What's odd is that more testing is showing that more people are getting it (particularly in the USA)... and yet that's reported as a 'bad thing.' The more people who get it, while remaining asymptomatic or with modest illness at best, the better... HERD IMMUNITY. That is what happened in Sweden... huge infestation while protecting the elderly (as best they can) and their death rate is no higher (and lower in some instances) than every other country that has shut down, put social distancing into practice and is forcing people to wear face masks in public.

 

HERD IMMUNITY.

There is no such thing with Covid. By all accounts, you can be affected by it more than once, so getting it does not make you immune to it. The anitbodies do not last.

Add to that the unknown effects that may come in the future. As Dr. Faucci points out, things like chicken pox can lead to later problems with shingles, etc. They do not know what having this virus will do to you in 2,5,10,20 years down the road. It may be insignificant, but it is just as possible that millions of people will have to regularly take time off work for something debilitating. Think about what that does to employers trying to keep businesses going on schedule, not to mention what it does to their insurance premiums for sick leave. The economic impact could be devastating. That is not even considering that perhaps down the road the effects could lead to people having to be institutionalized due to something coming up as a side effect. A small possibility, but possible none the less. No one really knows, but try to accomodate the 110,000 people infected in Canada to date on a regular, or permanent bases. Right now the best we have is to try to avoid getting it.

 

I have a friend who lives in Sweden... even their Health Minister admits their approach has failed... and economically they had hoped to fare better, but have not. Another thing you don’t know, is that if you’re over 80 in Sweden, and have Covid, you will not be treated at a hospital. That’s the policy. Nice.

 

Another thing you don’t know, is that if you’re over 80 in Sweden, and have Covid, you will not be treated at a hospital. That’s the policy. Nice.

I can't find anything to back that up.

 

I heard Sweden failed miserably. They regret the herd immunity experiment.

 

Well, unless you want to live in a cave and avoid people for the rest of your life....

China released another coronavirus back in the 1980s, I believe it was. And I don't believe Faucci and others on this matter... they changed their minds so many times, and even suggested MILLIONS would die in the USA based on models. Just about everything stated since January either was exaggeration or wrong. And if herd immunity is not working, then someone needs to explain the response in Sweden.

 

Well, unless you want to live in a cave and avoid people for the rest of your life....

That is a lame response to taking reasonable precautions.

 

The concern with the herd immunity approach appears to be the recurring effects of the Covid virus (the point that Fauci makes in the OP’s Post). It appears to be incredibly complex to deal with and factor the financial pressures that most countries/organizations/individuals are facing, which the solutions, go against mitigating the virus. as if we needed more divisiveness in the world right now.

 

I'm with the "take reasonable precautions" crowd. One benefit is that I am finding out what I can live with out. I used to spend at least a couple hundred dollars a week in dining out. I have only dined out once since last March. A patio after a round of golf in June. I was tempted to dine out again as phase 3 kicked in and dining rooms were again open. But the fact that you have to wear a mask inside was unappealing and its just not worth it. I have allergies and asthma and mask wearing is a challenge for me. I still wear it in public but I leave my nose exposed and even occasionally have to uncover my mouth for a few seconds. The mask makes me feel claustrophobic. But I still make every attempt to wear it for consideration of others.
My wife and I have been to many places around the world so we're both fine with the idea that maybe we will never travel again. Another savings in money. We drive the car about a quarter the amount we used to, so more savings that way. Its really showing us what is important in life and we are saving a ton of money.
If enough others are in the same boat it will be unfortunate for restaurant owners and travel agents.

 

At present, we have no confirmation that "herd immunity" can exist for this particular virus. It might, and I doubt many virologists and immunologists would rule it out completely for now. But there is no "herd immunity" for herpes, HIV, the common cold, and many other viruses. And, while it is only right that pharmaceutical companies and university research centres try their damnedest to come up with a vaccine, at present we have no idea regarding how long any effective immune response, whether "natural" or assisted, can last. Herd immunity can occur when the immune response - again, either naturally occurring via contracting a disease and fighting it off, or assisted via vaccination - is long-lasting, and the pathogen in question does not mutate.

