Has anyone defined or even done studies on what viral load is needed for transmission or infection?

To me this relates to the concept of asymptomatic transmission (someone who never has symptoms, as opposed to those who develop symptoms after a few days of being communicable), what in previous diseases would be called carriers, and were considered so rare as to be outliers in modern epidemiology.

quote:

Originally posted by Nuclear:
Has anyone defined or even done studies on what viral load is needed for transmission or infection?

To me this relates to the concept of asymptomatic transmission (someone who never has symptoms, as opposed to those who develop symptoms after a few days of being communicable), what in previous diseases would be called carriers, and were considered so rare as to be outliers in modern epidemiology.

Bingo...

Thats what my post was about and what they called out in the study. That work hasn't been done!

They don't know, and until they do THAT research, it's all conjecture on who is spreading it.

Just because you test positive doesn't necessarily mean you are spreading it...but yet, they are assuming that and creating orders without knowing.

quote:

Originally posted by Patriot:

quote:

Originally posted by Nuclear:
Has anyone defined or even done studies on what viral load is needed for transmission or infection?

To me this relates to the concept of asymptomatic transmission (someone who never has symptoms, as opposed to those who develop symptoms after a few days of being communicable), what in previous diseases would be called carriers, and were considered so rare as to be outliers in modern epidemiology.

Bingo...

Thats what my post was about and what they called out in the study. That work hasn't been done!

They don't know, and until they do THAT research, it's all conjecture on who is spreading it.

Just because you test positive doesn't necessarily mean you are spreading it...but yet, they are assuming that and creating orders without knowing.

Is the PCR test the gold standard for determining if someone has Covid-19?

quote:

Originally posted by leavemebe:

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
[QUOTE] In fact, it never even enters the cell nucleus where all the DNA is stored. It stays in the cytoplasm where it is used, then eaten up.

You could say the RNA is initially manufactured using genetic engineering, but nothing like that happens inside the host cells.

Unfortunately, we do not know that for certain. There is still a lot we do not know about cell biology.

"Discovery Shows Human Cells can Write RNA sequences into DNA

In a discovery that challenges long-held dogma in biology, researchers show that mammalian cells can convert RNA sequences back into DNA, a feat more common in viruses than eukaryotic cells."

RNA into DNA

One indisputable fact is that this is the first time in history we have exposed a major portion of the human population to a therapy using this gene-based technology with NO long-term safety data in humans available.

The funny thing about biology, and science in general really, is that no matter what you say, someone can find a study that contradicts it. At some point you have to make a judgment call based on what we know, even with the realization that it might be wrong. But that is an interesting study. And you're right, we don't know about the long-term effects of any of the vaccines. We still have to balance that with the presence of an active pandemic. (If you don't believe it's a real pandemic, you may be right as well, but that conversation is for another thread!)

quote:

Originally posted by Patriot:
Bingo...

Thats what my post was about and what they called out in the study. That work hasn't been done!

"Bingo?" Nice try, but that's not what you implied. You wrote "While the vaccinated carried a viral load, it was not quantified to be transmissible. I.e. the vaccine was working." The implication in your words being the vaccine was preventing the viral load to reach the point at which the virus was infectious.

quote:

Originally posted by triggertreat:
With J&J being brought up why has it all but disappeared from conversations? Does anyone know of any studies that has data for breakout infection with all 3 major jabs?

I think the J&J became somewhat marginalized due to the significantly lower efficacy rate against the original Covid strain, and even further since the current data supports both of the mRNA vaccines to offer some resistance to the Delta variant. There is not yet a lot of data on the J&J's performace against the new strain, and what little there is, is a bit contradictory. Also, there is some talk about needing a second shot of the J&J after all.

Anyways, more information: Here’s How Well COVID-19 Vaccines Work Against the Delta Variant

quote:

Has anyone defined or even done studies on what viral load is needed for transmission or infection?

Previous studies have suggested that Ct values of ~30 or lower are consistent with the recovery of infectious virus in biological specimens, an indication of potential contagiousness…

extremely low Ct values <20, consistent with very high viral loads

https://hotair.com/allahpundit...ccinated-but-n405891


Covid 19 in Virginia. 1 July 2021 to 30 July 2021

12,784 cases (not fully vaccinated people)
303 breakthru cases (fully vaccinated people who developed Covid 19)

413 hospitalizations (not fully vaccinated people)
17 hospitalizations (fully vaccinated people)

18 deaths (not fully vaccinated people)
1 death (fully vaccinated people)

data from:

https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/c...-vaccination-status/

I posted this in the regular coronavirus thread but also thought it might belong here also, because it is data that people who only frequent this thread might want to see. Comments welcome.


Six month safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 vaccine.(Pfizer). This was a double blind study.

There were 44165 participants.

29 people died 15 vaccinated 14 unvaccinated (cause of death not stated)

31 people had severe covid symptoms 1 vaccinated
30 unvaccinated.

So this means if you were unvaccinated your chance of getting severe covid is .0013

If you are vaccinated your chance of getting severe covid is .00004

Is this worth forcing people to take an experimental therapy that has never been used before?

It is not worth it to me. Even if the Pfizer shot is 96.7% effective in preventing severe disease, the chance of getting severe disease is extremely low to begin with. I know if you are older or have health problems you are at greater risk, but to force this on healthy young people and children is extremely unwarranted.



https://www.scribd.com/documen...59v1-full#from_embed

This message has been edited. Last edited by: wcb6092,

Are any of y’all familiar with the newest vaccine I believe called Novavax? Apparently it’s not approved for use here in the states yet, but sounds like an good option.

The Novavax is a "subunit vaccine". It directly introduces a fragment of the coronavirus protein antigen to stimulate the immune system. It's a less complete response than vaccines that inject whole pathogen particles, but it's not bad. They're reporting around 90% efficacy, even against the Delta variant. A little less than Pfizer and Moderna, but more than the J&J.

It's also a two-shot vaccine, but reportedly has fewer and milder side effects than the mRNA vaxxes. It's inexpensive to manufacture, and doesn't present the storage problems of live vaccines. It's an old, established technology, already used for many childhood diseases.

It still has to be approved for emergency status, but it would be a signficant alternative in the Covid battle.

^^^ Thanks for that, kkina.

Go with your gut dry-fly or as they say. Let your conscience be your guide. I am pretty sure you know what to do or not do. It is your choice. Make it and move on is my suggestion. At least for now.

quote:

Originally posted by Jupiter:

quote:

Originally posted by Patriot:

quote:

Originally posted by Nuclear:
Has anyone defined or even done studies on what viral load is needed for transmission or infection?

To me this relates to the concept of asymptomatic transmission (someone who never has symptoms, as opposed to those who develop symptoms after a few days of being communicable), what in previous diseases would be called carriers, and were considered so rare as to be outliers in modern epidemiology.

Bingo...

Thats what my post was about and what they called out in the study. That work hasn't been done!

They don't know, and until they do THAT research, it's all conjecture on who is spreading it.

Just because you test positive doesn't necessarily mean you are spreading it...but yet, they are assuming that and creating orders without knowing.

Is the PCR test the gold standard for determining if someone has Covid-19?

For now, yes.
Seems like they came out with something new to test for influenza as well as Covid with the same test.
Then a internet rumor started that the tests given last year would say positive for Covid if you had the flu. That was squashed quickly but it still seems weird that they come out with a newer test.
I've never had it as far as I know but my daughter did. Her employer made her come back with 2 negative tests before she could go back to work. That was Fall of 2020.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Covid 19 in Virginia. 1 July 2021 to 30 July 2021

12,784 cases (not fully vaccinated people)
303 breakthru cases (fully vaccinated people who developed Covid 19)

413 hospitalizations (not fully vaccinated people)
17 hospitalizations (fully vaccinated people)

18 deaths (not fully vaccinated people)
1 death (fully vaccinated people)

I sure wish they would break the cases down even further because then we could see if the vaccines are causing hospitalizations/deaths with any kind of regularity. For example: my aunt had 2 neighbor kids (19 yo twin girls) get vaccinated. Both were hospitalized the same night. 1 died.

I'd like to see it broken down as follows.

No Vaccine
1st Dose of Vaccine
Fully Vaccinated.

I also would like to see whether they are subtracting the deaths from the hospitalizations once a person dies (or whether they are double dipping numbers which is what I suspect is actually happening)

I know for the month of June (the month the girls were vaccinated) Virginia shows

306 Hospitalizations (not fully vaccinated) Depending on how the numbers are figured, we know that at least 1 of the hospitalizations was due to the vaccine.
56 Deaths (not fully vaccinated) Depending on how the numbers are figured, we know that at least 1 of the deaths was due to the vaccine.


