Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Commander Kinsey wrote

Doesn't giving a coronavirus vaccine to everyone increase the
chances of the virus mutating to avoid the vaccine?

Nope, it's the reverse of that, the virus can only mutate in
infected people and so the fewer that get infected, the less the
chance of it mutating.

Exactly!

So we should be using it sparingly.

Nope, we should be vaccinating as many as possible with the best
vaccines to reduce the number who get infected.

Yup. And they are nearing what they think is herd immunity in New
York. Amazing.

Dunno, nothing useful on that with
https://www.google.com/search?q=herd...ty+in+New+York
Gotta link ?

Did more looking into this.

Need 70% to get to herd immunity:

Its nothing like that simple now with the new more virulent strains.

That is what I thought,

Thats what is known.

but I have found multiple sources saying 70% is what they think would do
it.

None that base that on any rigorous science.

In the past I had seen 80-90%.

Its even higher than that now with the new more virulent
strains but not known with any certainty yet.

https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/artic...h-covid19.html

That doesnt say that it only needs to get to 70%.

"What we know about coronavirus so far suggests that,

Suggests isnt your original absolute.

if we were really to go back to a pre-pandemic lifestyle, we would need at
least 70% of the population

At least isnt the same as your original.

to be immune to keep the rate of infection down (€œachieve herd immunity€�)
without restrictions on activities."

New York close to 70%

Even that isnt clear.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...a-vaccine-dose

That isnt saying that its close to 70%.

Just one politician has made that claim without
citing any scientific basis for making that claim.

That does clarify that it is just one shot, not both -- so they will
still not be quite at the 70% *fully* vaccinated.

And there is no evidence that the 70% is the required level.

On Jun 7, 2021 at 5:02:46 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Commander Kinsey wrote

Doesn't giving a coronavirus vaccine to everyone increase the
chances of the virus mutating to avoid the vaccine?

Nope, it's the reverse of that, the virus can only mutate in
infected people and so the fewer that get infected, the less the
chance of it mutating.

Exactly!

So we should be using it sparingly.

Nope, we should be vaccinating as many as possible with the best
vaccines to reduce the number who get infected.

Yup. And they are nearing what they think is herd immunity in New
York. Amazing.

Dunno, nothing useful on that with
https://www.google.com/search?q=herd...ty+in+New+York
Gotta link ?

Did more looking into this.

Need 70% to get to herd immunity:

Its nothing like that simple now with the new more virulent strains.

That is what I thought,

Thats what is known.

but I have found multiple sources saying 70% is what they think would do
it.

None that base that on any rigorous science.

In the past I had seen 80-90%.

Its even higher than that now with the new more virulent
strains but not known with any certainty yet.

I would not be surprised -- but do you have cites to back that?


https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/artic...h-covid19.html

That doesnt say that it only needs to get to 70%.

"What we know about coronavirus so far suggests that,

Suggests isnt your original absolute.

These comments are meant as best guesses, not absolutes. Welcome to English.


if we were really to go back to a pre-pandemic lifestyle, we would need at
least 70% of the population

At least isnt the same as your original.

to be immune to keep the rate of infection down (€œachieve herd immunity€�)
without restrictions on activities."

You ignored this part.

New York close to 70%

Even that isnt clear.


https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...a-vaccine-dose

That isnt saying that its close to 70%.

Just one politician has made that claim without
citing any scientific basis for making that claim.

Do you have contrary data?



That does clarify that it is just one shot, not both -- so they will
still not be quite at the 70% *fully* vaccinated.

And there is no evidence that the 70% is the required level.


--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On Jun 7, 2021 at 4:33:19 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Jun 7, 2021 at 3:08:12 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
FromTheRafters wrote:
Commander Kinsey formulated on Monday :
Doesn't giving a coronavirus vaccine to everyone increase the chances
of the
virus mutating to avoid the vaccine? So we should be using it
sparingly.

Good point actually. I questioned this earlier as I was thinking about
in the USA we have basically three vaccines. We have heard about
bacteria being resistant due to overuse of antibacterials and
antibiotics. This is a little different.

The greatest threat is in the unvaccinated population who continue to
harbor the virus, there will always be some for one reason or another.
The bigger the host population the more the viruses environment shapes
the newer generations. Resistance can build.

The other point is, vaccinated people can still host the virus and
spread it to others, they are just less likely to get the serious
disease outcome than the unvaccinated. This is no magic bullet, it is
just another common-sense weapon in the battle against the virus.

The good news is the vaccines seem to work better than
first anticipated in terms of preventing the disease at all.

Not just seems to, has been proven to do that now.

I could quibble over semantics and scientific terms,

No you couldnt with that, it has been proven.

By all means show the proof (not just support).



but in general language agreed.


--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

Snit was thinking very hard :
On Jun 7, 2021 at 12:44:04 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Commander Kinsey wrote
Doesn't giving a coronavirus vaccine to everyone increase
the chances of the virus mutating to avoid the vaccine?
Nope, it's the reverse of that, the virus can only
mutate in infected people and so the fewer that
get infected, the less the chance of it mutating.
Exactly!

So we should be using it sparingly.
Nope, we should be vaccinating as many as possible with
the best vaccines to reduce the number who get infected.
Yup. And they are nearing what they think is herd immunity in New York.
Amazing.

Dunno, nothing useful on that with
https://www.google.com/search?q=herd...ty+in+New+York
Gotta link ?

Did more looking into this.

Need 70% to get to herd immunity:

It is COVID fatigue causing compromises I think, 85 to 90 percent is
better but 70 sounds more "doable" at this point in time. Not enough
IMO.

