweden just so they could plant this story?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...st-immunity-levels-study-sweden-a9595491.html
Now does that make the story true because a news source on the left published it too?
if it's funded by koch's, it's immediately invalidated.
The study wasn't funded by the Kochs. The web site was merely posting a news story.
Since I gave you an example of a "liberal" news source that published the same thing, does that mean that you think that even they are under the Koch's thumb? Or is it possible, just possible, that different sources saw an interesting news story and wrote about it?
Nah, can't be that. Has to be those evil Kochs trying to run the world.
I read both studies. The jargon is a killer but I'm not an immunologist so forgive me if I misunderstood. As the news reports say, they believe that many people (80%) have some level of non-specific natural immunity to COVID-19 due to previous infections with the 4 common cold coronaviruses. This could account for a lot of the asymptomatic cases, and maybe could explain some of the resistance kids seem to have to this infection, because they get more colds, and maybe has something to do with the multi-system inflammatory syndrome some kids get (my guesses not theirs)
So about 30% of random blood donors who weren't sick had T-lymphocytes (memory cells) that reacted specifically to the virus, about twice as many as people who had specific antibodies. A chinese study that got lots of play showed 40% of people with mild or no symptoms lost measurable antibodies within a couple months. This study showed that too, but all COVID cases retained T-memory cells whether or not they had circulating antibodies. And nobody got sick twice. They are pretty confident that immunity will last from the natural infection (or a good vaccine), as did the SARS immunity and the MERS immunity.
You have T-lyymphocytes that remember every infecting bug that you ever fought off. On first exposure they learn the bug and fight it, that takes some time. On second exposure they're ready immediately. They tell B-lymphocytes to make antibodies with no delay and if everything goes right you may never know you were exposed. So you may not have measurable antibodies now but tomorrow you will.
So about 30% of random blood donors who weren't sick had T-lymphocytes (memory cells) that reacted specifically to the virus, about twice as many as people who had specific antibodies. A chinese study that got lots of play showed 40% of people with mild or no symptoms lost measurable antibodies within a couple months. This study showed that too, but all COVID cases retained T-memory cells whether or not they had circulating antibodies. And nobody got sick twice. They are pretty confident that immunity will last from the natural infection (or a good vaccine), as did the SARS immunity and the MERS immunity.
You have T-lyymphocytes that remember every infecting bug that you ever fought off. On first exposure they learn the bug and fight it, that takes some time. On second exposure they're ready immediately. They tell B-lymphocytes to make antibodies with no delay and if everything goes right you may never know you were exposed. So you may not have measurable antibodies now but tomorrow you will.
go read up on the kochs. they have no interest in democracy. they want a system where you don't have a say. you are uniformed. go get informed. you won't. this is radically documented. if you want the cliff's notes version, read, "dark money."
again, you won't.
The antibody tests are fairly unreliable-
So without a methodology section and peer review -
Huge grains of salt
Antibodies do not infer immunity is the problem
hiv patients have antibodies to hiv , but not enough to mount an immune response to clear the virus
This is from the MAYO Clinic
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases...th/herd-immunity-and-coronavirus/art-20486808
Basically it is 2 things......vaccines and natural infection
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases...th/herd-immunity-and-coronavirus/art-20486808
Basically it is 2 things......vaccines and natural infection
There are big-money donors on both sides, but most of the top 25 is Republican, particularly when you don't include Bloomberg's self-funding of his own campaign. The typical big Republican donors every year - Sheldon Adelson, the Koch Brothers, and Bernie Marcus - dwarf George Soros's contributions. Adelson alone donated $100M more than Soros, for example.
I suspect that Soros is particularly vilified on the right because he's Jewish (even though Adelson is as well, since he's donating to their team, he's not in the crosshairs).
I find that last part of your post really interesting. When I think of those who are against Jews, I tend to think of the left. The right is the group who supports Israel. The left, not so much.
It's complicated. There's definitely antisemitism at the extremes on both sides. I personally believe that antisemitism on the right is both more prevalent and more severe. For example, you don't hear left-leaning extremists openly chanting "Jews will not replace us" by the thousands and there's no secret antisemitism numerology on the left (e.g., the number 88 and the fourteen words) the way there is within the white supremacy and some other authoritarian movements, at least as far as I am aware of. The Tree of Life shooting is another example; the shooter was a self-identified conservative (I would call him an authoritarian, but I consider myself an old school conservative and since 2016 people online openly call me a leftist) who openly pushed popular right-wing media stories, including about the Central American Caravan and Proud Boy ideologies.
