On 08/06/2021 11:35, Pancho wrote:
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

I meant evolutionary pressure.

"FromTheRafters" wrote in message
...
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.

In fact vaccination dramatically reduces the risk of getting
infected and so being a breeding ground for mutations.

It is sort of like the antibiotics and living germs.

Nothing like in fact. Vaccination doesn't kill all but
the best mutants, it stops the vast majority of the
vaccinated from getting infected and becoming
a host for the virus.

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.

Vaccination doesn't work like that because the vaccine
doesn't kill the virus, it just activates the immune system
and stops most becoming infected.

"FromTheRafters" wrote in message
...
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,

Nope, very misleadingly stated.

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

In fact they radically reduce the risk of hosting the
virus so the phucker is just plain wrong, as I said.

Thanks for clearing that up.

On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 11:35:16 +0100, Pancho, another mentally deficient
troll-feeding senile asshole, blathered:


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

Ever heard of that little adage, "Don't feed the troll", troll-feeding
senile moron?

On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 20:43:52 +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 20:53:17 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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

--
Richard about senile Rodent:
"Rod Speed, a bare faced pig and ignorant ****."
MID:

Rod Speed submitted this idea :

"FromTheRafters" wrote in message
...
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.

In fact vaccination dramatically reduces the risk of getting
infected and so being a breeding ground for mutations.

True.

It is sort of like the antibiotics and living germs.

Nothing like in fact. Vaccination doesn't kill all but
the best mutants, it stops the vast majority of the
vaccinated from getting infected and becoming
a host for the virus.

The virus has to get there to be dealt with, and it is not dealt with
immediately. So, there is some shedding before the virus is eliminated
from the body.

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.

Vaccination doesn't work like that because the vaccine
doesn't kill the virus,

Of course not, a virus isn't alive in the first place.

it just activates the immune system and stops most becoming infected.

It causes presenter cells to recruit generator cells to generate
antibodies to be ready to "detect" and attach to the (nearly) specific
pathogen by the shapes on its surface. Some pathogens with partial or
no coverage by antibodies can and do infect cells and reproduce. Having
the antibodies present before the 'wild' antigen invades gives your
system a head start but it is not the all or nothing proposition you
seem to think it is.

on 6/8/2021, Pancho supposed :
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.

I had heard that about the vaccines too. You don't necessarily want to
vaccinate while the virus is in exponential growth, it is more
effective when other measures have brought the R_eff value down.

In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 07 Jun 2021 18:22:25 +0100, "Commander
Kinsey" wrote:

On Mon, 07 Jun 2021 18:12:19 +0100, wrote:

On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 12:20:53 PM UTC-4, 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.

Microorganisms don't mutate to "avoid" anything. It's an undirected process
whereby anything that survives (whether it's antibodies produced by a vaccine
or an antibacterial such as penicillin) is resistant. Anything that wasn't
resistant is dead.

I've read that this virus is intelligent, like a motorist spotting a speedtrap and driving on a different route.

Anyone who wrote that was either speaking metaphorically, or he was
uninformed, or he was lying.

People sometimes try to speak in words that will be meaningful to
non-specialists. Sometimes they choose the wrong metaphor entiredly,
one that doesn't even illustrate the comparison they are trying to make,
but more often the metaphor illustrates something but either the writer
or his readers expand it beyond what the facts are.

I don't know what happened here, but the vaccine reduces mutations
enormously. It does not increase them.

It reduces them by not providing a host human in which the virus can
grow (and mutate) and by, it seems clear now, reducing, eliminating, or
almost eliminating transmission to other people. Again, tremendously
reducting the number of host humans in which the virus can grow and
sometimes mutate.

Even children under 12 can get the virus, and some are made sick from
it, some seriuosly sick. They're testing sample populations to see if
the vaccine has side effects more than what adults get. Assuming the
tests show they don't. Thos childdren should be vaccinated too.

It's a shame that those who have had organ transplants, for example,
can't be vaccinated or in the case of a good friend of mine** who had a
kidney tranplant about 7 years ago, can be vaccinated but didn't develop
antibodies, at least not the one that the standard PCR test test for .
But other than those special situations, everyone should be vaccinated,
and that will come closest to stopping mutations.

