There Won’t Be a Clear End to the Pandemic

[6miths]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB Am I the only one here that is tired of the unending harping on mainstream medía? It’s become a crutch to blame partisan bias as an excuse for not considering the merits a specific article or reference and declaring the source objectionable. There’s plenty of qualified and professional media all around, including specialized journalism by people who truly do know what they are talking about and give us diligent reporting and thoughtful analysis.

+1

I agree. I don't think news organizations have ever been completely free from bias as they are run by humans. There are some interesting studies on this related to reporting from times past. And certainly there have long been media moguls who have tried to sway public opinion with their papers, then radio and then TV. But I think that we have to admit that we are in a new era with the rise of the internet as a 'news' source and the undermining or minimizing of 'expert' sources. It's pretty clear that we are in uncharted territory when a publication like Scientific American endorses a presidential candidate!

[ShokWaveRider]

Unfortunately the only unbiased news source I can find available on Cable TV seems to be PBS News at 6 and 7pm every day. Anyone else have any suggestions?

[MichaelB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShokWaveRider Unfortunately the only unbiased news source I can find available on Cable TV seems to be PBS News at 6 and 7pm every day. Anyone else have any suggestions?

Here’s a whole thread on that https://www.early-retirement.org/for...-105143-3.html

[ivinsfan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB Am I the only one here that is tired of the unending harping on mainstream medía? It’s become a crutch to blame partisan bias as an excuse for not considering the merits a specific article or reference and declaring the source objectionable. There’s plenty of qualified and professional media all around, including specialized journalism by people who truly do know what they are talking about and give us diligent reporting and thoughtful analysis.

It's too important to get tired of it. Is it OK when a member selectively quotes a story to go to the source and read the complete story? I read the story and questioned some bias on the part of the writer. Does bias from a writer give a different slant to the story? Maybe, and in my mind it's OK to say, I'm wondering about that. You used the word analysis and that is where the rub comes in. I no longer blindly accept news from "any" news source and it's OK to feel that way. I don't use it as a crutch. The author of this article talks about a new normal. I feel a new normal is coming as far as news media and the public at large.

[timo2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DFW_M5 Getting a viable and effective vaccine is first, but as I understand it the gov't has contracted with the pharm companies and they are manufacturing the doses in parallel with testing, so the logistics of delivering the vaccine may not be so monumental compared to distributing the standard flu vaccine, particularly if military logistics is involved in the distribution process. Of course, then the public will have to be willing to be vaccinated.

Here is some logistical information from The Financial Times (sept 13 article). (their site can be difficult for non-subscribers, but not blocked out entirely):

"The chief executive of the world’s largest vaccine manufacturer has warned that not enough Covid-19 vaccines will be available for everyone in the world to be inoculated until the end of 2024 at the earliest.*

Adar Poonawalla, chief executive of the Serum Institute of India, told the Financial Times that pharmaceutical companies were not increasing production capacity quickly enough to vaccinate the global population in less time.*

“It’s going to take four to five years until everyone gets the vaccine on this planet,” said Mr Poonawalla, who estimated that if the Covid-19 shot is a two-dose vaccine — such as measles or rotavirus — the world will need 15bn doses.
...

Assuming there are two or more vaccines that are at least 75 per cent protective against infection, three-quarters of the world’s population could be vaccinated by mid-2023, said Peter Hale, the executive director of the Foundation for Vaccine Research in the US. “That should be enough to curb the spread of infection and stall the pandemic — though not good enough to consign the virus to the dustbin of history,” Mr Hale added.

https://www.ft.com/content/a832d5d7-...d-8757f19c3b6b

[EastWest Gal]

Based on a few things I've gathered from news and the TWIV podcast series, this is what I think might happen:

The virologists on TWIV think that, based on the four other known human coronaviruses, SARS-COV2 will eventually take on the characteristics of the others. The other coronaviruses are one of the viral causes of the common cold-mild illnesses with extremely rare secondary infections.

There are a few documented cases of people who have been reinfected with the coronavirus. The infections have been with a slightly mutated isolate (only picked up genetically). One of the several documented cases had a more severe infection the second time. In the other cases, the disease was much milder. Immunity is heterogeneous. Those studying the disease currently don't know what elements of the immune system are most at play, as far as which antibodies are the most effective, what is the roles of T cell immunity, dendritic cells, etc.