On Jun 7, 2021 at 5:44:27 PM MST, "FromTheRafters" wrote
:

Snit was thinking very hard :
On Jun 7, 2021 at 12:44:04 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Commander Kinsey wrote
Doesn't giving a coronavirus vaccine to everyone increase
the chances of the virus mutating to avoid the vaccine?
Nope, it's the reverse of that, the virus can only
mutate in infected people and so the fewer that
get infected, the less the chance of it mutating.
Exactly!

So we should be using it sparingly.
Nope, we should be vaccinating as many as possible with
the best vaccines to reduce the number who get infected.
Yup. And they are nearing what they think is herd immunity in New York.
Amazing.

Dunno, nothing useful on that with
https://www.google.com/search?q=herd...ty+in+New+York
Gotta link ?

Did more looking into this.

Need 70% to get to herd immunity:

It is COVID fatigue causing compromises I think, 85 to 90 percent is
better but 70 sounds more "doable" at this point in time. Not enough
IMO.

I have the same feeling -- but no evidence to back it.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

Rod Speed was thinking very hard :
FromTheRafters wrote
Commander Kinsey wrote

Doesn't giving a coronavirus vaccine to everyone increase the chances of
the virus mutating to avoid the vaccine? So we should be using it
sparingly.

Good point actually.

Nope, shows a complete misunderstanding of how viruses mutate.

Only if you take his "everyone" literally and assume that it is 100
percent effective at preventing "hosting" the virus. It seems you don't
understand how viruses mutate or how vaccines work.

Snit explained on 6/7/2021 :
On Jun 7, 2021 at 5:44:27 PM MST, "FromTheRafters" wrote
:

Snit was thinking very hard :
On Jun 7, 2021 at 12:44:04 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Commander Kinsey wrote
Doesn't giving a coronavirus vaccine to everyone increase
the chances of the virus mutating to avoid the vaccine?
Nope, it's the reverse of that, the virus can only
mutate in infected people and so the fewer that
get infected, the less the chance of it mutating.
Exactly!

So we should be using it sparingly.
Nope, we should be vaccinating as many as possible with
the best vaccines to reduce the number who get infected.
Yup. And they are nearing what they think is herd immunity in New York.
Amazing.

Dunno, nothing useful on that with
https://www.google.com/search?q=herd...ty+in+New+York
Gotta link ?

Did more looking into this.

Need 70% to get to herd immunity:

It is COVID fatigue causing compromises I think, 85 to 90 percent is
better but 70 sounds more "doable" at this point in time. Not enough
IMO.

I have the same feeling -- but no evidence to back it.

https://www.biospace.com/article/exp...erd-immunity-/

On Jun 7, 2021 at 6:35:00 PM MST, "FromTheRafters" wrote
:

Snit explained on 6/7/2021 :
On Jun 7, 2021 at 5:44:27 PM MST, "FromTheRafters" wrote
:

Snit was thinking very hard :
On Jun 7, 2021 at 12:44:04 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Commander Kinsey wrote
Doesn't giving a coronavirus vaccine to everyone increase
the chances of the virus mutating to avoid the vaccine?
Nope, it's the reverse of that, the virus can only
mutate in infected people and so the fewer that
get infected, the less the chance of it mutating.
Exactly!

So we should be using it sparingly.
Nope, we should be vaccinating as many as possible with
the best vaccines to reduce the number who get infected.
Yup. And they are nearing what they think is herd immunity in New York.
Amazing.

Dunno, nothing useful on that with
https://www.google.com/search?q=herd...ty+in+New+York
Gotta link ?

Did more looking into this.

Need 70% to get to herd immunity:

It is COVID fatigue causing compromises I think, 85 to 90 percent is
better but 70 sounds more "doable" at this point in time. Not enough
IMO.

I have the same feeling -- but no evidence to back it.


https://www.biospace.com/article/exp...erd-immunity-/

I was thinking in terms of the US. But, yes, if there are mutations where the
immunity is reduced then the idea of herd immunity goes out the window.


--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

Snit expressed precisely :
On Jun 7, 2021 at 6:35:00 PM MST, "FromTheRafters" wrote
:

Snit explained on 6/7/2021 :
On Jun 7, 2021 at 5:44:27 PM MST, "FromTheRafters" wrote
:

Snit was thinking very hard :
On Jun 7, 2021 at 12:44:04 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Commander Kinsey wrote
Doesn't giving a coronavirus vaccine to everyone increase
the chances of the virus mutating to avoid the vaccine?
Nope, it's the reverse of that, the virus can only
mutate in infected people and so the fewer that
get infected, the less the chance of it mutating.
Exactly!

So we should be using it sparingly.
Nope, we should be vaccinating as many as possible with
the best vaccines to reduce the number who get infected.
Yup. And they are nearing what they think is herd immunity in New
York. Amazing.

Dunno, nothing useful on that with
https://www.google.com/search?q=herd...ty+in+New+York
Gotta link ?

Did more looking into this.

Need 70% to get to herd immunity:

It is COVID fatigue causing compromises I think, 85 to 90 percent is
better but 70 sounds more "doable" at this point in time. Not enough
IMO.

I have the same feeling -- but no evidence to back it.


https://www.biospace.com/article/exp...erd-immunity-/

I was thinking in terms of the US. But, yes, if there are mutations where the
immunity is reduced then the idea of herd immunity goes out the window.

A relevant part:

"At this point, data is not yet clear on whether the vaccines from
Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech, while highly effective at preventing
symptomatic disease, also stop the spread of the virus.

Herd immunity is only relevant if we have a transmission-blocking
vaccine. If we dont, then the only way to get herd immunity in the
population is to give everyone the vaccine, says Shweta Bansal, a
mathematical biologist at Georgetown University in Washington D.C.

In the U.S., the predominant variant now circulating is the B.1.1.7,
which is about 60% more transmissible than the initial strain that
first plagued our globe. Experts now believe a threshold of at least 80
percent of the population would need to be immune to significantly slow
or stop the spread. That number could be even higher if more contagious
variants continue to develop."