**She had lymphoma is 2002 and had some of her own bone marrow removed,
the rest was irradiated and killed, and hers was replaced. Every day
she lives she sets a new record for survival of this procedure which
iirc was at most 7 years when she got it, 19 years ago.

Then she had kidney failure and one of her 3 sons gave her one of his
kidneys. The son is fine.

Then 2 or 3 years ago she had breast cancer.

So your statement above is the exact opposite of the truth. I believe
you that you read it, and didn't make it up, but beside the likelihood
that it's a misunderstood metaphor, it may also be a lie. It's part of
the Big Lie technique to say the very opposite of the truth. The harder
it is to believe the better in that case because people who normally
tell the truth often think, NO one woudl make up such a ridiculous lie
so it must be true.

On Tue, 08 Jun 2021 12:39:18 -0400, micky mouse, the notorious,
troll-feeding, senile ASSHOLE, blathered again:


Anyone who wrote that was either speaking metaphorically, or he was
uninformed, or he was lying.

Or he is simply a filthy trolling attention whore, you mentally handicapped
troll-feeding senile ASSHOLE!

On 6/8/2021 9:39 AM, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Mon, 07 Jun 2021 18:22:25 +0100, "Commander
Kinsey" wrote:

On Mon, 07 Jun 2021 18:12:19 +0100, wrote:

On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 12:20:53 PM UTC-4, 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.

Microorganisms don't mutate to "avoid" anything. It's an undirected process
whereby anything that survives (whether it's antibodies produced by a vaccine
or an antibacterial such as penicillin) is resistant. Anything that wasn't
resistant is dead.

I've read that this virus is intelligent, like a motorist spotting a speedtrap and driving on a different route.

Anyone who wrote that was either speaking metaphorically, or he was
uninformed, or he was lying.

People sometimes try to speak in words that will be meaningful to
non-specialists. Sometimes they choose the wrong metaphor entiredly,
one that doesn't even illustrate the comparison they are trying to make,
but more often the metaphor illustrates something but either the writer
or his readers expand it beyond what the facts are.

I don't know what happened here, but the vaccine reduces mutations
enormously. It does not increase them.

It reduces them by not providing a host human in which the virus can
grow (and mutate) and by, it seems clear now, reducing, eliminating, or
almost eliminating transmission to other people. Again, tremendously
reducting the number of host humans in which the virus can grow and
sometimes mutate.

Even children under 12 can get the virus, and some are made sick from
it, some seriuosly sick. They're testing sample populations to see if
the vaccine has side effects more than what adults get. Assuming the
tests show they don't. Thos childdren should be vaccinated too.

It's a shame that those who have had organ transplants, for example,
can't be vaccinated or in the case of a good friend of mine** who had a
kidney tranplant about 7 years ago, can be vaccinated but didn't develop
antibodies, at least not the one that the standard PCR test test for .
But other than those special situations, everyone should be vaccinated,
and that will come closest to stopping mutations.

**She had lymphoma is 2002 and had some of her own bone marrow removed,
the rest was irradiated and killed, and hers was replaced. Every day
she lives she sets a new record for survival of this procedure which
iirc was at most 7 years when she got it, 19 years ago.

Then she had kidney failure and one of her 3 sons gave her one of his
kidneys. The son is fine.

Then 2 or 3 years ago she had breast cancer.

So your statement above is the exact opposite of the truth. I believe
you that you read it, and didn't make it up, but beside the likelihood
that it's a misunderstood metaphor, it may also be a lie. It's part of
the Big Lie technique to say the very opposite of the truth. The harder
it is to believe the better in that case because people who normally
tell the truth often think, NO one woudl make up such a ridiculous lie
so it must be true.


Kind of like if someone had made a movie 10 years ago about a
"president" like trump, everyone would have said it was too stupid to be
believable.

On 6/8/2021 3:37 AM, Pancho wrote:
On 08/06/2021 11:35, Pancho wrote:
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.

What you don't want to do is give everybody too weak of a dose to be
effective, which is what happens with meat animals, creating resistant
bacteria.

https://milesobrien.com/antibiotics-farm-mystery/


That depends...