21 Hospitalizations (fully vaccinated)
4 Deaths (fully vaccinated)

Taking what I know into account about the twins, they only show in the not fully vaccinated category, but we can also deduce that had they not been vaccinated, they wouldn't have been hospitalized/died. That's why we need another data point. In my estimation, these numbers are all meant to skew the publics opinion on whether to get the vaccine or not. As Para has been saying the entire time: don't believe anything about these numbers!

My attempts to find answers to reasonable questions about COVID-19 have been very frustrating.
An example: if natural immunity is robust, broader than immunity from vaccination, and long-lasting, why is there not research available now to prove the superiority of an antibody-guided risk assessment?

Why are all kids, especially college kids, being forced into vaccination (which they will be) whether immune or not, when the risk-benefit for young people is probably negative (i.e. greater risk than benefit), given known risk of myocarditis in that age group?

Why are we not encouraging younger people to expose themselves to the virus to develop natural immunity? The evidence for benefit of that seems to be stronger than the evidence that they can pass on the virus to vaccinated people with more than trivial consequences ? I say that based on the continued high efficacy of the mRNA vaccines against serious disease and death.

Discussion of such alternatives seems to be shut down by the administration, teachers' unions, and other "stakeholders" who have other interests than the overall wellbeing (not just infectious health) of our population.

I continue to follow with interest the opinions of those "dissenters" such as Jay Bhattacharya at Stanford, one of the original authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, of which I am a signee:

Bhattacharya says vaccine mandates are unethical

A big deal I hope --

EU signs deal with Novavax for up to 200 million Covid-19 jabs in bid to diversify vaccine portfolio

The European Commission has approved a deal that allows EU member states to buy up to 200 million doses of Novavax’s Covid-19 vaccine, once the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has deemed it safe and effective for use.

In a statement on Wednesday, the EU’s executive branch announced the agreement with the US biotech firm. Under the new deal, member states will be able to purchase 100 million Novavax vaccine doses, with the option to purchase a further 100 million from 2021 to 2023.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen hailed the deal as further strengthening the bloc’s “broad vaccine portfolio.”...

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:
My attempts to find answers to reasonable questions about COVID-19 have been very frustrating.
An example: if natural immunity is robust, broader than immunity from vaccination, and long-lasting, why is there not research available now to prove the superiority of an antibody-guided risk assessment?

Why are all kids, especially college kids, being forced into vaccination (which they will be) whether immune or not, when the risk-benefit for young people is probably negative (i.e. greater risk than benefit), given known risk of myocarditis in that age group?

Why are we not encouraging younger people to expose themselves to the virus to develop natural immunity? The evidence for benefit of that seems to be stronger than the evidence that they can pass on the virus to vaccinated people with more than trivial consequences ? I say that based on the continued high efficacy of the mRNA vaccines against serious disease and death.

Discussion of such alternatives seems to be shut down by the administration, teachers' unions, and other "stakeholders" who have other interests than the overall wellbeing (not just infectious health) of our population.

I continue to follow with interest the opinions of those "dissenters" such as Jay Bhattacharya at Stanford, one of the original authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, of which I am a signee:

Bhattacharya says vaccine mandates are unethical

I think the whole thing is simply about money? Is it not that simple?

For example, we could get 100 Ivermectin pills for $2.90. While it hasn’t been shown to be 100% effective, what is the harm in taking it? There just isn’t any big money to be made from it.

All the obfuscation is to hide the simple solutions.

Oh, and don’t pay any attention to what’s going on with the Federal Reserve. Nothing to see there.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:


For example, we could get 100 Ivermectin pills for $2.90. While it hasn’t been shown to be 100% effective, what is the harm in taking it? There just isn’t any big money to be made from it.

Do we know where to get Ivermectin (at that price or anywhere) or HCQ? I've got a source, not cheap and requires a telemed appointment.

quote:

Originally posted by cne32507:
FDA on Ivermectin

I saw that same article linked to in a main stream media article from over a year ago although this link now says current as of 3-21. Of course, initially anything Trump suggested was dismissed like HCQ and Ivermectin (remember the couple in Arizona(?) who used and an aquarium product with Ivermectin and one or both died). The only negativity towards it comes from the usual "official" medical overlords who I have difficulty trusting. I'd rather have Ivermectin available than not.

I do know recently India and several other countries have petitioned(?) the WHO on Ivermectin use and India has been using Ivermectin in treatment of its large Delta variant outbreak.