TWIV.TV episode #664 presented an elegant paper looking at variations of antibodies to the known coronaviruses over time. They used a cohort of HIV infected men who had their blood sampled every three months since 1989 (though there was a 4 year gap early on). They went back to the many years of frozen sera from ten of these patients and measured antibodies to these common coronaviruses. They were able to document that detectable antibody lasted about 6 months after an infection. Immunity starts to wane to these viruses after 6 months, so one can get it again. But when you get it again, the illness is milder, sometimes asymptomatic, even in these HIV-infected patients.

The hope is that a vaccine (two doses) will give the vast majority of us significant immunity, and that second, third, and subsequent exposures will not cause significant clinical disease. The vaccines may not prevent infection, but they may prevent disease from the virus. That is the ultimate goal anyway. If each infection boosts immunity yet doesn't make you sick, so much the better.

It is interesting that infection in children is in general much milder. So, in the future, we may be vaccinating people against this at a certain young age (once safety studies are done), and then with future exposures, the vaccinated don't get significantly ill.

During the 1918 flu pandemic, older people got severe illness much less frequently than the younger people. The peak age of those who died was 28. There was significant illness in children and in young adults. Why? Probably because the older folks had survived a previous flu pandemic and already had partial immunity. There was a flu pandemic that went worldwide in 1889-1892 and killed about one million people.

This is going to take awhile. But we will get there. And it will probably end before we notice that it ended.

[Aerides]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivinsfan It's too important to get tired of it. Is it OK when a member selectively quotes a story to go to the source and read the complete story? I read the story and questioned some bias on the part of the writer.

If I could wave a magic wand I'd ban all threads that start with "hey i found this article" because no matter the topic, no matter the source, there is inevitable gripe about the source and bias.

It could be an article about shopping, about finance, about the weather, and within the first dozen posts there's always "Harrumph Well I'm Not Trusting Anything From THAT Guy/Place/Publisher/State" (and that expressed indignation comes from all sides of the spectrum.)

That's where the thread usually turns off the rails - in any of the categories here.

[Chuckanut]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack FIFY. They know then pandemic isn’t over, but odds are they’re not going to be really sick or hospitalized due to Covid, and neither are their peer/friends. It’s up to more vulnerable populations to steer clear of them. Most of us were “young and stupid” once too, admit it or not...

I read an interesting analysis of the negative effects of CV on the old and young taking into account the remaining number of years of life left. The young are still better off, but not nearly as better off as they think they are.

Basically, the young risk losing a lot more 'good' years than we old folks do.

[ivinsfan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckanut I read an interesting analysis of the negative effects of CV on the old and young taking into account the remaining number of years of life left. The young are still better off, but not nearly as better off as they think they are. Basically, the young risk losing a lot more 'good' years than we old folks do.

Maybe but think about this, if you are 70 or older and need to stay away from all people and fun activities for the next two or three years, what % of your remaining "good" years have you given up?

[ivinsfan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aerides If I could wave a magic wand I'd ban all threads that start with "hey i found this article" because no matter the topic, no matter the source, there is inevitable gripe about the source and bias. It could be an article about shopping, about finance, about the weather, and within the first dozen posts there's always "Harrumph Well I'm Not Trusting Anything From THAT Guy/Place/Publisher/State" (and that expressed indignation comes from all sides of the spectrum.) That's where the thread usually turns off the rails - in any of the categories here.

We need Walter Cronkite...

[Montecfo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB Am I the only one here that is tired of the unending harping on mainstream medía? It’s become a crutch to blame partisan bias as an excuse for not considering the merits a specific article or reference and declaring the source objectionable. There’s plenty of qualified and professional media all around, including specialized journalism by people who truly do know what they are talking about and give us diligent reporting and thoughtful analysis.

Yes and I see this a lot. That's why I suggested folks get news from multiple sources and understand the bias.

But as we see many folks will not consider the merits of an article depending on the source. This "echo chamber" mentality if unchecked will keep folks poorly informed, in my view.

The Atlantic is decidedly left leaning (per ALLSides.com) but that does not mean its content has no use.

[Gumby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montecfo Other than BBC, AP and AFP these carry a left or far left slant according to ALLSides.com which studies such things. These days I think being well informed of the "actual news" requires using multiple sources and understanding their political slants, in my view.

Oh for God's sake. Those were just some examples of sites whose job is to present the news, unlike The Atlantic, which was my point. They're just the ones that popped into my head as I was typing. It was never meant to be an exhaustive or balanced list.

Frankly, I am sick and tired of people whining about the "news" not reflecting their particular political biases. Read what you like, think what you like. Just stop whining about it.

[ShokWaveRider]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby Frankly, I am sick and tired of people whining about the "news" not reflecting their particular political biases. Read what you like, think what you like. Just stop whining about it.

Well said! But do not hold your breath.

[acronymous]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby Oh for God's sake. Those were just some examples of sites whose job is to present the news, unlike The Atlantic, which was my point. They're just the ones that popped into my head as I was typing. It was never meant to be an exhaustive or balanced list. Frankly, I am sick and tired of people whining about the "news" not reflecting their particular political biases. Read what you like, think what you like. Just stop whining about it.

+100

[Markola]

People here complain about “bias in the mainstream media” when they read something that challenges their preferred bubble but when they are asked, “OK, then where do you get your better, more factual, unbiased news?” there is always total silence. They never answer the question, because they really can’t.

[Amethyst]

Balance, I say! I'm a centrist, with some left-leaning and right-leaning notions, but mostly straight down the center line.

I keep a wackadoodle FB friend just so I can see (via her endless forwarded memes and articles) what the crackpot far right are saying. Right now they are all up in arms about some Netflix movie, which means it's probably good and we'll have to watch it.

I have an equally wackadoodle super-radical FB friend. Everything s/he posts is just as gag-worthy as what Friend No. 1 shares.

I just skim their feeds, to be sure I haven't missed some notion or fad that could mean real danger for us.

[Sojourner]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markola People here complain about “bias in the mainstream media” when they read something that challenges their preferred bubble but when they are asked, “OK, then where do you get your better, more factual, unbiased news?” there is always total silence. They never answer the question, because they really can’t.

+1000

[bbbamI]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amethyst Balance, I say! I'm a centrist, with some left-leaning and right-leaning notions, but mostly straight down the center line. I keep a wackadoodle FB friend just so I can see (via her endless forwarded memes and articles) what the crackpot far right are saying. Right now they are all up in arms about some Netflix movie, which means it's probably good and we'll have to watch it. I have an equally wackadoodle super-radical FB friend. Everything s/he posts is just as gag-worthy as what Friend No. 1 shares. I just skim their feeds, to be sure I haven't missed some notion or fad that could mean real danger for us.

Oh, no doubt the best post of the day!


When dh comes to me with this look......and says he's sorry, I know he's looked at FB.

[harllee]

Facebook--what a cesspool! I have a Facebook account and just look at it when I want a good laugh. 50% of what I see on Facebook is just nuts. The other 50% is pictures of what people are eating for dinner--why do I need to see that?

[pacergal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EastWest Gal Based on a few things I've gathered from news and the TWIV podcast series, this is what I think might happen: The virologists on TWIV think that, based on the four other known human coronaviruses, SARS-COV2 will eventually take on the characteristics of the others. The other coronaviruses are one of the viral causes of the common cold-mild illnesses with extremely rare secondary infections. There are a few documented cases of people who have been reinfected with the coronavirus. The infections have been with a slightly mutated isolate (only picked up genetically). One of the several documented cases had a more severe infection the second time. In the other cases, the disease was much milder. Immunity is heterogeneous. Those studying the disease currently don't know what elements of the immune system are most at play, as far as which antibodies are the most effective, what is the roles of T cell immunity, dendritic cells, etc. TWIV.TV episode #664 presented an elegant paper looking at variations of antibodies to the known coronaviruses over time. They used a cohort of HIV infected men who had their blood sampled every three months since 1989 (though there was a 4 year gap early on). They went back to the many years of frozen sera from ten of these patients and measured antibodies to these common coronaviruses. They were able to document that detectable antibody lasted about 6 months after an infection. Immunity starts to wane to these viruses after 6 months, so one can get it again. But when you get it again, the illness is milder, sometimes asymptomatic, even in these HIV-infected patients. The hope is that a vaccine (two doses) will give the vast majority of us significant immunity, and that second, third, and subsequent exposures will not cause significant clinical disease. The vaccines may not prevent infection, but they may prevent disease from the virus. That is the ultimate goal anyway. If each infection boosts immunity yet doesn't make you sick, so much the better. It is interesting that infection in children is in general much milder. So, in the future, we may be vaccinating people against this at a certain young age (once safety studies are done), and then with future exposures, the vaccinated don't get significantly ill. During the 1918 flu pandemic, older people got severe illness much less frequently than the younger people. The peak age of those who died was 28. There was significant illness in children and in young adults. Why? Probably because the older folks had survived a previous flu pandemic and already had partial immunity. There was a flu pandemic that went worldwide in 1889-1892 and killed about one million people. This is going to take awhile. But we will get there. And it will probably end before we notice that it ended.

+100
Thanks for this rational and informational post.