New COVID Strains - UK and South Africa
12-20-2020, 07:58 AM
#11
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,363
Originally Posted by Escargot
I gotta disagree on that point brazil bus. A more virulent, less deadly strain is a good sign and we'd be better letting nature take its course by allowing it to spread. In the cycle of pathogens, this type of mutation acts as a ready made vaccine against the killer strain. This was how we overcame the flu in 1918.
A slightly less dangerous strain isn't going to put that toothpaste back in the tube, but higher infectiousness of any covid is going to mean more lockdowns.
12-20-2020, 09:12 AM
#12
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2020
Position: Gummed
Posts: 1,060
It's not a new strain rick. It's new propaganda being pushed to sow more fear and thus control over you.
There have been pretty much 7 major strains of these. Nothing new, they've been around for millennia. You can google them.
Coronaviruses are not prone to mutation like the regular flu strains. The impetus behind the vax was that since the coronavirus type is unlikely to mutate, at least rapidly like its flu brothers, it would be effective. Thus the upwards of 94% efficacy claims by the manufacturers.
The lack of critical thinking on this whole case over the last 9 months is breathtaking.
Now about the vax. I told you my wife's hospital group is not mandating the vax. You can take it if you want, but many are not. The doctors and nurses in this group would rather wait to see how the vaccine ultimately interacts with a human over a longer period of time than what was given in the trials. I also told you about the Univ of Pittsburgh Medical group not mandating it. A hospital system in Chicago has suspended vax to their front line providers due to the many severe reactions they are seeing. Further the CDC has issued a "informative" recommendation and report on the vax status thus far. I've attached it below. Interesting that of 118k vax, there have been 3152 sever reactions (look at the ** notes).
The only way we get out of this is for us to understand this is NOT a killer bug. You've been lied to about its "lethality" and the numbers are lies. Yes, it exists, yes it probably was the cause of 60-80k deaths this year. Not the 300k+ they are claiming. Your mask wear, lockdowns are not effective (just go look at the "case" charts of Florida compared to CA, NY, NJ, OH, PA, WA, OR etc, etc, etc).
I've shown you how the PCR tests are BS. Recall a post I made several months ago.. Here;s how the PCR test works, (A cycle is a heating):
"To amplify a segment of DNA using PCR, the sample is first heated so the DNA denatures, or separates into two pieces of single-stranded DNA. Next, an enzyme called "Taq polymerase" synthesizes - builds - two new strands of DNA, using the original strands as templates. This process results in the duplication of the original DNA, with each of the new molecules containing one old and one new strand of DNA. Then each of these strands can be used to create two new copies, and so on, and so on. The cycle of denaturing and synthesizing new DNA is repeated as many as 30 or 40 times, leading to more than one billion exact copies of the original DNA segment.
The entire cycling process of PCR is automated and can be completed in just a few hours. It is directed by a machine called a thermocycler, which is programmed to alter the temperature of the reaction every few minutes to allow DNA denaturing and synthesis." (https://www.genome.gov/about-genomic...ion-Fact-Sheet)
The issue of using the PCR to test for coronavirus is that if cycled more than ~30 times, you get high false positive rate. "The lower the virus concentration in the sample, the more cycles are needed to achieve a positive result. Many US labs work with 35 to 45 cycles, while many European labs work with 30 to 40 cycles." (Swiss Policy Research).
"The research group of French professor Didier Raoult has recently shown that at a cycle threshold (ct) of 25, about 70% of samples remained positive in cell culture (i.e. were infectious); at a ct of 30, 20% of samples remained positive; at a ct of 35, 3% of samples remained positive; and at a ct above 35, no sample remained positive (infectious) in cell culture (see diagram).This means that if a person gets a “positive” PCR test result at a cycle threshold of 35 or higher (as applied in most US labs and many European labs), the chance that the person is infectious is less than 3%. The chance that the person received a “false positive” result is 97% or higher.
(Note that the exact figures depend on the test and lab in question, and that if a sample was already positive at a lower cycle threshold (e.g. 20), chances of infectiousness are much higher.)
Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside, explained to the New York Times: “Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive. I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive. A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35.” According to the New York Times, up to 90% of positive tests at a cycle threshold of 40 would be negative at a ct of 30." (Swiss Policy Research).
The CDC’s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles. (SARS CoV2 Molecular Assay Evaluation: Results. FINDDX July 3, 2020.)