"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Jun 7, 2021 at 5:02:46 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Commander Kinsey wrote

Doesn't giving a coronavirus vaccine to everyone increase the
chances of the virus mutating to avoid the vaccine?

Nope, it's the reverse of that, the virus can only mutate in
infected people and so the fewer that get infected, the less the
chance of it mutating.

Exactly!

So we should be using it sparingly.

Nope, we should be vaccinating as many as possible with the best
vaccines to reduce the number who get infected.

Yup. And they are nearing what they think is herd immunity in New
York. Amazing.

Dunno, nothing useful on that with
https://www.google.com/search?q=herd...ty+in+New+York
Gotta link ?

Did more looking into this.

Need 70% to get to herd immunity:

Its nothing like that simple now with the new more virulent strains.

That is what I thought,

Thats what is known.

but I have found multiple sources saying 70% is what they think would
do it.

None that base that on any rigorous science.

In the past I had seen 80-90%.

Its even higher than that now with the new more virulent
strains but not known with any certainty yet.

I would not be surprised -- but do you have cites to back that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-...ants/100190414


https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/artic...h-covid19.html

That doesnt say that it only needs to get to 70%.

"What we know about coronavirus so far suggests that,

Suggests isnt your original absolute.

These comments are meant as best guesses, not absolutes.

Easy to say after you have been picked up on your original claim.

if we were really to go back to a pre-pandemic lifestyle, we would need
at least 70% of the population

At least isnt the same as your original.

to be immune to keep the rate of infection down (€œachieve herd
immunity€�) without restrictions on activities."

You ignored this part.

No need to comment on that bit, it was what herd immunity is about.

New York close to 70%

Even that isnt clear.


https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...a-vaccine-dose

That isnt saying that its close to 70%.

Just one politician has made that claim without
citing any scientific basis for making that claim.

Do you have contrary data?

He made the claim.

He gets to provide the data that substantiates that claim.

Thats how it works.

That does clarify that it is just one shot, not both -- so they will
still not be quite at the 70% *fully* vaccinated.

And there is no evidence that the 70% is the required level.

"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Jun 7, 2021 at 4:33:19 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Jun 7, 2021 at 3:08:12 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
FromTheRafters wrote:
Commander Kinsey formulated on Monday :
Doesn't giving a coronavirus vaccine to everyone increase the
chances of the
virus mutating to avoid the vaccine? So we should be using it
sparingly.

Good point actually. I questioned this earlier as I was thinking
about
in the USA we have basically three vaccines. We have heard about
bacteria being resistant due to overuse of antibacterials and
antibiotics. This is a little different.

The greatest threat is in the unvaccinated population who continue
to
harbor the virus, there will always be some for one reason or
another.
The bigger the host population the more the viruses environment
shapes
the newer generations. Resistance can build.

The other point is, vaccinated people can still host the virus and
spread it to others, they are just less likely to get the serious
disease outcome than the unvaccinated. This is no magic bullet, it
is
just another common-sense weapon in the battle against the virus.

The good news is the vaccines seem to work better than
first anticipated in terms of preventing the disease at all.

Not just seems to, has been proven to do that now.

I could quibble over semantics and scientific terms,

No you couldnt with that, it has been proven.

By all means show the proof (not just support).

You are free to chase that up for yourself.

but in general language agreed.

"FromTheRafters" wrote in message
...
Snit was thinking very hard :
On Jun 7, 2021 at 12:44:04 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Commander Kinsey wrote
Doesn't giving a coronavirus vaccine to everyone increase the
chances of the virus mutating to avoid the vaccine?
Nope, it's the reverse of that, the virus can only mutate in infected
people and so the fewer that get infected, the less the chance of it
mutating.
Exactly!

So we should be using it sparingly.
Nope, we should be vaccinating as many as possible with the best
vaccines to reduce the number who get infected.
Yup. And they are nearing what they think is herd immunity in New
York.
Amazing.

Dunno, nothing useful on that with
https://www.google.com/search?q=herd...ty+in+New+York
Gotta link ?

Did more looking into this.
Need 70% to get to herd immunity:

It is COVID fatigue causing compromises I think,

There is no compromise involved.

85 to 90 percent is better

And necessary with the newer more virulent strains.

but 70 sounds more "doable" at this point in time.

Corse a lower number is more doable.

Not enough IMO.

"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Jun 7, 2021 at 5:44:27 PM MST, "FromTheRafters" wrote
:

Snit was thinking very hard :
On Jun 7, 2021 at 12:44:04 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Commander Kinsey wrote
Doesn't giving a coronavirus vaccine to everyone increase the
chances of the virus mutating to avoid the vaccine?
Nope, it's the reverse of that, the virus can only mutate in
infected people and so the fewer that get infected, the less the
chance of it mutating.
Exactly!

So we should be using it sparingly.
Nope, we should be vaccinating as many as possible with the best
vaccines to reduce the number who get infected.
Yup. And they are nearing what they think is herd immunity in New
York.
Amazing.
Dunno, nothing useful on that with
https://www.google.com/search?q=herd...ty+in+New+York
Gotta link ?

Did more looking into this. Need 70% to get to herd immunity:

It is COVID fatigue causing compromises I think, 85 to 90 percent is
better but 70 sounds more "doable" at this point in time. Not enough IMO.

I have the same feeling -- but no evidence to back it.

You do actually with the R0 of the new more virulent strains.

FromTheRafters wrote
Rod Speed wrote
FromTheRafters wrote
Commander Kinsey wrote

Doesn't giving a coronavirus vaccine to everyone
increase the chances of the virus mutating to avoid
the vaccine? So we should be using it sparingly.

Good point actually.

