but quinn over misreading a grammatical structure
🇳🇱
@icedquinn It wasnt about the gramatical structure, it was about the incorrect facts it inferred (which were still incorrect once you corrected your wording).
@icedquinn Either way, your statement was incorrect.. there is no meaningful link between SAr-COV-2 and the common cold
i said the ones we know about have a lot of mutations, therefore inferred they are highly mutatable.
@icedquinn @freemo
Actually coronavirus and all RNA viruses mutate **faster** than DNA viruses.. its just that recombination isnt considered a mutation so DNA viruses **adapt** quicker without relying on mutations (as in novel genes)
what is the expectation? are they going to put everyone back in to lockdown every time a mutation is found (which there will always be one) until they can rush a new EUA and just keep people on an indefinite chain of experimental vaccines?
Two seperate topics here.. 1) the discussion around how likely and common it will be for the CV to circumvent vaccines and 2) what procedure saves the most lives when there is an outbreak.
To #1, we should be pretty good. Its always a crap shoot but even against current variants like the delta variant the vaccine efficacy is still very higher (88% - 93%). so in reality people are over reacting over it. As long as people are getting vaccinated they are pretty safe
As for #2, lockdowns were never an effective solution even before it mutated. We had contagion guidelines in place long before CV and while quarantine was a part of it, that only carried so far as to when the virus is in a isolated geographic location. All traditional advice when it comes to contagion suggests that once a virus is out into the wild that lockdowns cause greater loss of life and are not effective at reducing the total long term body count.
So considering lockdown as a viable solution has never been a good idea.
>vaccine efficacy is still very higher (88% - 93%).
post some evidence for this. hint: you don't have any.
correct the CDC and WHO's crap numbers and you'll find that the vaccine is far more dangerous than the virus itself.
Hint: I do
let me know if you need me to dig up the peer-reviewed study this article references.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/vaccines-highly-effective-against-b-1-617-2-variant-after-2-doses
@meowski @icedquinn @allison
registration required... if someone is registered and wants to get me the study i'll read it with an open mind
but i'm not going to jump through any hoops to find it
thats fine, I cant change the unfortunate paywall system research uses to fund itself. But yes the evidence is there.
*that publishers force on anyone trying to do anything useful
True but they have to pay for their overhead costs somehow. Want to see more open-access papers, push for more tax-payer funded research (which often means open-access).
Usually the people complaining about paywalls are the same people who think scientific studies should be privately funded.
Aye, I'm sure a "journal" (content aggregator) has such high overhead they need to charge $30/paper on public research (that the authors will often give for free if you ask nicely)
I'm not attacking you or anything, I'm just frustrated at defense of capitalizing of free information
No worries, I didnt take it as an attack. I side with your sentiments, just pointing out studies cost money to make so someone has to pay for it somehow.