Just recently here in Florida, Gov DeSantis has mandated that with every positive CV case published, the corresponding cycle threshold (CT) be associated with that case. In just a few weeks, miraculously, look at our numbers. Many of our "positives" are actually very LOW viral loads. Hmmm. Here's and expert opinion:
"Although the cycle threshold (CT) is not reported on PCR tests, new evidence suggests the CT value could help to better inform clinical decisions, particularly when testing in the absence of symptoms for COVID-19. When SARS-CoV-2 virus is detected after fewer amplification cycles, that indicates a higher viral load and a higher likelihood of being contagious, while virus detected after more amplifications indicates a lower viral load.
“It’s just kind of mind-blowing to me that people are not recording the CT values from all these tests—that they’re just returning a positive or a negative,” said Angela Rasmussen, PhD, a virologist at Columbia University in New York. “It would be useful information to know if somebody’s positive, whether they have a high viral load or a low viral load,” she added"
US tests are running ~40-45 cycle extractions. Do the math. That is why case numbers are a BS metric to use. We beat the dead horse already, but face it, data is being manipulated and you are being lied to daily all for what? To protect you from what? A bug that is about .02% chance of killing you (that is if you are >65). You stand more of a chance dying driving than from this. You never ask why. You never ask what is the exit strategy from this "protocol" and policy. That is why this industry will never fully recover. Enjoy your new normal. Until you start to question the policies, you'll be stuck in this purgatory for perpetuity.
CDC study CV-19 vax released 19 December 2020. Note slide 6
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/me...OVID-CLARK.pdf
This is from zerohedge, but it is a good amalgamation of decent data and sources relating to the vax reactions:
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/c...ollowing-covid
There have been pretty much 7 major strains of these. Nothing new, they've been around for millennia. You can google them.
Coronaviruses are not prone to mutation like the regular flu strains. The impetus behind the vax was that since the coronavirus type is unlikely to mutate, at least rapidly like its flu brothers, it would be effective. Thus the upwards of 94% efficacy claims by the manufacturers.
The lack of critical thinking on this whole case over the last 9 months is breathtaking.
Now about the vax. I told you my wife's hospital group is not mandating the vax. You can take it if you want, but many are not. The doctors and nurses in this group would rather wait to see how the vaccine ultimately interacts with a human over a longer period of time than what was given in the trials. I also told you about the Univ of Pittsburgh Medical group not mandating it. A hospital system in Chicago has suspended vax to their front line providers due to the many severe reactions they are seeing. Further the CDC has issued a "informative" recommendation and report on the vax status thus far. I've attached it below. Interesting that of 118k vax, there have been 3152 sever reactions (look at the ** notes).
The only way we get out of this is for us to understand this is NOT a killer bug. You've been lied to about its "lethality" and the numbers are lies. Yes, it exists, yes it probably was the cause of 60-80k deaths this year. Not the 300k+ they are claiming. Your mask wear, lockdowns are not effective (just go look at the "case" charts of Florida compared to CA, NY, NJ, OH, PA, WA, OR etc, etc, etc).
I've shown you how the PCR tests are BS. Recall a post I made several months ago.. Here;s how the PCR test works, (A cycle is a heating):
"To amplify a segment of DNA using PCR, the sample is first heated so the DNA denatures, or separates into two pieces of single-stranded DNA. Next, an enzyme called "Taq polymerase" synthesizes - builds - two new strands of DNA, using the original strands as templates. This process results in the duplication of the original DNA, with each of the new molecules containing one old and one new strand of DNA. Then each of these strands can be used to create two new copies, and so on, and so on. The cycle of denaturing and synthesizing new DNA is repeated as many as 30 or 40 times, leading to more than one billion exact copies of the original DNA segment.
The entire cycling process of PCR is automated and can be completed in just a few hours. It is directed by a machine called a thermocycler, which is programmed to alter the temperature of the reaction every few minutes to allow DNA denaturing and synthesis." (https://www.genome.gov/about-genomic...ion-Fact-Sheet)
The issue of using the PCR to test for coronavirus is that if cycled more than ~30 times, you get high false positive rate. "The lower the virus concentration in the sample, the more cycles are needed to achieve a positive result. Many US labs work with 35 to 45 cycles, while many European labs work with 30 to 40 cycles." (Swiss Policy Research).
"The research group of French professor Didier Raoult has recently shown that at a cycle threshold (ct) of 25, about 70% of samples remained positive in cell culture (i.e. were infectious); at a ct of 30, 20% of samples remained positive; at a ct of 35, 3% of samples remained positive; and at a ct above 35, no sample remained positive (infectious) in cell culture (see diagram).This means that if a person gets a “positive” PCR test result at a cycle threshold of 35 or higher (as applied in most US labs and many European labs), the chance that the person is infectious is less than 3%. The chance that the person received a “false positive” result is 97% or higher.
