Covid-19 Outbreak of new SARS-like coronavirus (Covid-19)

[dalpat077]

I see that the COVID vaccines are injected into the upper arm.

Why there?

Is that considered intramuscular or is it going somewhere else?

Is bioavailability a consideration when it comes to these vaccines (or any other vaccines really I suppose)?

Why are the COVID vaccines (or any other vaccines really I suppose) not administered intravenously?

Usually I'd post something like this in Neuroscience and Pharmacology but, well, all the COVID related stuff seems to be here.

 

[MsDiz]

This is the wrong place for this.

There are a litany of reasons but it comes down to the fact that it’s always been done this way pretty much. Actually the smallpox vaccine was given via scarification. It’s interesting if you wanna do some googling.

Anyway, deep IM injections are preferred for adjuvant-containing vaccines as it causes less irritation than SC or intradermal.

Also, read up on the “depot” effect and it’ll explain it more too.

 

[dalpat077]

Thanks. Was hoping you would chime in (as always on such topics)!

Dunno of how much general interest it is though i.e. is it even worth a thread? I was just wondering myself is all.

But you're right. This not really COVID specific.

Could somebody please move this to the appropriate place then (which, as noted in my first post, I'm guessing anyway, would be Neuroscience and Pharmacology)?

I can always edit the title and tidy up my first post in order to ensure it's of a more general nature.

 

[bediphrent]

masks DONT work, there is almost a hundred or more medical, scientific & data backed studies & references to prove that...

AND the Democratic Party is the death of America.

yay, got that off my chest.

btw, this is coming from someone who happily sucks dick & even swallows.

liberal once, but not once you realize the agendas behind the liberal party.

 

[Fire&Water]

masks DONT work, there is almost a hundred or more medical, scientific & data backed studies & references to prove that...

Cmon now
they work perfectly fine as a virtue signaling shame muzzle ...

 

[Zuda]

AND the Democratic Party is the death of America.

Nah, fam. Only disorganization and division can trigger the fall of America

 

[Jabberwocky]

masks DONT work, there is almost a hundred or more medical, scientific & data backed studies & references to prove that...

care to share?

having looked into the data on masks myself (easy to read summary here with plenty of references and yes one study with a stupid methodology), i doubt the veracity of your claims.

 

[bediphrent]

care to share?

having looked into the data on masks myself (easy to read summary here with plenty of references and yes one study with a stupid methodology), i doubt the veracity of your claims.

sure, here you go https://www.climatedepot.com/2020/0...us-air-stream-simply-diverts-around-the-mask/

I’ll send you dozens of more links once I’m back on my computer enjoy

Nah, fam. Only disorganization and division can trigger the fall of America

.....perpetuated by the Democratic Party.... lol

Cmon now
they work perfectly fine as a virtue signaling shame muzzle ...

oops, my mistake, you’re absolutely right. HA.

Well, in that case, it’s fair to say they’re “working” just fine

care to share?

having looked into the data on masks myself (easy to read summary here with plenty of references and yes one study with a stupid methodology), i doubt the veracity of your claims.

I’m baaaaack

here’s the CDC’S claims of masks being effective, DEBUNKED. https://www.climatedepot.com/2021/0...tudy-debunked-by-statistician-dr-matt-briggs/

here is a more organized & cohesive list of studies proving the ineffectiveness of masks.
dating many years back, until recent days.
again- MASKS DO NOT WORK!

Shock research shows masks ineffective during surgeries: ‘A lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination’

& Studies of Surgical Masks Efficacy by Chris of the family Masters As a person who went to medical school, I was shocked when I read Neil Orr’s study, published in 1981 in the Annals of the Ro…

www.climatedepot.com

do let me know if you’d like more studies/references to help educate you

I blame FLAWED PCR testing & fear for the inflation of cases.