Nope, shows a complete misunderstanding of how viruses mutate.

Only if you take his "everyone" literally and assume that it
is 100 percent effective at preventing "hosting" the virus.

Doesn't need to be anything like 100% effective at reducing
the chance of getting infected to radically reduce the number
of hosts that the virus can reproduce in. That's the only way
it can mutate, by reproducing.

It seems you don't understand how viruses mutate

My original statement is completely accurate.

or how vaccines work.

And so is my later elaboration on that too.

The best of the covid vaccines have been shown to dramatically
reduce the rate of covid infection in the vaccinated. They don't
just reduce the rate of severe infection and death as you
previously claimed in another of your posts.

"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Jun 7, 2021 at 6:35:00 PM MST, "FromTheRafters" wrote
:

Snit explained on 6/7/2021 :
On Jun 7, 2021 at 5:44:27 PM MST, "FromTheRafters" wrote
:

Snit was thinking very hard :
On Jun 7, 2021 at 12:44:04 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Commander Kinsey wrote
Doesn't giving a coronavirus vaccine to everyone increase the
chances of the virus mutating to avoid the vaccine?
Nope, it's the reverse of that, the virus can only mutate in
infected people and so the fewer that get infected, the less the
chance of it mutating.
Exactly!

So we should be using it sparingly.
Nope, we should be vaccinating as many as possible with the best
vaccines to reduce the number who get infected.
Yup. And they are nearing what they think is herd immunity in New
York.
Amazing.
Dunno, nothing useful on that with
https://www.google.com/search?q=herd...ty+in+New+York
Gotta link ?
Did more looking into this. Need 70% to get to herd immunity:
It is COVID fatigue causing compromises I think, 85 to 90 percent is
better but 70 sounds more "doable" at this point in time. Not enough
IMO.

I have the same feeling -- but no evidence to back it.

https://www.biospace.com/article/exp...erd-immunity-/

I was thinking in terms of the US. But, yes, if there are mutations where
the
immunity is reduced then the idea of herd immunity goes out the window.

It isnt about immunity reduction, its about an increased R0 and we know that
has happened, significantly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-...ants/100190414

"FromTheRafters" wrote in message
...
Snit expressed precisely :
On Jun 7, 2021 at 6:35:00 PM MST, "FromTheRafters" wrote
:

Snit explained on 6/7/2021 :
On Jun 7, 2021 at 5:44:27 PM MST, "FromTheRafters" wrote
:

Snit was thinking very hard :
On Jun 7, 2021 at 12:44:04 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Commander Kinsey wrote
Doesn't giving a coronavirus vaccine to everyone increase the
chances of the virus mutating to avoid the vaccine?
Nope, it's the reverse of that, the virus can only mutate in
infected people and so the fewer that get infected, the less the
chance of it mutating.
Exactly!

So we should be using it sparingly.
Nope, we should be vaccinating as many as possible with the
best vaccines to reduce the number who get infected.
Yup. And they are nearing what they think is herd immunity in
New York. Amazing.
Dunno, nothing useful on that with
https://www.google.com/search?q=herd...ty+in+New+York
Gotta link ?
Did more looking into this. Need 70% to get to herd immunity:
It is COVID fatigue causing compromises I think, 85 to 90 percent is
better but 70 sounds more "doable" at this point in time. Not enough
IMO.

I have the same feeling -- but no evidence to back it.


https://www.biospace.com/article/exp...erd-immunity-/

I was thinking in terms of the US. But, yes, if there are mutations where
the
immunity is reduced then the idea of herd immunity goes out the window.

A relevant part:

"At this point, data is not yet clear on whether the vaccines from Moderna
and Pfizer-BioNTech, while highly effective at preventing symptomatic
disease, also stop the spread of the virus.

That part is just plain wrong.
https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/cli...cines-do-reduc

Herd immunity is only relevant if we have a transmission-blocking vaccine.

And we now know that we do.

If we dont, then the only way to get herd immunity in the population is
to give everyone the vaccine,

Thats wrong too. It doesnt need to be everyone and
you get herd immunity if enough get infected too.

says Shweta Bansal, a mathematical biologist at Georgetown University in
Washington D.C.

In the U.S., the predominant variant now circulating is the B.1.1.7, which
is about 60% more transmissible than the initial strain that first plagued
our globe. Experts now believe a threshold of at least 80 percent of the
population would need to be immune to significantly slow or stop the
spread. That number could be even higher if more contagious variants
continue to develop."

And its even higher again with the indian and brazil variants.

Rod Speed was thinking very hard :

"FromTheRafters" wrote in message
...
Snit expressed precisely :
On Jun 7, 2021 at 6:35:00 PM MST, "FromTheRafters" wrote
:

Snit explained on 6/7/2021 :
On Jun 7, 2021 at 5:44:27 PM MST, "FromTheRafters" wrote
:

Snit was thinking very hard :
On Jun 7, 2021 at 12:44:04 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Commander Kinsey wrote
Doesn't giving a coronavirus vaccine to everyone increase the
chances of the virus mutating to avoid the vaccine?
Nope, it's the reverse of that, the virus can only mutate in
infected people and so the fewer that get infected, the less the
chance of it mutating.
Exactly!

So we should be using it sparingly.
Nope, we should be vaccinating as many as possible with the best
vaccines to reduce the number who get infected.
Yup. And they are nearing what they think is herd immunity in New
York. Amazing.
Dunno, nothing useful on that with
https://www.google.com/search?q=herd...ty+in+New+York
Gotta link ?
Did more looking into this. Need 70% to get to herd immunity:
It is COVID fatigue causing compromises I think, 85 to 90 percent is
better but 70 sounds more "doable" at this point in time. Not enough
IMO.