Mutation pressure

I meant evolutionary pressure.

"FromTheRafters" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed submitted this idea :

"FromTheRafters" wrote in message
...
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.

In fact vaccination dramatically reduces the risk of getting
infected and so being a breeding ground for mutations.

True.

It is sort of like the antibiotics and living germs.

Nothing like in fact. Vaccination doesn't kill all but
the best mutants, it stops the vast majority of the
vaccinated from getting infected and becoming
a host for the virus.

The virus has to get there to be dealt with,

Vaccination doesn't deal with any virus, it gets the body's
immune system activated so you are much less likely to
be infected by the virus and so greatly reduces the
chance of the virus to mutate in that individual.

and it is not dealt with immediately. So, there is some shedding before
the virus is eliminated from the body.

In fact once the body's immune system has been activated
by the vaccination, you are far less likely to get infected at
all and so there isnt any shedding of the virus because that
can only happen if the virus is reproducing in the body.

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.

Vaccination doesn't work like that because the vaccine doesn't kill the
virus,

Of course not, a virus isn't alive in the first place.

But bacteria is, so what happens with bacteria and antibiotics
is nothing like what happens with vaccination and viruses.

it just activates the immune system and stops most becoming infected.

It causes presenter cells to recruit generator cells to generate
antibodies to be ready to "detect" and attach to the (nearly) specific
pathogen by the shapes on its surface.

And so is nothing even remotely like an antibiotic.

Some pathogens with partial or no coverage by antibodies can and do infect
cells and reproduce.

Irrelevant to how vaccines and viruses work.

Having the antibodies present before the 'wild' antigen invades gives your
system a head start but it is not the all or nothing proposition you seem
to think it is.

I never ever said anything about all or nothing.

"FromTheRafters" wrote in message
...
on 6/8/2021, Pancho supposed :
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.

I had heard that about the vaccines too. You don't necessarily want to
vaccinate while the virus is in exponential growth, it is more effective
when other measures have brought the R_eff value down.

That mangles the real story too.

On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 03:44:01 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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

On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 03:45:20 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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

--
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 Jun 7, 2021 at 7:34:58 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

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.

Would love to see the research you are referring to.

--
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 7:31:16 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

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.


No offence, but I did not think you would be able to show any. In science
there are few proofs -- but there is often strong support.

--
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 7:30:09 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

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

Can you quote where they speak of the number of vaccinated people needed for
herd immunity?



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.

Easy to say for those of us who speak English.

I have no issue with a clarification... but I have no desire for such games.


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.

The part about herd immunity is key to the point about herd immunity.

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?

You do not. OK.

He made the claim.

He gets to provide the data that substantiates that claim.

Thats how it works.


--
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 wrote on 6/8/2021 :

"FromTheRafters" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed submitted this idea :

"FromTheRafters" wrote in message
...
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.

In fact vaccination dramatically reduces the risk of getting
infected and so being a breeding ground for mutations.

True.

It is sort of like the antibiotics and living germs.

Nothing like in fact. Vaccination doesn't kill all but
the best mutants, it stops the vast majority of the
vaccinated from getting infected and becoming
a host for the virus.

The virus has to get there to be dealt with,

Vaccination doesn't deal with any virus, it gets the body's
immune system activated so you are much less likely to
be infected by the virus and so greatly reduces the
chance of the virus to mutate in that individual.

Yes, much less likely.

and it is not dealt with immediately. So, there is some shedding before the
virus is eliminated from the body.

In fact once the body's immune system has been activated
by the vaccination, you are far less likely to get infected at
all and so there isnt any shedding of the virus because that
can only happen if the virus is reproducing in the body.

Which it does, or else you were not 'infected' but merely 'exposed'.

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.

Vaccination doesn't work like that because the vaccine doesn't kill the
virus,

Of course not, a virus isn't alive in the first place.

But bacteria is, so what happens with bacteria and antibiotics
is nothing like what happens with vaccination and viruses.

They both mutate and evolve in an environment which shapes their
behavior. The fact of being a living thing or not does not change that
aspect.

it just activates the immune system and stops most becoming infected.

It causes presenter cells to recruit generator cells to generate antibodies
to be ready to "detect" and attach to the (nearly) specific pathogen by the
shapes on its surface.