In some instances, as well, something like herd immunity can occur for evolving viruses. So, each year the influenza virus is a little different, and virologists/immunologists have to engineer a new vaccine to target what they believe to be THAT season's little tweak in the virus itself. If enough people get their flu shot, early enough in the season to acquire an immunity (because vaccines only kickstart antibody production, and do not instantly result in "protection"; think of them like a condom with millions of little holes that gradually close up over the course of a month), there are enough people in the general population with enough temporary immunity to get through that season successfully without spreading the virus to the unvaccinated. But even there, with a well-coordinated and systematic public health strategy, that herd immunity lasts for a season, like a Grey Cup victory, with no assurance of continuing conquest in subsequent years.

As for Sweden, the stats I'm looking at indicate an estimated death rate of 556/million persons, compared with 234 for Canada and 433 for the United States. So who, exactly, is getting right, and who is getting it wrong? The same source notes 7650 cases per million in Sweden, 2922 in Canada, and 11777 in the U.S.

The aspect that I find woefully overlooked and underconsidered is the people who don't die from it. Polio killed a lot of people, but many more did NOT die from it. However, the societal impact of what happened to all those surviving-but-permanently-affected persons is still with us, nearly 65 years on. In even the brief period we have known about Covid-19 and seen hospitalized patients return home, ostensibly "recovered", we see that they are not at full capacity, even months later. So imagine an epidemic that made, say, 5% of your working-age population (which is clearly only a subset of all those persons who might contract it, hence the large percentage; I won't count school-age or retired persons) unable to work anymore, and in need of a range of supports, simply to live, for the rest of their lives. What would be the economic impact of that? Ponder that for a moment.

The wisest, most frugal, strategy for anyone concerned about the economic future of the country is simply: don't get it, don't spread it.

As for Fauci "changing his mind", yeah, that's basically how science works: new data comes in and theories get revised. It's not a weakness, but a systematic approach to evidence and inference; the veritable "scientific method". Drives politicians crazy, who would prefer to adopt an unswerving stance to matters of policy. A weakness is clinging to the same inference in spite of new and mounting information.

 

The wisest, most frugal, strategy for anyone concerned about the economic future of the country is simply: don't get it, don't spread it.

As for Fauci "changing his mind", yeah, that's basically how science works: new data comes in and theories get revised. It's not a weakness, but a systematic approach to evidence and inference; the veritable "scientific method". Drives politicians crazy, who would prefer to adopt an unswerving stance to matters of policy. A weakness is clinging to the same inference in spite of new and mounting information.

BINGO!!
AMEN

 

From Dr. Fauci:

People are posting this as coming from Dr. Fauci but it actually isn't his words. I still think it is a great explanation though, from someone called Amy Wright

 

“


People are posting this as coming from Dr. Fauci but it actually isn't his words. I still think it is a great explanation though, from someone called Amy Wright

I posted it in another thread too. It may not be directly from Faucci, but it may be a condensed version of a few items he has discussed. At the very least, it is a compendium of common, sound medical advise that has been reported to date.

 

I can't find that quote anywhere being directly attributed to Fauci. Source?

 

It's not him. It came from a lady from what I recall. I saw this posted last week.

 

This is a bit long. But if this kind of stuff is your jam then have a look. Basically Critical thinking and its benefits. Totally non- partisan
Markus

 

The Hippocratic oath emphasizes that one do no harm (although apparently not in those exact words). This has been understood by many contemporary health practitioners as the desire to aim for "harm reduction". In other words, "What I'm planning to do isn't the best or ideal, but to NOT do it would end up being harmful". Obviously cure and direct treatment is the best and most effective reduction of harm, but slightly down the list is simply not making things worse. Though Fauci, and his colleagues, would likely vigorously reject the strategies (and often absence of any) adopted by the White House, he also understands that to NOT be included in discussions could easily make things worse. So, he softens his statements and looks for areas of fuzzy agreement, in an effort to not be cast aside, and leave decision-making entirely up to those with no medical knowledge or understanding whatsoever.

As for who the quote actually comes from, the point is rather moot. Richard/player99 is not an investigative journalist, so I don't expect him to be able to cite references. What matters is that it is true. If it was simply a matter of opinion, then yes, who it is attributed to would be important.

 

As for who the quote actually comes from, the point is rather moot. Richard/player99 is not an investigative journalist, so I don't expect him to be able to cite references. What matters is that it is true. If it was simply a matter of opinion, then yes, who it is attributed to would be important.

You're kidding, right? This is not a quote from Fauci. Tacking his name to it to give it weight is wrong. As a phd I'm sure you agree that sources are important.