Much we are told in the media is lies & propaganda with agendas attached to them.

masks DONT work & covid is bullshit. (the way the news is making it seem)

 

[Jabberwocky]

masks DONT work & covid is bullshit. (the way the news is making it seem)

sorry but one of the links you sent was about infections during surgery, fuck all to do with their efficacy in containing a pandemic; another was about mask mandates and acknowledged that mask uptake was a different issue; the other i didn't read cos the headline was obviously false (lockdowns don't work, they do) and given it was from the same site as the other two, i didn't think it would be any more relevant/higher quality.

so you've yet to provide any evidence. got any high impact papers specifically related to SARS-COV2 to back you up? cos multiple links to a website of someone with an obvious bias is not helping your case.

 

[bediphrent]

sorry but one of the links you sent was about infections during surgery, fuck all to do with their efficacy in containing a pandemic; another was about mask mandates and acknowledged that mask uptake was a different issue; the other i didn't read cos the headline was obviously false (lockdowns don't work, they do) and given it was from the same site as the other two, i didn't think it would be any more relevant/higher quality.

so you've yet to provide any evidence. got any high impact papers specifically related to SARS-COV2 to back you up? cos multiple links to a website of someone with an obvious bias is not helping your case.

the mere existing fact of studies proving the overall ineffectiveness of masks, DESPITE why or how a mask is worn - should be enough to any critically thinking person to accept the fact that masks do not work the way you think they do.

furthermore, a “bias” doesn’t matter as long as it’s backed with scientific data, as my links were.

I know for a FACT you did NOT read what I sent you.


YOU are biased & refusing to accept anything that doesn’t align with your self serving belief system.

now, tell me; what kind of study/data would you like to see in order for you to admit you’re wrong?

*waiting & will be happy to send, as I have dozens of more*

PS: don’t ask for links, but then reply back with excuses as to WHY you didn’t read them.
*sigh*

sorry but one of the links you sent was about infections during surgery, fuck all to do with their efficacy in containing a pandemic; another was about mask mandates and acknowledged that mask uptake was a different issue; the other i didn't read cos the headline was obviously false (lockdowns don't work, they do) and given it was from the same site as the other two, i didn't think it would be any more relevant/higher quality.

so you've yet to provide any evidence. got any high impact papers specifically related to SARS-COV2 to back you up? cos multiple links to a website of someone with an obvious bias is not helping your case.

hi again

here’s a VERY RECENT study PROVING masks do not make a difference. (don’t work)

can’t wait to hear why you didn’t read this link ... lol

Landmark Danish study finds no significant effect for facemask wearers

By Prof Carl Heneghan & Tom Jefferson Do face masks work? Earlier this year, the UK government decided that masks could play a significant role in stopping Covid-19 and made masks mandatory in …

www.climatedepot.com

sorry but one of the links you sent was about infections during surgery, fuck all to do with their efficacy in containing a pandemic; another was about mask mandates and acknowledged that mask uptake was a different issue; the other i didn't read cos the headline was obviously false (lockdowns don't work, they do) and given it was from the same site as the other two, i didn't think it would be any more relevant/higher quality.

so you've yet to provide any evidence. got any high impact papers specifically related to SARS-COV2 to back you up? cos multiple links to a website of someone with an obvious bias is not helping your case.

so you’re telling me the information below doesn’t have any bearing on the effectiveness of masks?

also, lockdowns DO NOT WORK, if they did, we wouldn’t need more than one! (common sense)

but that’s a whole other argument in itself.

for now let’s stick to the fact that MASKS DO NOT WORK, healthy people should NOT be forced into masks & why YOU won’t accept countering facts.

Ritter et al., in 1975, found that “the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.”

Ha’eri and Wiley, in 1980, applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end of each operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. “Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.”

Laslett and Sabin, in 1989, found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization. “No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used,” they wrote. Sjøl and Kelbaek came to the same conclusion in 2002.

A review by Skinner and Sutton in 2001 concluded that “The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use.”

Lahme et al., in 2001, wrote that “surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anaesthesia, did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria over the operation field in our study. Thus they are dispensable.”

 

[Jabberwocky]

you are just copying and pasting from one guys website, which though it references studies does not contain studies itself- i suspet there is a reason that guy has to post this stuff on his own website rather than get it published in respectable journals. i read 2 articles in full, that was sufficient for me to judge the merit of anything posted on that website.

those studies, which you copied and pasted from that website. are about the use of masks in surgery, which says nothing about their use for controlling pandemics. not relevant. analogously, viagra's was developed to treat hypertension but was found not to be effective, but this is not relevant when you are considering using it to treat erectile dysfunction.

common sense says that if a lockdown is exited too early, or too many people are allowed to travel into an area that is not under lockdown but was previously, a new lockdown my be required to bring the infection rate back under control. another analogy, if you go to physiotherapy for one injury, then are not cautious so create a flare up in that injury, its not physiotherapy that doesn't work, its environmental factors.

 

[novaveritas]

The other i didn't read cos the headline was obviously false (lockdowns don't work, they do) and given it was from the same site as the other two, i didn't think it would be any more relevant/higher quality.

Lockdowns work Eh? Care to explain North Dakota vs South Dakota then.....

An interactive visualization of COVID-19 | 91-DIVOC

An interactive, data-forward visualization of COVID-19 data by Prof. Wade at The University of Illinois. Updated daily.

91-divoc.com

You can do exactly the same for mask mandates, no signal for a real difference.

Thus the truck of conflicting evidence runs over the dogma.

There is no problem with people taking a pseudo-religeous dogmatic belief based position but don't pretend it is scientific or based on critical thinking.

'High impact paper' 'experts' is an appeal to authority fallacy dressed up as something else. Consensus thinking nonsense. Common sense is not very common and even less common among academics.

It is worth reading Kahnemans book Thinking, fast and slow.

 

[Jabberwocky]

no. i have no idea about the situation is in north vs south dakota.

you can work it out from first principles..... viruses are transmitted from individual to individual. it doesn't matter how for the argument to work. if you prevent contact between people, you will prevent transmission of viruses.

lockdowns reduce contact between people... ergo lockdowns reduce transmission of viruses.

this has been recognised since the plagues of the middle ages, before germ theory, so it really isn't contraversial. except unfortunately in that case rats could happily go from house to house while people were shut inside with their dead and dying families.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

North / South Dakota is cherry picking. The vast majority of lockdowns have worked, to one degree or another. There is ample evidence. As @chinup said, it's common sense. I've had discussions with people since COVID-19 started that are bizarrely illogical. Some people have argued that masks don't reduce the spread of airborne diseases. I'm not sure if the same people would argue that full hazmat suits don't reduce the spread of airborne diseases, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised at this point.

@novaveritas - do you think lockdown does/will not work for any airborne virus? What about cosmic lockdown... if you separated people across the universe - and each person has their own planet - would that prevent the spread of the virus?

What if people cut out their lungs and had Waterworld gills installed?

Is there anything we can do?!?

Lockdown? No.
Vaccine? No.
Mask? No.

Maybe we could somehow mix sunlight with disinfectant and put that in the body.
I don't know. I'm not a doctor.

 

[dalpat077]

Here's a little nugget that, dare I say, makes me kinda proud!

Been meaning to post it now for three weeks but never got around to it and then couldn't find the darn thing until now.

 

[novaveritas]

no. i have no idea about the situation is in north vs south dakota.

you can work it out from first principles..... viruses are transmitted from individual to individual. it doesn't matter how for the argument to work. if you prevent contact between people, you will prevent transmission of viruses.

lockdowns reduce contact between people... ergo lockdowns reduce transmission of viruses.

this has been recognised since the plagues of the middle ages, before germ theory, so it really isn't contraversial. except unfortunately in that case rats could happily go from house to house while people were shut inside with their dead and dying families.

first principles Eh, you being academic or simplistic today?

your first fallacy is that because complete elimination of contact prevents transmission therefore a incomplete reduction in contact reduces transmission pari passu. to put it another way does reducing the number of average contacts by 10% reduce transmission by 10%.

your second fallacy is claiming that a mandated lockdown reduces contact and transmission more than voluntary social distancing. From the UK Test and Trace data there is no difference in the number of contacts a person testing positive had in lockdown periods and out of lockdown periods. Yeah I know T&T is dogshit but they can count up to ten with their shoes on.

On a population level the effect of lockdowns are not clear, and certainly there is no signal that shows they work well, limited signal saying they might work a bit and a lot of evidence that they cause more harm than good.

If lockdowns were so effective, then the infection rate curves, derived fromt the Gompertz curve if you are interested for places which did lockdown and those that didn't should differ significantly in shape maginitude and duration, and where lockdown is introduced a change should be seen correlated with when the lockdown measure was introduced. they do not.

Even when prevalence is high lockdowns are locking up 1000 people for every infected person. People who are not infected are not important to transmission, simplistically, someone who does not have the virus cannot infect anyone else. Therefore lockdown is ineffectually targeting healthy individuals it has to be extremely effective to avoid being totally disproportionate.

Lets leave it there, you can stick to your dogmatic position, in time the consensus will swing round.

I will leave you to trail after the science.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

certainly there is no signal that shows they work well, limited signal saying they might work a bit and a lot of evidence that they cause more harm than good

With all due respect, this is absolute nonsense.

Reset your Youtube algorithm, bro.

 

[novaveritas]

Here's a little nugget that, dare I say, makes me kinda proud!

Been meaning to post it now for three weeks but never got around to it and then couldn't find the darn thing until now.

The real question is why was it not possible to culture the virus from numerous patients with positive PCR tests. That is much more important. These were probably cold positives so it wouldn't make any difference what cell line was used, the PCR was seeing inactivated viral RNA.

culturing on Vero or CaCo is pretty straight forward. Vero E6 is used for plaque forming neutralisation assay for south african variant elsewhere in the world.

 

[novaveritas]

With all due respect, this is absolute nonsense.

I am not going to argue with dogmatics.

I have analysed the numbers and there is no signal no real difference nothing, nada, zip, zero, nowt, squat.

Feel free to show me your analysis that accounts for voluntary social distancing and voluntary behavior alterations that shows any signal for mandatory lockdowns, you get to win the internet.

You also get a chance to to win the Charles Makay Award for reaching a simplistic conclusion in spite of the conflicting evidence.

Or just the cost benefit analysis for mandatory lockdown vs relying on people voluntarily adjusting their behvavior, burden of proof is on the advocates of lockdown. Email it to the Saint Jacinda Foundation for Unscientific Innumeracy, Auckland NZ.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

I have analysed the numbers and there is no signal no real difference nothing, nada, zip, zero, nowt, squat.

Do you think it's possible that you're wrong?

Feel free to show me your analysis that accounts for voluntary social distancing and voluntary behavior alterations that shows any signal for mandatory lockdowns, you get to win the internet.

I'm not going to spend a long time explaining this to you, because I suspect you're so far down the rabbit hole at this point that you can't see light.

I don't need to show you an "analysis". The problem with interpreting statistics, is: you can find whatever you want. Fortunately, in this case, there is no need to interpret stats. All you have to do is look at over a dozen countries including Australia and NZ that did a hard lockdown early and compare them to countries (like the US) that did not. There is no need to overly complicate things. I don't need to take into account the factors you suggest, because it is obvious that lockdowns can work.

Is it possible that a lockdown might fail? Sure. Absolutely. Can a (relatively) soft lockdown contain the virus when implemented late, without the aide of a vaccine, and when the infection is already massively widespread? I don't know. It took Australia months to contain COVID-19 and the numbers were never anywhere near as high as the US per million. So, a soft lockdown is probably not going to work.

win the internet

You're seeing what you want to see.