COVID vaccine works - we're saved!

Tanypteryx:

---

You are daft! We all watched him hand you your ass on that too.

---

And Taq has headed off to the great victory circle in the sky and left you here to explain to everyone that you are related to fecal bacteria.

Kleinman:

---

Why haven't you or any other poorly trained biologist pointed out the errors in the math or physics I've presented?

AZPaul3:

---

Because you are ignored. They have better things to do than expose known charlatans yet again.
​
No one believes you, Kleinman. You have become nothing.

---

---

It sounds like a good strategy except for one thing, you can't explain why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive mutation in the Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments. Here's the explanation for you to ignore.
For a single selection pressure:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection
And for multiple simultaneous selection pressures:
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance
The first paper explains why the Kishony biological evolutionary experiment works and the second paper explains why 3-drug combination therapy works for the treatment of HIV (which does recombination).

Wow. Dense much?No one cares, Kleinman. No one believes you or your papers.

Kleinman:

---

... you can't explain why ...

AZPaul3:

---

Wow. Dense much?
​
No one cares, Kleinman. No one believes you or your papers.

---

---

That's ok AZPaul3, it will be done without you.

And without you.

AZPaul3:

---

And without you.

---

Maybe so, but it will happen.

Another 5 mins on Google and another study to back us up and push you further and further into your lifeless hole:Effectiveness of Face Mask or Respirator Use in Indoor Public Settings for Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 Infection — California, February–December 2021 | MMWROnce again, the data are in the article.

vimesey:

---

Another 5 mins on Google and another study to back us up and push you further and further into your lifeless hole:

​

Effectiveness of Face Mask or Respirator Use in Indoor Public Settings for Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 Infection — California, February–December 2021 | MMWR

​

Once again, the data are in the article.

---

Do you always jump to conclusions in these discussions so poorly prepared? You think if you post a link without a quote it makes your argument invincible. Do I have to post a quote from this link as well that shows you why a generalized mask mandate may actually have increased the spread of Covid? You are simply poorly prepared and have a false sense of security.

All of the studies I've seen and read about make it clear that the evidence shows that mask wearing reduces the transmission of Covid. This bought the time to save more people whilst the vaccines were developed.It's basic logic.Oh I love it when you've got nothing other than unevidenced denial.

vimesey:

---

All of the studies I've seen and read about make it clear that the evidence shows that mask wearing reduces the transmission of Covid. This bought the time to save more people whilst the vaccines were developed.
​
It's basic logic.
​
Oh I love it when you've got nothing other than unevidenced denial.

---

As I said, you are simply poorly prepared and have a false sense of security. Your logic is faulty and your own link shows you why a generalized mask mandate may actually have increased the spread of Covid. Read and understand the "Discussion" from your own link and try to understand why you are so poorly prepared and have a false sense of security in our discussion and why this link also gives clues as to why a generalized mask mandate may actually increase the spread of Covid. If you can't see your error, I'll post the quote from your link that shows you are poorly prepared and have a false sense of security because of your flawed logic.

I think it's very unfortunate whenever any public official provides incorrect information, especially about something as serious as covid, and that they should correct the misinformation as quickly and accurately as possible, but you referred to "your so-called experts." If you actually did mean experts then you'll have to tell me who you mean and what they said. For the benefit of those reading we should make clear that this is about antibiotics, not vaccines, and the reality is that the advice for decades has been to take the full regimen because it reduces the likelihood of drug resistance developing. But recent research has yielded some indications that this might not always be the case. This is an issue that has begun to receive some attention within the medical community. Here's the opening few paragraphs from a helpful article from a few years ago, Taking antibiotics for full 7 to 14 days can actually harm you:

quote:

---

A growing body of research finds that telling patients to finish a full course of antibiotics even if they’re already feeling better not only fails to prevent drug-resistant “superbugs” from forming, but also might make those pathogens stronger.

​

The latest evidence comes from a study published this week in the journal BMJ by a group of British scientists. That team joins an expanding chorus of experts who said there’s no scientific support for the conventional wisdom, first adopted in the mid-1940s, that long courses of antibiotics help prevent bacteria from developing immunity to many or most of the weapons in the antibiotic arsenal.

​

In reality, these researchers said, the longer antibiotics are used, the more collateral damage is done to the body’s community of helpful bacteria — and that in turn gives resistant strains of bacteria, always present in the human body in small numbers, room to flourish and share their defenses with other pathogens, gradually leading to the superbug strains now estimated to kill 23,000 Americans per year and sicken more than 2 million.

---

The article also offers many qualifications, this example for just one:

quote:

---

“Some patients are sent home from the hospital on oral or (intravenous) antibiotics and need to work closely with their physician. They should not stop antibiotics unless they are directed to,” Roth said.

---

But this article is about bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics. Covid is a virus, and viruses evolve resistance (evasive tactics might be a better term) not to vaccines but to our own immune systems. Vaccines only prepare our immune systems to mount an effective response to a particular viral invader.But I was originally responding to this: I think the experts already understand a great deal about drug resistance. You'll have to tell me which experts you're talking about and what they're saying that leads you to believe they don't understand drug resistance.--Percy

Kleinman:

---

Are you claiming that your so-called experts were not telling people that vaccination prevents a person from spreading infectious disease?