 

While being an intreped explorer, going off into uncharted territory is an admirable trait sometimes in humans. Doing it with this virus is not the time nor the place to do it. Seeing as we know little about it, and nothing of future repercussions, it is better to be safe, than to be a statistic.

 

Faucci is an expert in the area of vaccination... he's not an epidemiologist. I don't trust him, any more than WHO or that Chinese woman acting on behalf of Canada (while being part of WHO).

 

Small part of his BIO
Looks like more than just vaccination expertise. Immunologists typically need a far broader spectrum of specialized knowledge to give context to their particular area of focus. The guy has the cred.

Dr. Fauci has advised six presidents on HIV/AIDS and many other domestic and global health issues. He was one of the principal architects of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a program that has saved millions of lives throughout the developing world.
Dr. Fauci also is the longtime chief of the Laboratory of Immunoregulation. He has made many contributions to basic and clinical research on the pathogenesis and treatment of immune-mediated and infectious diseases. He helped pioneer the field of human immunoregulation by making important basic scientific observations that underpin the current understanding of the regulation of the human immune response. In addition, Dr. Fauci is widely recognized for delineating the precise ways that immunosuppressive agents modulate the human immune response. He developed effective therapies for formerly fatal inflammatory and immune-mediated diseases such as polyarteritis nodosa, granulomatosis with polyangiitis (formerly Wegener's granulomatosis), and lymphomatoid granulomatosis. A 1985 Stanford University Arthritis Center Survey of the American Rheumatism Association membership ranked Dr. Fauci’s work on the treatment of polyarteritis nodosa and granulomatosis with polyangiitis among the most important advances in patient management in rheumatology over the previous 20 years.
Dr. Fauci has made seminal contributions to the understanding of how HIV destroys the body's defenses leading to its susceptibility to deadly infections. Further, he has been instrumental in developing treatments that enable people with HIV to live long and active lives. He continues to devote much of his research to the immunopathogenic mechanisms of HIV infection and the scope of the body's immune responses to HIV.
In a 2019 analysis of Google Scholar citations, Dr. Fauci ranked as the 41st most highly cited researcher of all time. According to the Web of Science, he ranked 8th out of more than 2.2 million authors in the field of immunology by total citation count between 1980 and January 2019.

 

As someone who has taken this very seriously, this part is important to me:

"For those in our society who suggest that people being cautious are cowards, for people who refuse to take even the simplest of precautions to protect themselves and those around them, I want to ask, without hyperbole and in all sincerity:
How dare you?
How dare you risk the lives of others so cavalierly. How dare you decide for others that they should welcome exposure as "getting it over with", when literally no one knows who will be the lucky "mild symptoms" case, and who may fall ill and die. Because while we know that some people are more susceptible to suffering a more serious case, we also know that 20 and 30-year-olds have died, marathon runners and fitness nuts have died, children and infants have died.
How dare you behave as though you know more than medical experts, when those same experts acknowledge that there is so much we don't yet know"

 

It is a waste of time arguing with a believer. They will never change their mind no matter how much evidence you present. This is not a dig at anyone in particular. There are lots of "believers" on both sides of this argument. If you apply critical thinking to all the different information and check where the information is coming from most people come to the conclusion that COVID-19 is real. There are most likely long term effects that we won't know about until years from now. It can kill, especially people that fit certain profiles. It spreads very easily, especially in crowded indoor settings. Some things appear to inhibit it's spread. As we learn more about the disease we may have to change our ways of dealing with it.

 

It is a waste of time arguing with a believer. They will never change their mind no matter how much evidence you present. This is not a dig at anyone in particular. .............. As we learn more about the disease we may have to change our ways of dealing with it.

Same here Kerry
I am fascinated by how people assemble their unique truths.
A point my partner and I frequently discuss is how heuristics play into understanding (basically that we use "thinking shortcuts" to efficiently arrive at an axiomatic point of truth/certainty and then from there we formulate the subsequent argument). My partner frequently refers to temperament. She holds that on either side of the spectrum you find people who are temperamentally inclined to be ideological in their thinking. Those folks have low appetite for ambiguity. Thus, first of all, they need to "believe". Then after that they take snippets of information to bolster the belief. If you offer proof to the contrary, you are frequently/easily called "Naive" or "foolish" or "not a patriot" or "a Fascist" or a "Marxist".... you get the picture
This may have to do with the fact that for some,- if their argument is un-done they themselves feel personally attacked because they struggle with critical thinking and perhaps emotional boundaries. Jordan Peterson speaks very impressively about "Ideological possession" - though he applies it mostly to the Left when citing examples. Nevertheless the principle applies to everyone who uses personal beliefs to serve as axiomatic "truths" as a departure point for an argument. He also explains that thoughts or ideas are like Avatars of yourself. You set them into flight and if they have to fall and die- well then, at least you don't have to. (paraphrased)