I think most on the left are more pro-Jewish as a people and a faith, but believe that our support of Israel the state shouldn't be unlimited. For example, if Israel punishes Palestinians collectively, instead of just targeting Hamas, we should hold them accountable for that. The right portrays this as being antisemitism, but I don't believe that to be the case. They're the same principles of war that the left wants to apply to everyone - in this case just against a state that happens to be Jewish. Of course, there are some on the left that believe Israel should be forced back to its pre-1967 borders or the land given back to the Palestinians entirely but that's definitely the minority. Some of that is probably anticolonialism and some of it is definitely antisemitism.
Most of the right are pro-Israel, the state, but less pro-Jewish as a people and a faith. This concept is manifested in more unlimited support for Israel but tepid support of or outright indifference toward non-Israeli Jews in the face of antisemitism. We've kind of seen this dichotomy with Trump. His daughter is married to a Jewish man and I think converted to Judaism, but he openly supported right-leaning people that were publicly antisemitic after the Charlottesville attack. Some believe that this is because certain Christian sects believe that Israel's existence and physical presence in the Holy Land is required for Biblical prophecies the predict the Rapture. The logic is: to get Jesus back, you need a Jewish state, so we support Israel.
Anyway, sorry for that long post. It's a strange topic in politics.
No need to apologize for a long post. I appreciate your post.
I know all about the Kochs. WTF does that have to do with a news story? A news story that has been picked up by other news outlets both on the left and the right. Are all the left-leaning news outlets that have run similar stories really secretly under the thumb of the Kochs? Were the people in Sweden who did the study secretly funded by the Kochs? Or are you so locked into your political position that you won't believe a news story that's been picked up by numerous outlets simply because you disagree with one of the many outlets that have picked it up?
Seriously, do you not get how pathetic it is to not believe a news story because one of the numerous places that ran the story was run by someone you don't like?
This is the biggest reason the Propaganda Campaign Against America has been so incredibly successful. Media consumption is fraught with peril nowadays if you don't know the agenda of your choices.
Panther-lair post of the week! I too have many conservative leanings.
Not as sorry as those of us who read it.
Last edited:
I agree. People who willfully blind themselves to a news story simply because one of the many places on the web that ran the story was run by someone that you don't like is a terrible thing.
That is what you meant, isn't it?
calm down, karen. they fund a lot of anti-science "research." so, yes, could be.
I found your post fascinating and insightful. Thank you for sharing your perspective.
no idea who you are but i'm guessing you're an enemy of science, a confirmed trumper, and brainwashed. good day to you, sir.
I think you nailed it on the right vs. left, Israel vs Judaism, splits. The Christian fundamentalists‘ support for Israel seems to be based on Biblical prophecies rather than support of Jews as a people. Their support is based on religious beliefs, not moral, political or foreign policy considerations.
I don't need to calm down. I'm sitting here laughing at someone who claims to be open minded who disbelieves a news story simply because one of the many news outlets to run the story happens to be run by someone that they don't like.
I've never been to the Reason web site until now, but right now they have a story on their front page about how gyms in Arizona are defying their Governor's orders to shut down. Do you think that since that story is on a Koch funded web site that it must be false, and that the gyms actually have closed down? Then there is another story about how the police in Maryland continue to refuse to release the body camera footage of the incident where the police shot Duncan Lemp in his home in the middle of the night. Do you think that's all a put on and that the police actually have released the footage? Then there is a story about how five Senators, two Republicans and three Democrats, have introduced a bill that would grant refugee status to people from Hong Kong trying to flee the current Chinese government crackdown there. Do you think that they haven't actually introduced a bill like that, or maybe that they have introduced a bill but it says something completely different, just because one of the many places that the story is being reported is the wrong web site?
The irony of someone calling people brainwashed and an enemy of science while simultaneously dismissing a news story simply because they disagree with one of the many places that ran the story is so thick we'd need the world's largest knife to cut it.
That's a pretty simplistic view, to say the least. One that is also a very popular, secular view. One I don't agree with, but you're entitled to your opinion.