I have the same feeling -- but no evidence to back it.


https://www.biospace.com/article/exp...erd-immunity-/

I was thinking in terms of the US. But, yes, if there are mutations where
the
immunity is reduced then the idea of herd immunity goes out the window.

A relevant part:

"At this point, data is not yet clear on whether the vaccines from Moderna
and Pfizer-BioNTech, while highly effective at preventing symptomatic
disease, also stop the spread of the virus.

That part is just plain wrong.
https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/cli...cines-do-reduc

So the words 'reduce' and 'stop' are synonyms to you?

on 6/7/2021, Rod Speed supposed :
FromTheRafters wrote
Rod Speed wrote
FromTheRafters wrote
Commander Kinsey wrote

Doesn't giving a coronavirus vaccine to everyone increase the chances of
the virus mutating to avoid the vaccine? So we should be using it
sparingly.

Good point actually.

Nope, shows a complete misunderstanding of how viruses mutate.

Only if you take his "everyone" literally and assume that it is 100 percent
effective at preventing "hosting" the virus.

Doesn't need to be anything like 100% effective at reducing
the chance of getting infected to radically reduce the number
of hosts that the virus can reproduce in. That's the only way
it can mutate, by reproducing.

Yes, it needs a host.

It seems you don't understand how viruses mutate

My original statement is completely accurate.

I didn't say it wasn't, I said the OP had a good point.

or how vaccines work.

And so is my later elaboration on that too.

The best of the covid vaccines have been shown to dramatically reduce the
rate of covid infection in the vaccinated. They don't just reduce the rate of
severe infection and death as you previously claimed in another of your
posts.

I didn't say that. I said:

"vaccinated people can still host the virus and spread it to others"

This means that while hosting the virus their systems present an
environmental selection against the currently targeted shapes of the
various vaccines' antibodies.

"FromTheRafters" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed was thinking very hard :

"FromTheRafters" wrote in message
...
Snit expressed precisely :
On Jun 7, 2021 at 6:35:00 PM MST, "FromTheRafters" wrote
:

Snit explained on 6/7/2021 :
On Jun 7, 2021 at 5:44:27 PM MST, "FromTheRafters" wrote
:

Snit was thinking very hard :
On Jun 7, 2021 at 12:44:04 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Commander Kinsey wrote
Doesn't giving a coronavirus vaccine to everyone increase
the chances of the virus mutating to avoid the vaccine?
Nope, it's the reverse of that, the virus can only mutate in
infected people and so the fewer that get infected, the less the
chance of it mutating.
Exactly!

So we should be using it sparingly.
Nope, we should be vaccinating as many as possible with the
best vaccines to reduce the number who get infected.
Yup. And they are nearing what they think is herd immunity in
New York. Amazing.
Dunno, nothing useful on that with
https://www.google.com/search?q=herd...ty+in+New+York
Gotta link ?
Did more looking into this. Need 70% to get to herd immunity:
It is COVID fatigue causing compromises I think, 85 to 90 percent
is better but 70 sounds more "doable" at this point in time. Not
enough IMO.

I have the same feeling -- but no evidence to back it.


https://www.biospace.com/article/exp...erd-immunity-/

I was thinking in terms of the US. But, yes, if there are mutations
where the
immunity is reduced then the idea of herd immunity goes out the window.

A relevant part:

"At this point, data is not yet clear on whether the vaccines from
Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech, while highly effective at preventing
symptomatic disease, also stop the spread of the virus.

That part is just plain wrong.
https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/cli...cines-do-reduc

So the words 'reduce' and 'stop' are synonyms to you?

Pathetic.

"FromTheRafters" wrote in message
...
on 6/7/2021, Rod Speed supposed :
FromTheRafters wrote
Rod Speed wrote
FromTheRafters wrote
Commander Kinsey wrote

Doesn't giving a coronavirus vaccine to everyone increase the chances
of the virus mutating to avoid the vaccine? So we should be using it
sparingly.

Good point actually.

Nope, shows a complete misunderstanding of how viruses mutate.

Only if you take his "everyone" literally and assume that it is 100
percent effective at preventing "hosting" the virus.

Doesn't need to be anything like 100% effective at reducing
the chance of getting infected to radically reduce the number
of hosts that the virus can reproduce in. That's the only way
it can mutate, by reproducing.

Yes, it needs a host.

It seems you don't understand how viruses mutate

My original statement is completely accurate.

I didn't say it wasn't, I said the OP had a good point.

or how vaccines work.

And so is my later elaboration on that too.

The best of the covid vaccines have been shown to dramatically reduce the
rate of covid infection in the vaccinated. They don't just reduce the
rate of severe infection and death as you previously claimed in another
of your posts.

I didn't say that. I said:

"vaccinated people can still host the virus and spread it to others"

That wasn't your original post that I was referring to there.

"FromTheRafters" wrote in message
...
on 6/7/2021, Rod Speed supposed :
FromTheRafters wrote
Rod Speed wrote
FromTheRafters wrote
Commander Kinsey wrote

Doesn't giving a coronavirus vaccine to everyone increase the chances
of the virus mutating to avoid the vaccine? So we should be using it
sparingly.

Good point actually.

Nope, shows a complete misunderstanding of how viruses mutate.

Only if you take his "everyone" literally and assume that it is 100
percent effective at preventing "hosting" the virus.

Doesn't need to be anything like 100% effective at reducing
the chance of getting infected to radically reduce the number
of hosts that the virus can reproduce in. That's the only way
it can mutate, by reproducing.

Yes, it needs a host.

It seems you don't understand how viruses mutate

My original statement is completely accurate.

I didn't say it wasn't, I said the OP had a good point.

or how vaccines work.

And so is my later elaboration on that too.

The best of the covid vaccines have been shown to dramatically reduce the
rate of covid infection in the vaccinated. They don't just reduce the
rate of severe infection and death as you previously claimed in another
of your posts.