Problem is that we get so invested in our beliefs that nothing is allowed to shake them

Markus

 

I think a huge problem is the media. They want to spin feel good stories about Alice making masks, or some locals videoing their music or whatever. They never show the bodies. Hundreds and thousands of bodies. Tons and tons of dead human meat. Hundreds and thousands of sick people and devistated families. But this feel good story priority leaves plenty of room for deniers, tough guys etc. Show the bodies. Interview the funeral directors who can't keep up with the cremations. Stop covering up the story so you can sell advertising.

 

interesting link

https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/coronavirusvaccinetracker/?fbclid=IwAR2BUOxnRK6yLKsqc0-hZHnyPaYboRFA7VH584HxfInbO74Cs4wcFk8jivo

 

interesting link

https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/coronavirusvaccinetracker/?fbclid=IwAR2BUOxnRK6yLKsqc0-hZHnyPaYboRFA7VH584HxfInbO74Cs4wcFk8jivo

Thanks for the link. Good read.
Think of vaccines as being like guards who can receive different sorts of orders.
"Shoot anyone and everything who tries to come through"
"Shoot anyone not wearing our uniform"
"Shot anyone with red hair, regardless of what they're wearing"
"Shoot anyone who can't tell you the right password"
"Let people through but follow them and shoot if they begin to look suspicious"
etc.
All of these orders will certainly keep out the undesirables, but at what cost? The various strategies being pursued in vaccine development approaching the task from different angles. What is a testament to the state of virology, immunology, and molecular biology in general is that enough is known about the mechanisms of viruses and immunology that we have all these many possible strategies to explore. What an absolute blessing.

Centuries ago, if we wanted to send a message from Europe to North America, we had one choice: sending it by boat. Just think of the number of options we have available to us today to accomplish the same task.

 

FWIW, when I saw the quote on CNBC yesterday or Saturday, it was attributed to Fauci.

 

I just wanted to pass on some info after talking to my sister who is a respiratory therapist. I personally think it's a major issue that there isn't more education out there on what's going on with 'recovered' people, and there only being a focus on death tolls. The hospital here had an outbreak with 24 people total. One of those people was able to get back to work after 2 weeks (since we see that 2 weeks number quoted). The rest have been off for as much as 9 weeks. Several of them are completely debilitated and can't even walk up a set of stairs. Many of them are on oxygen, and the Dr's say there is no guarantee they will ever get back off of it. Others had issues with clots that are just wreaking havoc on their body. These aren't older people either, these are hospital workers.

The media always shows numbers for "recovered" but that is not really an accurate term for what people are actually going through. Yes, the numbers of death are a small percentage, but a lot of the people who 'recover' are going to have serious issues for life. I really wish there was more education going around on that aspect of things.

 

I just wanted to pass on some info after talking to my sister who is a respiratory therapist. I personally think it's a major issue that there isn't more education out there on what's going on with 'recovered' people, and there only being a focus on death tolls. The hospital here had an outbreak with 24 people total. One of those people was able to get back to work after 2 weeks (since we see that 2 weeks number quoted). The rest have been off for as much as 9 weeks. Several of them are completely debilitated and can't even walk up a set of stairs. Many of them are on oxygen, and the Dr's say there is no guarantee they will ever get back off of it. Others had issues with clots that are just wreaking havoc on their body. These aren't older people either, these are hospital workers.

The media always shows numbers for "recovered" but that is not really an accurate term for what people are actually going through. Yes, the numbers of death are a small percentage, but a lot of the people who 'recover' are going to have serious issues for life. I really wish there was more education going around on that aspect of things.

Absolutely. We focus, and rightly so, on deaths, since that is obviously the least desirable outcome. But let's say nobody died from this, and what we had instead was an epidemic that simply made a goodly percentage of the workforce unable to work anymore, for years, or even the rest of their lives. I'll be uncharacteristically uncompassionate here and ignore the fact they're suffering. If 5% of the workforce simply couldn't show up for work anymore, and had to be added to the social-assistance rolls, what would that mean?

