MUCHO2000 t1_j0iymfy wrote
Reply to comment by dbx999 in The new omicron boosters are very effective at preventing seniors from being hospitalized with Covid. The latest omicron boosters are 84% effective at keeping seniors 65 and older from being hospitalized with Covid-19 compared with the unvaccinated by Wagamaga
This is a bizarre post. You seem to be pinning COVID becoming endemic on the unvaccinated. That's not remotely close to what has happened. Second, COVID currently is not more deadly than the flu if you're vaccinated. Finally, the hope is for a fast spreading strain that is as deadly as the common cold which is to say not at all. However this is not more likely with each strain because it's mortality rate is already so low. A virus becomes less deadly over time when it starts with a high mortality rate. With COVID it's just as possible to mutate into something more deadly as it is less. Either way if you're vaccinated you have little worries of death.
mightcommentsometime t1_j0kez1d wrote
> That's not remotely close to what has happened.
You need to qualify this assertion with data and research.
> Second, COVID currently is not more deadly than the flu if you're vaccinated
Clinical mortality rate isn't, nor has it ever been the only determining factor of when vaccines should be used. The effective R value is always considered. Covid is over 1 and past the bifurcation point for epidemic spread. Influenza teeters around 1. Comparing the two doesn't make any sense from an epidemiological standpoint. The dynamics of covid spread is very different than that of influenza spread.
> Finally, the hope is for a fast spreading strain that is as deadly as the common cold which is to say not at all.
What? Where did you hear/read this nonsense? The hope is to push the effective R value below 1 so that we can get past the bifurcation point of epidemic spread.
> A virus becomes less deadly over time when it starts with a high mortality rate.
Where are you getting this from? That highly depends on multiple factors of the virus. Including how stable the virus is.
> Either way if you're vaccinated you have little worries of death.
Why are you so focused on death and ignoring the infection rate? Measles has a pretty low death rate but has absurd infection rate. That's why it's important to vaccinate against it.
MUCHO2000 t1_j0llbon wrote
Sorry kid I am making comments on Reddit. No citations needed. Go kick rocks.
Regardless I am not focused on anything but rebutting the post I responded to. Since you asked though the main concern I have (and think most people should have) is with long COVID. That said feel free to write up a research review on my post history.
mightcommentsometime t1_j0lu78u wrote
> Sorry kid I am making comments on Reddit. No citations needed. Go kick rocks.
And I'm free to call you out for being a kid who makes things up, then balks when asked to back up your BS.
MUCHO2000 t1_j0lvuya wrote
I'm not balking in the slightest. You're being critical due to lack of citations and incomplete information but I'm not writing a thesis here. I'm responding to a comment on Reddit.
You have refuted nothing. Where are your citations that I am wrong about anything?
Hypocrite.
mightcommentsometime t1_j0lwepv wrote
I'm being critical because you're making things up and passing that garbage as knowledge.
> You have refuted nothing. Where are your citations that I am wrong about anything?
My flair on this subreddit is citation enough when we're talking about simple things like your comments.
mo_tag t1_j0ov1ug wrote
>My flair on this subreddit is citation enough when we're talking about simple things like your comments.
Cringe
mightcommentsometime t1_j0yp8e2 wrote
It's oh so cringe that I have a verifiable and proven education. Lol.
mo_tag t1_j0yuloz wrote
You're being obtuse.. It's cringe that you're appealing to your mathematics degree which you think makes you an authority on epidemiology after literally just criticising someone for not citing sources... And the other commenter needs to cite sources because they don't have a flair? I think you'd be surprised how many flairless ppl have "proven education".. so yeah, cringe
[deleted] t1_j0yv46q wrote
[removed]
mightcommentsometime t1_j0yw7p9 wrote
> You're being obtuse.. It's cringe that you're appealing to your mathematics degree which you think makes you an authority on epidemiology
Do you know what epidemiology is? Do you know what applied computational mathematics is? Do you know what mathematical and computational biology is?