I didn't say that.

Yes you did, here it is again.

The other point is, vaccinated people can still host the virus
and spread it to others, they are just less likely to get the
serious disease outcome than the unvaccinated.

On Mon, 07 Jun 2021 23:08:35 -0400, FromTheRafters
wrote:

Rod Speed was thinking very hard :

"FromTheRafters" wrote in message
...
Snit expressed precisely :
On Jun 7, 2021 at 6:35:00 PM MST, "FromTheRafters" wrote
:

Snit explained on 6/7/2021 :
On Jun 7, 2021 at 5:44:27 PM MST, "FromTheRafters" wrote
:

Snit was thinking very hard :
On Jun 7, 2021 at 12:44:04 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Commander Kinsey wrote
Doesn't giving a coronavirus vaccine to everyone increase the
chances of the virus mutating to avoid the vaccine?
Nope, it's the reverse of that, the virus can only mutate in
infected people and so the fewer that get infected, the less the
chance of it mutating.
Exactly!

So we should be using it sparingly.
Nope, we should be vaccinating as many as possible with the best
vaccines to reduce the number who get infected.
Yup. And they are nearing what they think is herd immunity in New
York. Amazing.
Dunno, nothing useful on that with
https://www.google.com/search?q=herd...ty+in+New+York
Gotta link ?
Did more looking into this. Need 70% to get to herd immunity:
It is COVID fatigue causing compromises I think, 85 to 90 percent is
better but 70 sounds more "doable" at this point in time. Not enough
IMO.

I have the same feeling -- but no evidence to back it.


https://www.biospace.com/article/exp...erd-immunity-/

I was thinking in terms of the US. But, yes, if there are mutations where
the
immunity is reduced then the idea of herd immunity goes out the window.

A relevant part:

"At this point, data is not yet clear on whether the vaccines from Moderna
and Pfizer-BioNTech, while highly effective at preventing symptomatic
disease, also stop the spread of the virus.

That part is just plain wrong.
https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/cli...cines-do-reduc

So the words 'reduce' and 'stop' are synonyms to you?

Are you still wasting time with this troll?

Yes and no. The problem is it mutates in any case, as RNA genetic sequences
are more error prone on copying than dna ones. Thus its swings and
roundabouts. as has been proved with Flu. IE even if you did not get the
yearly flu jab, some immunity remains but due to mutation you will still
get ill, that is why they give a basket of various best guess mutations to
you. The same effect will occur here, as has been proved with many other
viruses including the close relative known as Sars 1.

There is no perfect answer but we can respond faster than the virus can, as
the virus is basically mutating all the time and its only those where
mutations mean it can do its job better that stay in the population. All the
common colds we get were probably once serious virus that would kill us, but
over te years the immunity has improved faster than the mutations to get
around these. You have to remember that viruses are not thinking creatures
they are just driven by a simple chemical key that hijacks cells to make
more virus. Its not clear why they exist, but in our universe, anything that
can occur will occur, so looking for a reason is pointless.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Commander Kinsey" wrote in message
news
Doesn't giving a coronavirus vaccine to everyone increase the chances of
the virus mutating to avoid the vaccine? So we should be using it
sparingly.

On 08/06/2021 07:52, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
Yes and no. The problem is it mutates in any case, as RNA genetic sequences
are more error prone on copying than dna ones. Thus its swings and
roundabouts. as has been proved with Flu. IE even if you did not get the
yearly flu jab, some immunity remains but due to mutation you will still
get ill, that is why they give a basket of various best guess mutations to
you. The same effect will occur here, as has been proved with many other
viruses including the close relative known as Sars 1.

There is no perfect answer but we can respond faster than the virus can, as
the virus is basically mutating all the time and its only those where
mutations mean it can do its job better that stay in the population. All the
common colds we get were probably once serious virus that would kill us, but
over te years the immunity has improved faster than the mutations to get
around these. You have to remember that viruses are not thinking creatures
they are just driven by a simple chemical key that hijacks cells to make
more virus. Its not clear why they exist, but in our universe, anything that
can occur will occur, so looking for a reason is pointless.
Brian

Nice to hear from you, Brian.

Stay safe. :-D

Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote

Yes and no.

No and no, actually.

The problem is it mutates in any case,

Viruses can only mutate in an infected person.

as RNA genetic sequences are more error prone on copying than dna ones.
Thus its swings and roundabouts. as has been proved with Flu.

Nope, not with covid.

IE even if you did not get the yearly flu jab, some immunity remains but
due to mutation you will still get ill, that is why they give a basket of
various best guess mutations to you.

But so far only one covid strain has been shown to
infect someone who has been previously infected.

The same effect will occur here,

Nope, for that reason.

as has been proved with many other viruses including the close relative
known as Sars 1.

SARS didn’t infect more than once.

There is no perfect answer

There is on that question he asked, vaccinate most
people and it will no longer be a problem, as we
have seen with measles, mumps, scarlet fever,
yellow fever, polio, smallpox etc etc etc.

but we can respond faster than the virus can,

It’s the reverse actually.

as the virus is basically mutating all the time

But not necessarily getting better all the time.

and its only those where mutations mean it can do its job better that stay
in the population.

That mangles the real story too given that be best
vaccines do currently appear to be effective against
most or maybe even all the variants, unlike with flu.

All the common colds we get were probably once serious virus that would
kill us,

That’s not true either.

but over te years the immunity has improved faster than the mutations to
get around these.

If that was true, the common cold would have killed
those savages who had no immunity when infected
white men showed up and we know that didn’t happen.

You have to remember that viruses are not thinking creatures they are just
driven by a simple chemical key that hijacks cells to make more virus. Its
not clear why they exist,

Basically they evolved, just like everything else did.

but in our universe, anything that can occur will occur,

That’s not true either.

so looking for a reason is pointless.

