|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Oct 9, 2020 22:26:18 GMT
It depends upon the level of commonality of the makeup of each strain of virus. If I recall, covid-19 is like 80% common with Sars and is common enough with other coronaviruses to result in the aforementioned t-cell immunity. But, they don't have to be that closely related for cross reactivity - such as a type of flu-specific t-cell having cross reactivity with a hep c antigen. It would really have been better had Fauci stayed in the lab and have actual epidemiologists with real world experience provide advice on public policy over this wu-flu. Well, it seems epidemiologists all across the world recommend mask wearing, recommend limiting the size of public gathering, trying to do stuff under open air rather than indoors and doing basically anything possible to limit infections to allow contact tracing to contain outbreaks before they can get serious.
But regarding the cross-reactivity - the important point is that just because there is reactivity it doesn't mean it's actually protecting you. At least that seems to be what I gather from the information available to me as layperson. The swine flu/spanish flu thing was a strong and specific enough cross-reaction it helped, but the Corona-Virus one isn't looking to be like that. And I think that kinda bears out in practice already - the Swine Flu didn't get as widely spread (at least in the US or Europe) as this new Corona variant did.
It seems as if it does protect you - more studies are needed to confirm exactly how much t-cells are doing vs the rest of the immune system. www.livescience.com/common-cold-coronaviruses-t-cells-covid-19-immunity.html |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Oct 10, 2020 23:49:06 GMT
I wonder what the right is thinking about Trump using abortion cell medicine to cure himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Oct 11, 2020 0:10:42 GMT
If Trump likes it, they think it's lovely.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Oct 11, 2020 15:35:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Oct 11, 2020 16:19:26 GMT
I love it. WHO is horrible when they're saying things that the right doesn't like, but become "experts who agree with me" when they do say things the right likes. |
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Oct 11, 2020 17:14:52 GMT
I love it. WHO is horrible when they're saying things that the right doesn't like, but become "experts who agree with me" when they do say things the right likes. When they're saying things the right doesn't like, it's generally because they're saying something that has no basis in actual science. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Oct 11, 2020 17:32:53 GMT
Dude. You consider blogs and twitter accounts to be hard science. You'll latch onto anything that even slightly bolsters your stance. From the article, it looks like it's one faction in the WHO that's advocating this, not the entire organization.
So yeah. Not an endorsement by any means.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Oct 11, 2020 17:35:29 GMT
Dude. You consider blogs and twitter accounts to be hard science. What you consider to be science, the rational person considers psuedoscience at best. Edit: Nevermind. I misread who said that and who it was to.  |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Oct 11, 2020 17:35:59 GMT
I was talking about 3cat. Sorry I didn't make it clear.  |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Oct 11, 2020 17:39:58 GMT
I was talking about 3cat. Sorry I didn't make it clear. You did. That was my bad. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Oct 11, 2020 17:42:16 GMT
I love it. WHO is horrible when they're saying things that the right doesn't like, but become "experts who agree with me" when they do say things the right likes. When they're saying things the right doesn't like, it's generally because they're saying something that has no basis in actual science. Um. "What I like." doesn't qualify as science. And "What I don't like." can in fact be science. And quite frankly after Trump and the overwhelming support by the right for his disdain of science, you don't get to fall back on science as the reason you support or don't support something. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Oct 11, 2020 20:06:24 GMT
The fact that all of 3cat's "evidence" is either old, doesn't apply to the situation at hand or is from rather suspect twitter accounts/blog sites, makes even this suspect.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Oct 11, 2020 21:23:43 GMT
The fact that all of 3cat's "evidence" is either old, doesn't apply to the situation at hand or is from rather suspect twitter accounts/blog sites, makes even this suspect. So a news report from an Aussie news outlet directly quoting the WHO is "suspect." Yep, I take nothing you say as anything other than screeches from a panic polly - no thinking, no reasoning; just Pavlovian responses to leftist nerve impulse triggers. Nay, not even that - just the mindless response of a slime mold. |
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Oct 12, 2020 1:24:42 GMT
The fact that all of 3cat's "evidence" is either old, doesn't apply to the situation at hand or is from rather suspect twitter accounts/blog sites, makes even this suspect. Remind me again why masks are needed? CDCs own numbers show most of the people in that dataset who got COVID always wore masks
Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Oct 12, 2020 5:37:52 GMT
The fact that all of 3cat's "evidence" is either old, doesn't apply to the situation at hand or is from rather suspect twitter accounts/blog sites, makes even this suspect. Remind me again why masks are needed? CDCs own numbers show most of the people in that dataset who got COVID always wore masks
Because most people are wearing masks. If people weren't wearing masks, most people getting Covid would not be wearing masks and you'd be seeing 10x the numbers of people getting it. Jesus man! This isn't tough. |
|