Yes. I'm appealing to my extensive study and my research on epidemiology.
> And the other commenter needs to cite sources because they don't have a flair?
The other commenter made many dubious and questionable claims. Asking them to prove said claims instead of accepting them as fact is prudent and proper for scientific discussion.
> I think you'd be surprised how many flairless ppl have "proven education".. so yeah, cringe
Then these people should be able to back up their assertions and claims. As all of us have had to do.
mo_tag t1_j0z924i wrote
>Do you know what epidemiology is? Do you know what applied computational mathematics is? Do you know what mathematical and computational biology is?
Dude, just stop.. you know damn well that an applied mathematics degree doesn't make you a subject matter expert in any field that happens to enploy applied mathematics.. Are you also an expert on structural engineering and genomics?
>Yes. I'm appealing to my extensive study and my research on epidemiology.
..and that a masters degree hardly qualifies as "extensive research". I'm not saying you haven't done but that's hardly self-evident from your flair, mate.
>Asking them to prove said claims instead of accepting them as fact is prudent and proper for scientific discussion.
Yeah, and noone said it wasn't, it's the fact that you think you're exempt from it that's weird
>Then these people should be able to back up their assertions and claims. As all of us have had to do.
Except from you apperently
mightcommentsometime t1_j0zarjz wrote
> Dude, just stop.. you know damn well that an applied mathematics degree doesn't make you a subject matter expert in any field that happens to enploy applied mathematics..
Do you know what applied computational mathematics actually is?
> Are you also an expert on structural engineering and genomics?
Structural engineering and genomics aren't epidemiology. Nor are they even remotely as specifically based on dynamical systems.
> ..and that a masters degree hardly qualifies as "extensive research".
Uh-huh. I just had to write a masters thesis on the subject. I guess I didn't do any research at all. Right?
> I'm not saying you haven't done but that's hardly self-evident from your flair, mate.
Unless you understand the field, and what it is.
> Yeah, and noone said it wasn't, it's the fact that you think you're exempt from it that's weird
What specific claims did I make that required me to cite/prove because they were beyond baseline knowledge of the subject?
> Except from you apperently
I repeat my previous question.
mo_tag t1_j12oya4 wrote
>Do you know what applied computational mathematics actually is?
Yes, I did my second masters in computational chemical engineering.. but I'm not continuing this silly conversation, I'm cringing at myself for even engaging w you
mightcommentsometime t1_j12pxvg wrote
> Yes, I did my second masters in computational chemical engineering..
Which is not even remotely the same at all. It's funny you think it is though.
> I'm not continuing this silly conversation, I'm cringing at myself for even engaging w you
Have fun!
MUCHO2000 t1_j0lx23a wrote
You have literally refuted nothing. Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.
mightcommentsometime t1_j0lyplz wrote
You're trying to shift the burden of proof to me because I called your bullshit out, and you dont have the ability to actually back up the nonsense you keep making up about epidemiology.
Grow up. If you want to spout uneducated nonsense in the science subreddit, be prepared to be called out for it.
MUCHO2000 t1_j0m05mh wrote
I'm sorry? Go look at your replies to me. Now you're whining that I am not respecting your authority? Honestly it's pathetic.
You're mad because I'm not providing citations for my decidedly (I admit) unscientific post. Yet you refuted nothing and you missed the point on more than one occasion.
So either refute me or don't. I'm happy to learn new things but so far I have only learned you have a fragile ego.
[deleted] t1_j0m1kct wrote
[removed]
js1138-2 t1_j0jik9g wrote
Are we sure covid is becoming less deadly, or is it less deadly because nearly everyone has had some exposure?
MUCHO2000 t1_j0jrjpo wrote
I am not arguing it has become less deadly. Maybe reply to the guy I am disagreeing with
js1138-2 t1_j0js1wr wrote
It’s not intended as a rhetorical question. I thought you might have an answer, or at least know why there isn’t one.