We already know the reason, evolution.

Commander Kinsey wrote

Doesn't giving a coronavirus vaccine to everyone increase the chances of
the virus mutating to avoid the vaccine? So we should be using it
sparingly.

On 08/06/2021 04:08, FromTheRafters wrote:
Rod Speed was thinking very hard :

"FromTheRafters" wrote in message
...
Snit expressed precisely :
On Jun 7, 2021 at 6:35:00 PM MST, "FromTheRafters" wrote
:

Snit explained on 6/7/2021 :
*On Jun 7, 2021 at 5:44:27 PM MST, "FromTheRafters" wrote
:

*Snit was thinking very hard :
* On Jun 7, 2021 at 12:44:04 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
* :

* Snit wrote
** Rod Speed wrote
** Commander Kinsey wrote
*** Doesn't giving a coronavirus vaccine to everyone
increase the chances of the virus mutating to avoid the
vaccine?
** Nope, it's the reverse of that, the virus can only mutate
in infected people and so the fewer that get infected, the
less the chance of it mutating.
** Exactly!

*** So we should be using it sparingly.
** Nope, we should be vaccinating as many as possible with
the best vaccines to reduce the number who get infected.
** Yup. And they are nearing what they think is herd immunity
in New York.*** Amazing.
* Dunno, nothing useful on that with
https://www.google.com/search?q=herd...ty+in+New+York
* Gotta link ?
*Did more looking into this. Need 70% to get to herd immunity:
*It is COVID fatigue causing compromises I think, 85 to 90
percent is better but 70 sounds more "doable" at this point in
time. Not enough IMO.

*I have the same feeling -- but no evidence to back it.


https://www.biospace.com/article/exp...erd-immunity-/


I was thinking in terms of the US. But, yes, if there are mutations
where the
immunity is reduced then the idea of herd immunity goes out the window.

A relevant part:

"At this point, data is not yet clear on whether the vaccines from
Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech, while highly effective at preventing
symptomatic disease, also stop the spread of the virus.

That part is just plain wrong.
https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/cli...cines-do-reduc


So the words 'reduce' and 'stop' are synonyms to you?

To be fair, reducing transmission may bring the rate down enough that
the virus cannot transmit to enough hosts and dies out, so a reduction
could cause a stop.

On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 07:52:36 +0100, Brainless & Daft, the notorious,
troll-feeding senile idiot, blathered again:

Yes and no.

Yes, YOU disgusting troll-feeding senile cretin were still missing on the
list of the troll-feeding sick assholes here! Do you blind swine know no
shame at all? tsk

On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 17:36:16 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Yes and no.

No and no, actually.

In auto-contradicting mode again, you abnormal trolling senile pest? LOL

--
Bod addressing abnormal senile quarreller Rot:
"Do you practice arguing with yourself in an empty room?"
MID:

On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 12:30:09 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the two senile pests usual endless idiotic senile ****

--
Bill Wright addressing senile Ozzie cretin Rodent Speed:
"Well you make up a lot of stuff and it's total ******** most of it."
MID:

On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 12:46:54 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH yet more of the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Richard addressing senile Rodent Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 12:31:16 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH more of the two senile pests' usual endless idiotic senile ****

--
Marland answering senile Rodent's statement, "I don't leak":
"That¢s because so much **** and ****e emanates from your gob that there is
nothing left to exit normally, your arsehole has clammed shut through disuse
and the end of prick is only clear because you are such a ******."
Message-ID:

On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 13:48:53 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Sqwertz to Rodent Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 13:44:54 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

Pathetic.

Your trolling certainly is, you pathetic octogenerian senile troll!

--
Richard addressing senile Rodent Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

Steve Walker explained on 6/8/2021 :
On 08/06/2021 04:08, FromTheRafters wrote:
Rod Speed was thinking very hard :

"FromTheRafters" wrote in message
...
Snit expressed precisely :
On Jun 7, 2021 at 6:35:00 PM MST, "FromTheRafters" wrote
:

Snit explained on 6/7/2021 :
*On Jun 7, 2021 at 5:44:27 PM MST, "FromTheRafters" wrote
:

*Snit was thinking very hard :
* On Jun 7, 2021 at 12:44:04 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
* :

* Snit wrote
** Rod Speed wrote
** Commander Kinsey wrote
*** Doesn't giving a coronavirus vaccine to everyone increase
the chances of the virus mutating to avoid the vaccine?
** Nope, it's the reverse of that, the virus can only mutate in
infected people and so the fewer that get infected, the less the
chance of it mutating.
** Exactly!

*** So we should be using it sparingly.
** Nope, we should be vaccinating as many as possible with the
best vaccines to reduce the number who get infected.
** Yup. And they are nearing what they think is herd immunity in
New York.*** Amazing.
* Dunno, nothing useful on that with
https://www.google.com/search?q=herd...ty+in+New+York
* Gotta link ?
*Did more looking into this. Need 70% to get to herd immunity:
*It is COVID fatigue causing compromises I think, 85 to 90 percent is
better but 70 sounds more "doable" at this point in time. Not enough
IMO.

*I have the same feeling -- but no evidence to back it.


https://www.biospace.com/article/exp...erd-immunity-/


I was thinking in terms of the US. But, yes, if there are mutations
where the
immunity is reduced then the idea of herd immunity goes out the window.

A relevant part:

"At this point, data is not yet clear on whether the vaccines from
Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech, while highly effective at preventing
symptomatic disease, also stop the spread of the virus.

That part is just plain wrong.
https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/cli...cines-do-reduc


So the words 'reduce' and 'stop' are synonyms to you?

To be fair, reducing transmission may bring the rate down enough that the
virus cannot transmit to enough hosts and dies out, so a reduction could
cause a stop.