(Note that the exact figures depend on the test and lab in question, and that if a sample was already positive at a lower cycle threshold (e.g. 20), chances of infectiousness are much higher.)
Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside, explained to the New York Times: “Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive. I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive. A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35.” According to the New York Times, up to 90% of positive tests at a cycle threshold of 40 would be negative at a ct of 30." (Swiss Policy Research).
The CDC’s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles. (SARS CoV2 Molecular Assay Evaluation: Results. FINDDX July 3, 2020.)
Just recently here in Florida, Gov DeSantis has mandated that with every positive CV case published, the corresponding cycle threshold (CT) be associated with that case. In just a few weeks, miraculously, look at our numbers. Many of our "positives" are actually very LOW viral loads. Hmmm. Here's and expert opinion:
"Although the cycle threshold (CT) is not reported on PCR tests, new evidence suggests the CT value could help to better inform clinical decisions, particularly when testing in the absence of symptoms for COVID-19. When SARS-CoV-2 virus is detected after fewer amplification cycles, that indicates a higher viral load and a higher likelihood of being contagious, while virus detected after more amplifications indicates a lower viral load.
“It’s just kind of mind-blowing to me that people are not recording the CT values from all these tests—that they’re just returning a positive or a negative,” said Angela Rasmussen, PhD, a virologist at Columbia University in New York. “It would be useful information to know if somebody’s positive, whether they have a high viral load or a low viral load,” she added"
US tests are running ~40-45 cycle extractions. Do the math. That is why case numbers are a BS metric to use. We beat the dead horse already, but face it, data is being manipulated and you are being lied to daily all for what? To protect you from what? A bug that is about .02% chance of killing you (that is if you are >65). You stand more of a chance dying driving than from this. You never ask why. You never ask what is the exit strategy from this "protocol" and policy. That is why this industry will never fully recover. Enjoy your new normal. Until you start to question the policies, you'll be stuck in this purgatory for perpetuity.
CDC study CV-19 vax released 19 December 2020. Note slide 6
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/me...OVID-CLARK.pdf
This is from zerohedge, but it is a good amalgamation of decent data and sources relating to the vax reactions:
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/c...ollowing-covid
12-20-2020, 08:00 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2019
Posts: 241
Originally Posted by rickair7777
In theory. But we're already politically committed to lockdown at the slightest hint of covid.
A slightly less dangerous strain isn't going to put that toothpaste back in the tube, but higher infectiousness of any covid is going to mean more lockdowns.
A slightly less dangerous strain isn't going to put that toothpaste back in the tube, but higher infectiousness of any covid is going to mean more lockdowns.
12-21-2020, 08:55 AM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,316
Originally Posted by BrazilBusDriver
Both places are reporting new strains. In the UK, the PM has reported that there is a new strain that is significantly more infectious while not necessarily more fatal. In response, the greater London area is locking down again, and restrictions that were to be relaxed for Christmas in the UK will no longer be. South African researchers say that their new strain *seems* to be more significantly affecting younger people with severe illness that did not have co-morbidities, without being necessarily more infectious.
UK: London Put in Emergency Lockdown as U.K. Fights New Strain (msn.com)
South Africa: COVID-19: South Africa identifies new coronavirus variant causing surge in infections (msn.com)
Hopefully this turns out to be a non-event like the Denmark/Mink thing. But if not, you heard it here first, folks.
UK: London Put in Emergency Lockdown as U.K. Fights New Strain (msn.com)
South Africa: COVID-19: South Africa identifies new coronavirus variant causing surge in infections (msn.com)
Hopefully this turns out to be a non-event like the Denmark/Mink thing. But if not, you heard it here first, folks.
12-21-2020, 09:47 AM
#15
Gets Weekdays Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: Economy Minus
Posts: 1,053
Originally Posted by Phins2right
It's not a new strain rick. It's new propaganda being pushed to sow more fear and thus control over you.
There have been pretty much 7 major strains of these. Nothing new, they've been around for millennia. You can google them.
Coronaviruses are not prone to mutation like the regular flu strains. The impetus behind the vax was that since the coronavirus type is unlikely to mutate, at least rapidly like its flu brothers, it would be effective. Thus the upwards of 94% efficacy claims by the manufacturers.
The lack of critical thinking on this whole case over the last 9 months is breathtaking.