MUCHO2000 t1_j0jv8gp wrote
It hasn't. This is an old article but a good read.
js1138-2 t1_j0jx1is wrote
Maybe my reading comprehension is deficient, but it looks to me like the article implies omicron is less deadly because it doesn’t attack the lungs as severely. This is counter to the headline.
Also, the article was written shortly after omicron appeared, and we now have a year of experience with it.
The death rate around the world for the last six months has been the lowest for any six month period, and doesn’t seem to be rising with winter.
The question remains, is this because the disease has changed, or because people have adapted. Perhaps after a non-fatal infection, the immune system no longer goes into storm mode.
Or perhaps the most vulnerable people have already died.
Forsaken_Rooster_365 t1_j0moqd5 wrote
I thought that when Omicron went into places with limited vaccination and limited experience with prior covid-exposure, they had similar to WT mortality? Like, it may have been less deadly than some of the other mutants (like Beta and Delta), but I don't think it was much different from WT. Been a long time since I've heard anything though.
js1138-2 t1_j0n4ugs wrote
That’s hard to study, because the most vulnerable people are also the most vaccinated. But, when omicron had its first enormous peak, most of the people hospitalized were unvaccinated.
Now it’s hard to find anyone who is neither vaccinated nor a survivor.
dbx999 t1_j0j1inl wrote
It’s not a bizarre post at all. It’s bizarre you think it’s bizarre. You’re also restating much of what I said. I said generally viruses evolve into higher transmissibility and lower lethal versions over time. I also said vaccines lower mortality.
I also don’t see what is bizarre about stating that a significant portion of the population remaining unvaccinated will offer an incubating pool for more mutation opportunities. Anything that lowers the chances to establish meaningful and effective herd immunity logically means that endemic prevalence and mutation over time is a natural consequence of such an ecosystem - one that will eventually back flow into the vaccinated population when a strain with sufficient evasion and transmissibility surfaces.
MUCHO2000 t1_j0j9era wrote
Which mutation came from those unwilling to get vaccinated? We suspect Delta came from India and Omicron from Africa. The current strains of COVID escape immunity to a high degree. Your statement is bizarre about the unvaccinated having anything to do with the state we are in.
Second, while it's true that the goal of a virus is to survive, replicate, and spread it therefore tends to evolve toward being more infectious and less deadly context still matters. COVID is rarely deadly so while fast spreading mutations will be favored less deadly is far less relevant. It's not likely (your word) that each strain will be less deadly. The only likely thing is that the next mutation will be better able to replicate and spread. So yeah, bizarre.
dbx999 t1_j0javyi wrote
You need to reread my comment. I said it is LIKELY that each new successful strain that develops in the future will carry a lower mortality rate. Those are the exact words. And your comment states that I am saying the exact opposite.
MUCHO2000 t1_j0jft5o wrote
No I read you loud and clear. The problem is you're wrong.
It's not LIKELY because the death rate of COVID is so low. If COVID had a higher mortality rate it would be LIKELY to see less deadly variations over time.
I'm not interested in debating the meaning of likely.
mightcommentsometime t1_j0kgxgv wrote
> Your statement is bizarre about the unvaccinated having anything to do with the state we are in.
Higher transmission and infection rates create a higher probability of mutation. The only bizarre thing is ignoring that well documented and well observed outcome.
> therefore tends to evolve toward being more infectious and less deadly context still matters
You seem to be trying to give some intelligent and predetermined goal to a virus. Mutations are random. Whether one mutation dominates another may depend on this, but the actual evolutionary path of the virus does not.
Where did you hear that it would?
> The only likely thing is that the next mutation will be better able to replicate and spread.
According to what?
> So yeah, bizarre
Your assertions are extremely bizarre indeed. I'd like to know where you get them from and what evidence you have to back them up.
[deleted] t1_j0j735r wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments