Most countries are
Australia always seems to me to be a strange mix of the UK and USA, be nice to think it took the best of both - but I suspect probably not.
My friend who lives in Austrailia, says it a civilized country compared to the US.
Hold on, we still do not have a lightsabersMost countries are
Nah, chinese vaccines are not lobbed in EU. So i think someone else will profit.And what happens when the Chinese Communist Party releases another virus?
And besides, international Communism is the true virus.
SarsCov2 is just the mechanism being used to spread it.
Presumably the anti-vaxxers aren't interested in stats, but just for reference:
Risk of blood clots from Astra Zenica 0.0004%
Risk of blood clots from birth control pill 0.05 - 0.12%
Risk of blood clots from smoking 0.18%
Risk of blood clots from Covid infection 16.5%
Interesting, but do you have a source for this ?
I ask because there are a forum in my locale that have a covid thread for those rejecting the use of face mask and other measurements. Would be nice to throw out some facts.
And what happens when the Chinese Communist Party releases another virus?
And besides, international Communism is the true virus.
SarsCov2 is just the mechanism being used to spread it.
And what happens when the Chinese Communist Party releases another virus?
Kumar’s group estimates that the SARS-CoV-2 progenitor was already circulating with an earlier timeline — at least 6 to 8 weeks prior to the first genome sequenced in China, known as Wuhan-1. “This timeline puts the presence of proCoV2 in late October 2019, which is consistent with the report of a fragment of spike protein identical to Wuhan-1 in early December in Italy, among other evidence,” said Sayaka Miura, a senior author of the study.
“We have found progenitor genetic fingerprint in January 2020 and later in multiple coronavirus infections in China and the USA. The progenitor was spreading worldwide months before and after the first reported cases of COVID-19 in China,” said Pond.
In a phylogenetic network analysis of 160 complete human severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) genomes, we find three central variants distinguished by amino acid changes, which we have named A, B, and C, with A being the ancestral type according to the bat outgroup coronavirus. The A and C types are found in significant proportions outside East Asia, that is, in Europeans and Americans. In contrast, the B type is the most common type in East Asia, and its ancestral genome appears not to have spread outside East Asia without first mutating into derived B types, pointing to founder effects or immunological or environmental resistance against this type outside Asia. The network faithfully traces routes of infections for documented coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases, indicating that phylogenetic networks can likewise be successfully used to help trace undocumented COVID-19 infection sources, which can then be quarantined to prevent recurrent spread of the disease worldwide.
This viral network is a snapshot of the early stages of an epidemic before the phylogeny becomes obscured by subsequent migration and mutation. The question may be asked whether the rooting of the viral evolution can be achieved at this early stage by using the oldest available sampled genome as a root. As SI Appendix, Fig. S4 shows, however, the first virus genome that was sampled on 24 December 2019 already is distant from the root type according to the bat coronavirus outgroup rooting.
The whole lab release theory is nuts on how it keeps being spread by a soap selling media.
The only media selling it now, that I see, is the same ones still pushing the steal.
The reasons against lab creation are given in https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9. Additionally, the Wuhan Institute (WIV) reports that although it has "isolated live" viruses, these have only about 80% similarity to SARS-CoV-2. The virus with the closest sequence is RaTG13 (about 96%), also in the samples of the WIV. The 96% similarity is too far for RaTg13 to be the direct ancestor of SARS-CoV-2 (estimated about 30 or more years apart), but one may consider the exotic possibility that WIV did experiments on RaTG13 and hastened the evolution. However, that is unlikely because the WIV reports that it did not have RaTG13 "isolated live".
Another possibility that can be considered is that SARS-CoV-2 was among their samples, and although not isolated live, did infect one of their staff. For example, they collected many viral samples, including RaTG13, from a cave, because in 2012 some workers who were preparing the cave for copper mining got sick with pneumonia potentially due to an unknown virus. So while the WIV staff collected the samples or handled them, they may have gotten infected in a similar way as conjectured for the workers. However, this possibility is also unlikely based on WIV reports that they had tested their staff for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, and there was no evidence of any previous infection. Incidentally, after the discovery of SARS-CoV-2, they went back to serum samples from the mining workers who were conjectured to have been infected with an unknown virus to check if that conjectured virus could have been SARS-CoV-2, and it was not.
