Instant Karma is going to get you, will knock you off of your feet, will hit you in the head, your better off being dead. Yeah, yeah, alright into the next day in the USA, stay away from republicans, their future is dim, their attitudes are cruel, and they lie at every whim. Who would have thought it? Not me said the blind man, not me said the deaf man, not me said the dumb man. Dumb and Dumber a past comment on our current times. Peace
Though it is still not clear whether antibodies prevent reinfection:
~https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-new-100-accurate-covid-19-antibody-test-approved-for-use-in-uk-11987924
1EdBenti, Your assertion can be addressed to the faithful Democratic Party voters because âdoing what ever you canâ includes more options than loyally voting for Joe Biden. Suppose that the young and progressives and the disillusioned and angry refuse to support Joe Biden and his neoLiberal team in this election and thus defeating Trump is far from certain. Then âdoing whatever you can to get the Republicans out of officeâ would include the faithful Democratic Party voters seriously considering the possibility of voting for a third party candidate in order that the opposition to Trump be united. The possibility is not unthinkable. It can be discussed.
If the Democratic Party voters refuse to seriously look at this possibility then they are not doing all they can to get Trump (and the Republicans) out of office.
I appreciate your comment. Thank you.
Please, what do you mean by âno evidenceâ? Please define âno evidenceâ with respect to the large body of scientific knowledge regarding other strains of coronavirus (flu virus).
Covid19 is a coronavirus, right? There is a lot of evidence â there is scientific consensus, in fact â that antibodies to other strains of coronavirus confer immunity to those strains. When it comes to other strains of coronavirus, scientific consensus instructs us that a person with antibodies in her blood poses no risk of infecting others.
With all due deference and respect to your knowledge of virology, may I ask, What exactly is so dramatically different about covid19 that leads you to assert that there is âno evidenceâ that covid19 antibodies confer immunity to covid19?
1 Like
Well spoken.
Few children get COVID-19. But how many teachers is Trump trying to kill ?
1 Like
Are you sure that tRump knows what the truth is well enough that he can always avoid saying it?
1 Like
There is also no evidence yet that no one can have BOTH antibodies and the virus at the same time.
1 Like
Or, people can put adult pants on and recognize that people are dying terrible deaths now because of a horrendous president who doesnât care about progressive wants and desires at all. Biden was low on my list of choices, but to drown in self-pity and nihilism because he won a primary is stupid, millions will suffer for it. I donât know whatâs progressive about that.
1 Like
@Kurt_Bechle
@Harry_Pjotr
@pinkbarrio
@Aleph_Null
@ReconFire
Good point. Good rejoinder to the estimable GuildF312S.
Hmmm⌠What counts as âevidenceâ? I ask the question in all seriousness. Do virologists know what counts as âevidenceâ with regard to the characteristics of viruses?
Letâs take the honorable GuildF312S at his word. There is âno evidenceâ that covid19 antibodies confer immunity to covid19.
There is, on the other hand, abundant evidence that antibodies to other strains of coronavirus confer immunity to those other strains.
There is also âno evidenceâ that covid19 antibodies and covid 19 viruses can exist at the same time.
Given all of the foregoing, it seems to me that the key questions that need to be answered are 1) What counts as âevidenceâ? and 2) How much evidence counts as reasonable âproofâ?
I doubt that a medical scientist will ever obtain 100% proof with respect to the issue of whether covid19 antibodies confer immunity to covid19. Thus, public health officials and the politicians they advise must be satisfied with something less than 100% proof.
Again, how much evidence counts as reasonable âproofâ sufficient to lift the lockdown against persons with covid19 antibodies in their blood?
One last question: How much â to what extent â should human suffering resulting from covid19 lockdowns factor into the question of what constitutes reasonable âproofâ? If a larger number of people are threatened with hunger, homelessness, and/or death as a result of covid19 lockdowns than are threatened by covid19 itself, would this fact, if true, tend to lower the threshold of reasonable âproofâ?
Proof is a thing in mathematics, but not in physical science. In non-ideal spheres, all you get is likelihoods, never conclusive answers.
1 Like
Iâll give you a B- for sarcasm
but an F for specific rebuttal. This is being called a ânovelâ corona virus for a reason. People who know much more about virology than I do are saying that thereâs no way this particular virus could have appeared naturally.
No. Iâm not a virologist (but I did take microbiology in nursing school back in the day, where I learned about Kochâs postulates). So, based on your presumably superior knowledge and experience, maybe you will educate me on just two minor points:
âwhy is the first âsideâ-effect of measles vaccineâlisted in order of frequency on the manufacturerâs package insertâmeasles?
âwhy does tetanus vaccine require a âboosterâ shot q2yrs? Shouldnât one dose confer lifetime immunity?
Eagerly awaiting enlightenment.
1 Like
As the caveat in every prospectus for a stock offering says, âPast performance is no guarantee of future results.â
1 Like
Of course. That was my point, written for a lay audience. The issue of adequate âproofâ or verification in a non-ideal sphere is inexorably answered with respect to pragmatic concerns. Pragmatic concerns and epistemological compromises are the starting points of any honest (ie, non-ideal) discussion of covid19 risks, antibodies and public policy. Those who demand âproofâ before moving forward with a compassionate, science-based easing of covid lockdowns are being dishonest about the nature of knowledge regarding viruses, medical science, and public health policies.
Another important point is that the covid lockdown has never been absolute. The economy was never really shut down. A lot of people â those deemed âessential workersâ â have continued to work. Goods and services have continued to circulate. Surely it is a good idea to administer antibodies tests to all essential workers, and to permit only those with antibodies to interact with people and work in public spaces. Surely this is a good idea, even if covid scientists have only achieved, say, 65% confidence that antibodies confer immunity.
Antibodies testing for everyone is an essential part of any rational, science-based government response to the covid19 pandemic. It is necessary to any government response worthy of a free, rational people.
Part of our problem has been FDA approval of several bogus tests (both virus & antibody tests). The quick virus test approved for use in the White House has been found to deliver 33 to 50% false negatives. Antibody tests with widely broadcast, non peer-reviewed findings (in Santa Clara & LA counties, and in NYC) have been generally assailed as flawed in every way â including reliability of the tests per se.
1 Like
-
It might be insensitive to compare the circumstances of a person whose life is being destroyed by a government-enforced lockdown to the circumstances of a person who is contemplating purchasing a few shares of stock.
-
As Aleph Null and I have pointed out, proof in a non-ideal sphere is inherently unattainable. The epistemological basis of medical science and public health policy is always subject to reasonable doubts. Again, the key question is, what kind and what level of reasonable doubts about covid19 antibodies testing are sufficient to reasonably forestall implementation of a government response based on universal testing? And, again, a reasonable, compassionate answer to this question must be tempered by awareness of the fact that the current indiscriminate, non-scientific covid19 lockdown is causing immense suffering.
Iâm judging by your attempts at deflection that weâre done here.
1 Like
âDoneâ? It looks like you made an earlier comment. I havenât read that one yet. I apologize for that. Is that why you suspect me of âdeflectingâ? Busy morning here in Santiago. Anyway, speaking strictly for myself, I am never âdoneâ with any being. Not a rock, not a squirrel, not a tiuque (even when he steals my breakfast in Valdivia), not a sea wolf, certainly not a human. Humans are too interesting to ever be done with! Perish the thought.
Please forgive me if I donât reply to your earlier comment. I donât intend to deflect anything or be done with anything. And by the way, maybe it doesnât matter to most people, but I sincerely believe in being courteous and formal with my virtual interlocutors. As in bygone days in urban settings, where strangers on the street observed formal codes of interaction â courtesies that seem excessive to the contemporary eye â I believe that our conduct toward one another on the internet should be gracious and respectful. This, in my mind, is a way of compensating for the fact that we are strangers to one another. When I address you or mention you to others in a way that seems excessively deferential, I am not being sarcastic. I am trying to make it clear that I hold no ill will or animosity, and that any comments I make that might be critical are not meant to be taken personally⌠are meant to be taken as friendly provocations to further reflection. Deepening my own reflections are my only reason for occasionally participating in these comment threads. I abjure verbal combat, sarcasm, snideness, and other features of so much virtual commentary these days.
Thank you for your insights into what is wrong in my thinking.
Oh, and if you are wondering what a tiuque is, there is a nice photo of one here.
^https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalcoboenus_chimango
The holier than thou evangelicals could not accept a cheater in the White House like Clinton.
But hypocrisy wins out once again among the republicans as they (embrace) the much worse trump. Itâs about predjudice, not justice.
Larry Flint put a stop to the hypocritical treatment from some, or all of those on the right.
When your body starts making antibodies to COVID-19, do you instantly have none of the virus left? Or does it take a while for the antibodies to kill all of them?