And so is nothing even remotely like an antibiotic.

True. The effect of a hostile environment on behavior is the same
though.

Some pathogens with partial or no coverage by antibodies can and do infect
cells and reproduce.

Irrelevant to how vaccines and viruses work.

Wrong, it is how antibodies work to neutralize and mark pathogens,
including viruses, for eventual destruction by immune cells.

"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Jun 7, 2021 at 7:34:58 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

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.

Would love to see the research you are referring to.

Not clear what you want, the differing R0 with the more virulent strains
or the need for a higher percentage than 70% with the R0 of the more
virulent strains.

"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Jun 7, 2021 at 7:31:16 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

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.


No offence, but I did not think you would be able to show any.

I can but dont take that troll bait.

In science there are few proofs

Thats mindless bull****.

-- but there is often strong support.

Mindless hair splitting/pathetic trolling.

"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Jun 7, 2021 at 7:30:09 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

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

Can you quote where they speak of the number of vaccinated people needed
for herd immunity?

Yep.

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.

Easy to say for those of us who speak English.

I have no issue with a clarification... but I have no desire for such
games.

Ditto.

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.

The part about herd immunity is key to the point about herd immunity.

Try that again in english, even google translate doesnt do gobbledegook
yet.

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?

You do not. OK.

More mindless troll****, your trademark as that other pointed out
accurately.

He made the claim.

He gets to provide the data that substantiates that claim.

Thats how it works.

On Jun 8, 2021 at 12:58:33 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Jun 7, 2021 at 7:31:16 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

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.


No offence, but I did not think you would be able to show any.

I can but dont take that troll bait.

In science there are few proofs

Thats mindless bull****.

-- but there is often strong support.

Mindless hair splitting/pathetic trolling.


You were asked to back a claim about proof. You did not. That is OK... you
have a belief you cannot back. No attack. No insult. Not interested in yours.


As far as proofs -- those are a part of math, not science.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw...h=3299dec72fb1


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...ientific_proof

Etc.

--
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 8, 2021 at 12:56:44 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Jun 7, 2021 at 7:34:58 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

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.

Would love to see the research you are referring to.

Not clear what you want, the differing R0 with the more virulent strains
or the need for a higher percentage than 70% with the R0 of the more
virulent strains.

Evidence of what you say. I am not even disagreeing... but would love to see
what peer review evidence, or even evidence from the CDC or other such groups,
you are using to back your claims.

--
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 8, 2021 at 1:02:42 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Jun 7, 2021 at 7:30:09 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

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

Can you quote where they speak of the number of vaccinated people needed
for herd immunity?

You did not.



Yep.


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.

Easy to say for those of us who speak English.

I have no issue with a clarification... but I have no desire for such
games.

Ditto.

Are you capable of stopping?



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.

The part about herd immunity is key to the point about herd immunity.

Try that again in english, even google translate doesnt do gobbledegook
yet.

A = A.

Not a hard concept.



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?

You do not. OK.

You took issue with this... but still showed no data. At this point I think we
can say you have nothing of value to add. Fair enough.


More mindless troll****, your trademark as that other pointed out
accurately.

He made the claim.

He gets to provide the data that substantiates that claim.

Thats how it works.


--
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.

"FromTheRafters" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote on 6/8/2021 :

"FromTheRafters" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed submitted this idea :

"FromTheRafters" wrote in message
...
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.

In fact vaccination dramatically reduces the risk of getting
infected and so being a breeding ground for mutations.

True.

It is sort of like the antibiotics and living germs.

Nothing like in fact. Vaccination doesn't kill all but
the best mutants, it stops the vast majority of the
vaccinated from getting infected and becoming
a host for the virus.

The virus has to get there to be dealt with,

Vaccination doesn't deal with any virus, it gets the body's
immune system activated so you are much less likely to
be infected by the virus and so greatly reduces the
chance of the virus to mutate in that individual.

Yes, much less likely.

and it is not dealt with immediately. So, there is some shedding before
the virus is eliminated from the body.

In fact once the body's immune system has been activated
by the vaccination, you are far less likely to get infected at
all and so there isnt any shedding of the virus because that
can only happen if the virus is reproducing in the body.