True, it could make the difference between exponential growth and
exponential decay but it does not change the fact that being vaccinated
does not mean you cannot host the virus such that it allows a vaccine
resistant strain to emerge from a population.

It is sort of like the antibiotics and living germs. The doctor offers
a course of antibiotics and you must stay the course to kill the germs,
giving up on the course prematurely can result in a resurgence of
resistant germs making the antibiotic ineffective and you worse off
than before.

Rod Speed wrote :

"FromTheRafters" wrote in message
...
on 6/7/2021, Rod Speed supposed :
FromTheRafters wrote
Rod Speed wrote
FromTheRafters wrote
Commander Kinsey wrote

Doesn't giving a coronavirus vaccine to everyone increase the chances
of the virus mutating to avoid the vaccine? So we should be using it
sparingly.

Good point actually.

Nope, shows a complete misunderstanding of how viruses mutate.

Only if you take his "everyone" literally and assume that it is 100
percent effective at preventing "hosting" the virus.

Doesn't need to be anything like 100% effective at reducing
the chance of getting infected to radically reduce the number
of hosts that the virus can reproduce in. That's the only way
it can mutate, by reproducing.

Yes, it needs a host.

It seems you don't understand how viruses mutate

My original statement is completely accurate.

I didn't say it wasn't, I said the OP had a good point.

or how vaccines work.

And so is my later elaboration on that too.

The best of the covid vaccines have been shown to dramatically reduce the
rate of covid infection in the vaccinated. They don't just reduce the rate
of severe infection and death as you previously claimed in another of your
posts.

I didn't say that.

Yes you did, here it is again.

The other point is, vaccinated people can still host the virus
and spread it to others, they are just less likely to get the
serious disease outcome than the unvaccinated.

That is true, the vaccines make it less likely to get serious disease,
they do not make it impossible to host the virus.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Brian Gaff (Sofa) used his or her keyboard to write :

Yes and no. The problem is it mutates in any case, as RNA genetic sequences
are more error prone on copying than dna ones.

As I understand it, it has a proofreader function which reduces the
mutation rate. Damage that and it might step up the rate.

on 6/8/2021, FromTheRafters supposed :
Brian Gaff (Sofa) used his or her keyboard to write :

Yes and no. The problem is it mutates in any case, as RNA genetic sequences
are more error prone on copying than dna ones.

As I understand it, it has a proofreader function which reduces the mutation
rate. Damage that and it might step up the rate.

Coronavirus Proofreading Mechanism

RNA virus replication typically has a high error rate (or low viral
fidelity) that results in the virus existing as diverse populations
of genome mutants or €˜€˜quasispecies (Denison et al., 2011).
While low replicative fidelity allows the RNA viruses to adapt
to different replicative environments and selective pressures,
it is also associated with an increased chance of error catas-
trophe leading to viral extinction.

https://www.cell.com/molecular-cell/...20)30518-9.pdf

FromTheRafters brought next idea :
on 6/8/2021, FromTheRafters supposed :
Brian Gaff (Sofa) used his or her keyboard to write :

Yes and no. The problem is it mutates in any case, as RNA genetic
sequences are more error prone on copying than dna ones.

As I understand it, it has a proofreader function which reduces the
mutation rate. Damage that and it might step up the rate.

Coronavirus Proofreading Mechanism

RNA virus replication typically has a high error rate (or low viral
fidelity) that results in the virus existing as diverse populations
of genome mutants or €˜€˜quasispecies (Denison et al., 2011).
While low replicative fidelity allows the RNA viruses to adapt
to different replicative environments and selective pressures,
it is also associated with an increased chance of error catas-
trophe leading to viral extinction.

https://www.cell.com/molecular-cell/...20)30518-9.pdf

https%3A//www.cell.com/molecular-cell/pdf/S1097-2765%2820%2930518-9.pdf

It happens that FromTheRafters formulated :
FromTheRafters brought next idea :
on 6/8/2021, FromTheRafters supposed :
Brian Gaff (Sofa) used his or her keyboard to write :

Yes and no. The problem is it mutates in any case, as RNA genetic
sequences are more error prone on copying than dna ones.

As I understand it, it has a proofreader function which reduces the
mutation rate. Damage that and it might step up the rate.

Coronavirus Proofreading Mechanism

RNA virus replication typically has a high error rate (or low viral
fidelity) that results in the virus existing as diverse populations
of genome mutants or €˜€˜quasispecies (Denison et al., 2011).
While low replicative fidelity allows the RNA viruses to adapt
to different replicative environments and selective pressures,
it is also associated with an increased chance of error catas-
trophe leading to viral extinction.

https://www.cell.com/molecular-cell/...20)30518-9.pdf

https%3A//www.cell.com/molecular-cell/pdf/S1097-2765%2820%2930518-9.pdf

Third time's a charm.

https://www.cell.com/molecular-cell/...%2930518-9.pdf

My client showed the previous links to be broken, I escaped the string
and made it worse. This one should work.

On 07/06/2021 17:20, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Doesn't giving a coronavirus vaccine to everyone increase the chances of
the virus mutating to avoid the vaccine?* So we should be using it
sparingly.

That depends...

Mutation pressure depends on how frequently virons try to establish
themselves in a vaccinated host.

The more vaccinated people there are, the more likely that a single
viron will find a vaccinated host. On the other hand vaccinating people
may reduce the prevalence of disease, the total number of virons. So
less virons come into contact with any host. The expected number of
virons trying to infect a vaccinated host will be a function of both.

A consequence of this is that it *may* be a bad idea to vaccinate in the
middle of a surge. That would depend on a lot of factors which I don't
know the answer to. So I'm just a ****wit on the internet, idly pondering.

Maybe epidemiologists know the answer, but I haven't heard many
discussing it.