I'm not sure we're there yet, concentrating on other things, but I hope in due time we start to see stats about duration and extent of recovery, hopefully broken down into working-age and non-working age subgroups, so people start to realize this is not simply a matter of "dying old folks", or slowed economic growth due to businesses temporarily closed down. We can expect slowed economic growth when absolutely everything is open but there aren't enough healthy employees to go around.

 

Then there is the total morbidity rate. The cancer patients who can't get surgery. The elderly slipping into dementia from isolation. All the other surgeries and emergencies that were not able to be address due to covid. That is a much bigger number.

 

I like Dr. Fauci but I just popped in for a minute and I can't contribute to the conversation so I'll just post this cartoon. This was shown to Trump in a Fox news interview and his reply was something like "well yes, he makes a few mistakes but I like him". If anyone can post the exact quote, go ahead.

 

I like Dr. Fauci but I just popped in for a minute and I can't contribute to the conversation so I'll just post this cartoon. This was shown to Trump in a Fox news interview and his reply was something like "well yes, he make a few mistakes but I like him". If anyone can post the exact quote, go ahead.

View attachment 322654

This is fear propaganda.

 

Just to clarify a little, do NOT confuse vaccines with cures. You can get you a shot of something to near instantly counteract, say, a nasty allergic response, or clear up a stuffy nose. Those sorts of cures act on the more problematic symptoms provoked by the allergen or pathogen. They do not "cure" the allergen or prevent it ever provoking such symptoms in future, nor do they kill the virus causing your stuffy nose.

Vaccines are intended to elicit the production of antibodies to a particular pathogen or family of pathogens, and that takes time. So, if by some miracle, a vaccine were available for October 1, it might not begin to have any beneficial effect in the population until closer to the end of the month. Until then, it is still the person's responsibility to stay healthy, and not contract the virus until such time as the vaccine has elicited enough of an immune response in the person to effectively defeat any subsequent virus they contract. Undoubtedly, there are variations in individual immune systems and some will be faster, some slower, but vaccines do NOT "kill bugs on contact" like Raid.

To that end, the search for treatments that address those life-threatening symptoms produced by the virus is every bit as important as the search for a vaccine. Effective post-hospitalization treatment is obviously not as good as prevention. But treatments that can reduce hospital stay, reduce the suffering attached to this virus, and allow as many to return to full functionality as possible, is still a VERY good thing. Of course, the very diverse form the symptoms can take across individuals likely means no single treatment would address every conceivable symptom. What improves lung capacity may have little impact on loss of sense of smell, and so on.

 

My limited understanding is viruses are not alive. They enter cells, plug into their DNA and reprogram the cells to replicate more of the virus, which in turn goes into cells etc. My understanding of antiviral meds is they somehow block the viruses from reproducing. But they don't destroy the virus.

 

I don't like people very much so social distancing is playing very well for me

More seriously, if we don't develop immunity to it after having it, how is a vaccine supposed to work?
BTW, thanks everyone for running up my stock in Moderna anyway

 

"I don't like people very much so social distancing is playing very well for me"
You'd get along well with my wife. We've been social distancing since this thing started but I don't have the heart to tell her it's more for people outside your bubble.😷

"More seriously, if we don't develop immunity to it after having it, how is a vaccine supposed to work?"
I thinks that's why we have to get vaccinated every year. It keeps changing.

 

The source, ending that issue/debate:
​

U.S. Disease Chief Rejects Notion That Coronavirus Is

 

It's A source, but perhaps not THE source. I won't disparage them, simply because it is a non-North-American news source, but it wouldn't be the first time that a foreign news-information site may have misattributed something. The information contained is certainly true. I'm not entirely sure Fauci would have used phrases like "How dare you", as he tends to be more tempered in his language - that is, after all, how people tend to rise to senior management, at least in government agencies. I will also note that the content up to the "How Dare You" has quotation marks around each paragraph, while the content after that is not shown as quotations, with the sole exception of a single closing quotation mark, minus the one that should have preceded it at some point. So, it reads, at least on that site, like a hodge-podge of things that may have been said by several persons, and certainly not like any contiguous formal statement from Fauci himself. The "How dare you" is not wrong-headed, IMHO, but like I say, confrontation is simply not his style.