Which it does, or else you were not 'infected' but merely 'exposed'.

Only in a tiny subset of those vaccinated so the
phucker's original is still completely wrong.

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.

Vaccination doesn't work like that because the vaccine doesn't kill the
virus,

Of course not, a virus isn't alive in the first place.

But bacteria is, so what happens with bacteria and antibiotics
is nothing like what happens with vaccination and viruses.

They both mutate and evolve in an environment which shapes their behavior.

But with the vaccinated, far fewer of the virus
get to infect a host, and mutate and evolve, so
the phucker's original is still completely wrong.

The fact of being a living thing or not does not change that aspect.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

it just activates the immune system and stops most becoming infected.

It causes presenter cells to recruit generator cells to generate
antibodies to be ready to "detect" and attach to the (nearly) specific
pathogen by the shapes on its surface.

And so is nothing even remotely like an antibiotic.

True. The effect of a hostile environment on behavior is the same though.

There is no hostile environment with the vaccinated, the virus gets
to infect far fewer people and so doesn't get to mutate and evolve.

Some pathogens with partial or no coverage by antibodies can and do
infect cells and reproduce.

Irrelevant to how vaccines and viruses work.

Wrong, it is how antibodies work to neutralize and mark pathogens,
including viruses, for eventual destruction by immune cells.

The virus doesn't get to infect cells and reproduce with the vast bulk
of the vaccinated, so the phucker's original is still completely wrong.

On Tue, 08 Jun 2021 20:06:05 GMT, **** the git, the notorious,
troll-feeding, senile asshole, blathered again:



Evidence of what you say. I am not even disagreeing... but would love to see
what peer review evidence, or even evidence from the CDC or other such groups,
you are using to back your claims.

WTF has your senile off topic **** got to do with ANY of the three ngs you
two sick senile swines keep crossposting it to?

"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Jun 8, 2021 at 12:58:33 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Jun 7, 2021 at 7:31:16 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

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.


No offence, but I did not think you would be able to show any.

I can but dont take that troll bait.

In science there are few proofs

Thats mindless bull****.

-- but there is often strong support.

Mindless hair splitting/pathetic trolling.


You were asked to back a claim about proof.

You trolled and I didnt take the bait.

reams of your troll**** flushed where it belongs

"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Jun 8, 2021 at 12:56:44 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Jun 7, 2021 at 7:34:58 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

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.

Would love to see the research you are referring to.

Not clear what you want, the differing R0 with the more virulent strains
or the need for a higher percentage than 70% with the R0 of the more
virulent strains.

Evidence of what you say.

Which bit of what I said there ?

reams of your troll**** flushed where it belongs

Snit wrote
reams of your trademark troll**** you always
end up with, all flushed where it belongs.

On Jun 8, 2021 at 1:34:13 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



Snit wrote
reams of your trademark troll**** you always
end up with, all flushed where it belongs.

I do not understand your need to get attention this way. Can you explain 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.

On Jun 8, 2021 at 1:32:30 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Jun 8, 2021 at 12:56:44 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Jun 7, 2021 at 7:34:58 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

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.


This is what I was asking for evidence of. Do you have any?




Would love to see the research you are referring to.

Not clear what you want, the differing R0 with the more virulent strains
or the need for a higher percentage than 70% with the R0 of the more
virulent strains.

Evidence of what you say.

Which bit of what I said there ?

reams of your troll**** flushed where it belongs


--
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 8, 2021 at 1:05:21 PM MST, "Snit" wrote
:

On Jun 8, 2021 at 12:58:33 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:



"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Jun 7, 2021 at 7:31:16 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

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.


No offence, but I did not think you would be able to show any.

I can but dont take that troll bait.

In science there are few proofs

Thats mindless bull****.

-- but there is often strong support.

Mindless hair splitting/pathetic trolling.


You were asked to back a claim about proof. You did not. That is OK... you
have a belief you cannot back. No attack. No insult. Not interested in yours.


As far as proofs -- those are a part of math, not science.



https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw...h=3299dec72fb1


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...ientific_proof

Etc.