The above information about the WIV was drawn from an interview with Shi Zhengli, as well as an addendum to her group's paper on RaTG13.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6503/487.summary
**broken link removed**
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2951-z
The same information is in the WHO report on SARS-CoV-2 origins, with a little extra detail.
https://www.who.int/publications/i/...bal-study-of-origins-of-sars-cov-2-china-part
"The three laboratories in Wuhan working with either CoVs diagnostics and/or CoVs isolation and vaccine development all had high quality biosafety level (BSL3 or 4) facilities that were well-managed, with a staff health monitoring programme with no reporting of COVID-19 compatible respiratory illness during the weeks/months prior to December 2019, and no serological evidence of infection in workers through SARS-CoV-2-specific serology-screening."
The WHO report says the lab release theory is unlikely, but it does not rule out revisiting the lab release theory if more evidence comes to light.
"What would be needed to increase knowledge? Regular administrative and internal review of high-level biosafety laboratories worldwide. Follow-up of new evidence supplied around possible laboratory leaks."
That's BS and you know it.
I don’t see politics, I see information sensational headlines vs scientific debate, on one or the other believe what you want. If it was a football we would begin seeing name dropping of the political side vs the other. No such content IMHO, there is a third side now yours.Maybe you guys can take the politics outside?
How about taking the "Is too.", "Is not." bickering elsewhere? Nobody's mind is going to be changed here.
This is the ”Members Lounge” if 2 people want to discuss a subject or even debate a subject you don’t have to read it. The content is not against the Lounge rules, the content is oriented is the Vaccine Safe or do I Trust it? What to put faith into, if you don’t like the debate e.g. discussion don’t read it. Simple as that.Ok, allow me to rephrase my comment.
How about taking the "Is too.", "Is not." bickering elsewhere? Nobody's mind is going to be changed here.
Be thankful the pandemic is starting to be controlled. Get a vaccine unless there is a LEGITIMATE REASON you cannot do so to protect those who cannot.
Moderna on Tuesday asked the Food and Drug Administration for full U.S. approval of its Covid-19 vaccine — the second drugmaker in the U.S. to seek a biologics license that will allow it to market the shots directly to consumers.
The mRNA vaccine is currently on the U.S. market under an emergency use authorization, which was granted by the FDA in December. It gives conditional approval based on two months of safety data. It’s not the same as a biologics license application, or a request for full approval, which requires at least six months of data. Over 100 million of the shots have already been administered, according to data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“We are pleased to announce this important step in the U.S. regulatory process for a Biologics License Application (BLA) of our COVID-19 vaccine,” Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel said in a press release. “We look forward to working with the FDA and will continue to submit data from our Phase 3 study and complete the rolling submission.”
That's BS and you know it.
6/1/21
Sen. Kennedy on COVID origins: Nobody found anything close to a 'smoking bat' | Fox News Video
Louisiana Republican says Americans need to know coronavirus origins to keep it from happening again on 'Hannity'video.foxnews.com
With evidence mounting that the coronavirus might have escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, President Biden has reversed course and ordered the U.S. intelligence community to produce a report on the virus’s origins within 90 days — while reporters who until recently could not be bothered to ask tough questions pressed the White House for answers.
Better late than never. For the past year, the media has scorned the idea of an accidental lab release as a far-flung conspiracy theory, declaring it “debunked,” “dangerous” or “doubtful.” In fact, it would have been an extraordinary coincidence for this virus to emerge in Wuhan — home to China’s leading research laboratory studying bat coronaviruses — and have had no connection to the lab. Thanks to my Post colleague Josh Rogin’s excellent reporting, since April 2020 we have known that in 2018 U.S. diplomats warned of inadequate safety at the Wuhan lab. Just apply the principle of Occam’s razor — the simplest solution is almost always correct — and you have the most likely source of the pandemic.
On the heels of President Biden’s abrupt order to U.S. intelligence agencies to investigate the origins of the coronavirus, many scientists reacted positively, reflecting their push in recent weeks for more information about the work of a virus lab in Wuhan, China. But they cautioned against expecting an answer in the three-month time frame of the president’s request.
When Nicholson Baker wrote a cover story for New York laying out the evidence that COVID-19 may have originated in a lab in Wuhan, China, the hypothesis was still highly controversial. In the months that have followed, and especially over the last week, it’s gained more and more credibility. A week ago, 18 prominent scientists signed a letter published in Science calling for an open investigation into the virus’s origins. This weekend, the Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. intelligence believes three researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology became sick enough in November 2019 to require hospitalization, lending even more credence to the possibility of a lab leak.
The hypothesis is far from proven. But this account of the virus’s origins is highly plausible, and at least as well-grounded as the original story of an infection that naturally leapt from a bat to a person.
After more than a year of scientific hypotheses, baseless conspiracy theories, and a lack of transparency from China, we still don’t know Covid-19’s origin story — the precise route SARS-CoV-2 took to end up as the cause of a global pandemic. And thanks to the country’s deep partisan divides, even the suggestion that we still need a clearer picture of how the novel coronavirus got its start can be perceived as politically charged.
So on May 26th, when President Joe Biden issued a statement on his request that the intelligence community “redouble their efforts to collect and analyze information” to learn more about the origins of Covid-19, it prompted a range of reactions. For those who’ve spent the past 15 months following the science of the pandemic — including the presumed consensus that SARS-CoV-2 was first transmitted to humans via animals — the president’s announcement was jarring.
Kavanaugh agrees, noting that if the aim of Biden’s report was finding a scientific explanation of the origins of Covid-19, he would have tasked the CDC or NIH with it, instead of U.S. intelligence agencies. “This tells us that this is a political and an intelligence story: not a story mostly about science,” he says. “And so we should understand the picture in that sense, and not be naive about it. We’re in a place where politics is driving people’s scientific understanding in a dangerous way.”
Hope over fear |
When the C.D.C. reversed its Covid-19 guidelines last month and said that vaccinated Americans rarely needed to wear masks, it caused both anxiety and uncertainty.
Many people worried that the change would cause unvaccinated people to shed their masks and create a surge of new cases. On the flip side, a more optimistic outcome also seemed possible: that the potential to live mostly mask-free would inspire some vaccine-hesitant Americans to get their shots.
Almost three weeks after the change, we can begin to get some answers by looking at the data. So far, it suggests that the optimists were better prognosticators than the pessimists.
Shots have stopped falling |
On the other hand, the C.D.C.’s change has had a noticeable effect on behavior in a positive way.
Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the agency’s director, announced the new mask recommendations at 2:17 p.m. Eastern on Thursday, May 13. Almost immediately, the number of visits to vaccines.gov — a website where people can research their local vaccination options — spiked, CNN’s Elizabeth Cohen has reported.
Traffic to the website rose even higher later that afternoon, after President Biden celebrated the change and encouraged Americans to get vaccinated so they could remove their masks. In the days that followed, traffic to vaccines.gov remained higher than it had been before the announcement.
More important, the vaccination trends also changed after Walensky’s announcement. For the previous month, the number of daily shots in the U.S. had been falling, as the country began to run out of adults who were eager to be vaccinated. With a few days of the mask announcement, the decline leveled off.
Abstract
Emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants, including the globally successful B.1.1.7 lineage, suggests viral adaptations to host selective pressures resulting in more efficient transmission. Although much effort has focused on Spike adaptation for viral entry and adaptive immune escape, B.1.1.7 mutations outside Spike likely contribute to enhance transmission. Here we used unbiased abundance proteomics, phosphoproteomics, mRNA sequencing and viral replication assays to show that B.1.1.7 isolates more effectively suppress host innate immune responses in airway epithelial cells. We found that B.1.1.7 isolates have dramatically increased subgenomic RNA and protein levels of Orf9b and Orf6, both known innate immune antagonists. Expression of Orf9b alone suppressed the innate immune response through interaction with TOM70, a mitochondrial protein required for RNA sensing adaptor MAVS activation, and Orf9b binding and activity was regulated via phosphorylation. We conclude that B.1.1.7 has evolved beyond the Spike coding region to more effectively antagonise host innate immune responses through upregulation of specific subgenomic RNA synthesis and increased protein expression of key innate immune antagonists. We propose that more effective innate immune antagonism increases the likelihood of successful B.1.1.7 transmission, and may increase in vivo replication and duration of infection.
Dr. Krogan’s team has also started similar experiments on other variants, including the variant first identified in South Africa, known as Beta, and the one first identified in India, known as Delta. The preliminary results surprised them.
Both Beta and Delta drive down interferon in infected cells. But there’s no sign that they do so by flooding the cells with Orf9b proteins. They may have independently evolved their own tricks for manipulating our immune system.
“They’re all turning down the immune response in different ways,” Dr. Krogan said.
Cecile King, an immunologist at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, who was not involved in the study, said that understanding how the virus was evolving these escapes would help scientists design better vaccines for Covid-19.
The current crop of vaccines direct the immune system to recognize spike proteins. But studies on people who recover naturally from Covid-19 have shown that their immune systems learn to recognize other viral proteins, including Orf9b.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?