Percy:

---

I'm not aware of any experts saying this. You'll have to tell me who you mean and what they said.

Kleinman:

---

How did Joe Biden get the idea that vaccinated people cannot spread Covid?

Percy:

---

I think it's very unfortunate whenever any public official provides incorrect information, especially about something as serious as covid, and that they should correct the misinformation as quickly and accurately as possible, but you referred to "your so-called experts." If you actually did mean experts then you'll have to tell me who you mean and what they said.

---

---

---

---

How did Joe Biden get the idea that vaccinated people cannot spread Covid?

Kleinman:

---

I do this because drug resistance is part of the problem of the spread of infectious diseases. For example, many STD variants are now resistant to drugs used to treat them. There are now drug-resistant variants to the anti-influenza drugs used. I think many of the so-called experts do not understand the problems that they are supposed to have expertise on.

Percy:

---

Drug resistance and how it develops seems well understood by just about everyone. It's why we're advised to complete a medication regimen (although this advice seems to be undergoing some reconsideration). You'll have to tell me who you're talking about and what they're saying that leads you to believe they don't understand drug resistance.

Kleinman:

---

Of course, taking a complete regimen is very bad advice to treat an infection or prevent drug resistance, only lazy, unknowledgeable doctors give that kind of advice.

Percy:

---

For the benefit of those reading we should make clear that this is about antibiotics, not vaccines, and the reality is that the advice for decades has been to take the full regimen because it reduces the likelihood of drug resistance developing. But recent research has yielded some indications that this might not always be the case. This is an issue that has begun to receive some attention within the medical community. Here's the opening few paragraphs from a helpful article from a few years ago, Taking antibiotics for full 7 to 14 days can actually harm you:

​

quote:

---

A growing body of research finds that telling patients to finish a full course of antibiotics even if they’re already feeling better not only fails to prevent drug-resistant “superbugs” from forming, but also might make those pathogens stronger.

​

The latest evidence comes from a study published this week in the journal BMJ by a group of British scientists. That team joins an expanding chorus of experts who said there’s no scientific support for the conventional wisdom, first adopted in the mid-1940s, that long courses of antibiotics help prevent bacteria from developing immunity to many or most of the weapons in the antibiotic arsenal.

​

In reality, these researchers said, the longer antibiotics are used, the more collateral damage is done to the body’s community of helpful bacteria — and that in turn gives resistant strains of bacteria, always present in the human body in small numbers, room to flourish and share their defenses with other pathogens, gradually leading to the superbug strains now estimated to kill 23,000 Americans per year and sicken more than 2 million.

---

​

The article also offers many qualifications, this example for just one:

​

quote:

---

“Some patients are sent home from the hospital on oral or (intravenous) antibiotics and need to work closely with their physician. They should not stop antibiotics unless they are directed to,” Roth said.

---

​

But this article is about bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics. Covid is a virus, and viruses evolve resistance (evasive tactics might be a better term) not to vaccines but to our own immune systems. Vaccines only prepare our immune systems to mount an effective response to a particular viral invader.

​

But I was originally responding to this:

​

I think many of the so-called experts do not understand the problems that they are supposed to have expertise on.

​

I think the experts already understand a great deal about drug resistance. You'll have to tell me which experts you're talking about and what they're saying that leads you to believe they don't understand drug resistance.

---

---

---

---

Since you are so knowledgeable about this subject, what do experts recommend that you tell patients when you start them on antibiotics?

The quote you provided in Message 811 from Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis only suggests further study and makes no mention of mask mandates causing increased covid spread. Here's the portion you quoted:

Kleinman quoting from The Lancet:

---

Interpretation The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance.

---

See, nothing about mask mandates causing increased covid spread. It does endorse mask wearing, however:

The Lancet:

---

Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty).

---

Here's another article about mask effectiveness: Yes, masks reduce the risk of spreading COVID, despite a review saying they don’t. Here's a short excerpt reflecting their conclusions:

quote:

---

There is strong and consistent evidence for the effectiveness of masks and (even more so) respirators in protecting against respiratory infections. Masks are an important protection against serious infections.

---

--Percy

If you think that Joe Biden was informed of this by experts then you'll have to tell me which experts and what they said. As I said, an active discussion on this is beginning to develop within the medical community. My sense is that they're moving in the direction of tailoring the advice for each situation rather than using a "one size fits all" approach.--Percy

Percy:

---

The quote you provided in Message 811 from Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis only suggests further study and makes no mention of mask mandates causing increased covid spread. Here's the portion you quoted:

​

Kleinman quoting from The Lancet:

---

Interpretation The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance.

---

​

See, nothing about mask mandates causing increased covid spread. It does endorse mask wearing, however:

​

The Lancet:

---

Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty).

---

---

Read the quote more carefully and you too won't come to this discussion so poorly prepared with a false sense of security.