Rod Speed snipped and ran. Whatever. Clearly he just wants the last word. He
can have 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.

On Tue, 08 Jun 2021 20:34:50 GMT, **** the git, the notorious,
troll-feeding, senile asshole, blathered again:


I do not understand your need to get attention this way. Can you explain it?

I understand that BOTH of you are trolling senile ****heads!

On Tue, 08 Jun 2021 20:35:36 GMT, **** the git, the notorious,
troll-feeding, senile asshole, blathered again:


This is what I was asking for evidence of. Do you have any?

Do you two egoistic senile ****heads have NO respect for the three ngs you
keep trashing with your endless idiotic senile ****?

On Tue, 08 Jun 2021 20:36:18 GMT, **** the git, the notorious,
troll-feeding, senile asshole, blathered again:


Rod Speed snipped and ran. Whatever. Clearly he just wants the last word. He
can have it.

Just keep your endless sick senile **** out of these groups, you brainless
senile trolls!

On 2021-06-08, Rod Speed wrote:


"Snit" wrote in message
...
On Jun 7, 2021 at 7:30:09 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:

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

Can you quote where they speak of the number of vaccinated people needed
for herd immunity?

Yep.

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.

Easy to say for those of us who speak English.

I have no issue with a clarification... but I have no desire for such
games.

Ditto.

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.

The part about herd immunity is key to the point about herd immunity.

Try that again in english, even google translate doesnt do gobbledegook
yet.

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?

You do not. OK.

More mindless troll****, your trademark as that other pointed out
accurately.

Exactly.
In a previous post you asked snit what he was looking for.
Snit is looking to troll and suck people into his snit circus.
Nothing more than that.

Here is what happens when someone makes the mistake of engaging snit in
a dialog.
It is the end result almost 100 percent of the time.
It comes from one of the links in my siggie.

"36- George Graves: "Jason. You have started an argument with
the Snit (AKA Michael Glasser), this should not be done. He
will drive you crazy with his twisted logic, his deep-rooted
need to be ALWAYS right at any cost. He will move goalposts,
set up strawmen, and bore you into submission with his endless
pedanticism. The only way to engage him is to hit and run. NEVER
engage him, it's a futile, empty procedure that will only anger
you and feed him. Take my advice and STAY AWAY!" 27 Oct 2004"



--
pothead
Tommy Chong For President 2024
Lifetime Member of "The Prescott Parasite Eradication Team"
Ask snit how he ****ed on his cat.
All about snit read below. Links courtesy of Ron:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181028....com/snit.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20190529.../snitlist.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20190529...ieMethods.html

On 2021-06-08, Rod Speed wrote:


Snit wrote
reams of your trademark troll**** you always
end up with, all flushed where it belongs.

Snit is running his "Fire Engine Troll" on you.
Here it is:

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os....ic1PGw-5sXA/m/
eqRxD0a0AAAJ

Quote Engaged----------------

"Snit is obviously flying high on drugs again because he is in Rainman
Mode,
but here is what will happen with all of his threads.



Person: Doesn't that blade of grass over there look like it's red?
Snit: Define red.
Person: Red, you know, like a fire engine.
Snit: Fire engines where I live are yellow.
Person: Ok, red like blood.
Snit: Blood isn't really red.
Person: Sigh, ok, red like a red rose.
Snit: What kind of rose?
Person: I don't know, a ****ing red rose.
Snit: Why are you getting vulgar with me?
Person: Because you are an idiot.
Snit: You attack me because you have nothing to say.
Person: I've been trying to say something to you for two days now. You
don't listen.
Snit: Define something.
Person: Are you some kind of asshole?
Snit: Why are you attacking me.
Person: I'm tired of playing your idiotic game.
Snit: You ran away. I won.
Person: dead silence.

And this is how snit keeps his circus alive."

Quote disengaged-----------

--
pothead
Tommy Chong For President 2024
Lifetime Member of "The Prescott Parasite Eradication Team"
Ask snit how he ****ed on his cat.
All about snit read below. Links courtesy of Ron:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181028....com/snit.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20190529.../snitlist.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20190529...ieMethods.html

Snit wrote
reams of your trademark troll**** you always
end up with, all flushed where it belongs.