Now about the vax. I told you my wife's hospital group is not mandating the vax. You can take it if you want, but many are not. The doctors and nurses in this group would rather wait to see how the vaccine ultimately interacts with a human over a longer period of time than what was given in the trials. I also told you about the Univ of Pittsburgh Medical group not mandating it. A hospital system in Chicago has suspended vax to their front line providers due to the many severe reactions they are seeing. Further the CDC has issued a "informative" recommendation and report on the vax status thus far. I've attached it below. Interesting that of 118k vax, there have been 3152 sever reactions (look at the ** notes).
The only way we get out of this is for us to understand this is NOT a killer bug. You've been lied to about its "lethality" and the numbers are lies. Yes, it exists, yes it probably was the cause of 60-80k deaths this year. Not the 300k+ they are claiming. Your mask wear, lockdowns are not effective (just go look at the "case" charts of Florida compared to CA, NY, NJ, OH, PA, WA, OR etc, etc, etc).
I've shown you how the PCR tests are BS. Recall a post I made several months ago.. Here;s how the PCR test works, (A cycle is a heating):
"To amplify a segment of DNA using PCR, the sample is first heated so the DNA denatures, or separates into two pieces of single-stranded DNA. Next, an enzyme called "Taq polymerase" synthesizes - builds - two new strands of DNA, using the original strands as templates. This process results in the duplication of the original DNA, with each of the new molecules containing one old and one new strand of DNA. Then each of these strands can be used to create two new copies, and so on, and so on. The cycle of denaturing and synthesizing new DNA is repeated as many as 30 or 40 times, leading to more than one billion exact copies of the original DNA segment.
The entire cycling process of PCR is automated and can be completed in just a few hours. It is directed by a machine called a thermocycler, which is programmed to alter the temperature of the reaction every few minutes to allow DNA denaturing and synthesis." (https://www.genome.gov/about-genomic...ion-Fact-Sheet)
The issue of using the PCR to test for coronavirus is that if cycled more than ~30 times, you get high false positive rate. "The lower the virus concentration in the sample, the more cycles are needed to achieve a positive result. Many US labs work with 35 to 45 cycles, while many European labs work with 30 to 40 cycles." (Swiss Policy Research).
"The research group of French professor Didier Raoult has recently shown that at a cycle threshold (ct) of 25, about 70% of samples remained positive in cell culture (i.e. were infectious); at a ct of 30, 20% of samples remained positive; at a ct of 35, 3% of samples remained positive; and at a ct above 35, no sample remained positive (infectious) in cell culture (see diagram).This means that if a person gets a “positive” PCR test result at a cycle threshold of 35 or higher (as applied in most US labs and many European labs), the chance that the person is infectious is less than 3%. The chance that the person received a “false positive” result is 97% or higher.
(Note that the exact figures depend on the test and lab in question, and that if a sample was already positive at a lower cycle threshold (e.g. 20), chances of infectiousness are much higher.)
Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside, explained to the New York Times: “Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive. I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive. A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35.” According to the New York Times, up to 90% of positive tests at a cycle threshold of 40 would be negative at a ct of 30." (Swiss Policy Research).
The CDC’s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles. (SARS CoV2 Molecular Assay Evaluation: Results. FINDDX July 3, 2020.)
Just recently here in Florida, Gov DeSantis has mandated that with every positive CV case published, the corresponding cycle threshold (CT) be associated with that case. In just a few weeks, miraculously, look at our numbers. Many of our "positives" are actually very LOW viral loads. Hmmm. Here's and expert opinion:
"Although the cycle threshold (CT) is not reported on PCR tests, new evidence suggests the CT value could help to better inform clinical decisions, particularly when testing in the absence of symptoms for COVID-19. When SARS-CoV-2 virus is detected after fewer amplification cycles, that indicates a higher viral load and a higher likelihood of being contagious, while virus detected after more amplifications indicates a lower viral load.
“It’s just kind of mind-blowing to me that people are not recording the CT values from all these tests—that they’re just returning a positive or a negative,” said Angela Rasmussen, PhD, a virologist at Columbia University in New York. “It would be useful information to know if somebody’s positive, whether they have a high viral load or a low viral load,” she added"
US tests are running ~40-45 cycle extractions. Do the math. That is why case numbers are a BS metric to use. We beat the dead horse already, but face it, data is being manipulated and you are being lied to daily all for what? To protect you from what? A bug that is about .02% chance of killing you (that is if you are >65). You stand more of a chance dying driving than from this. You never ask why. You never ask what is the exit strategy from this "protocol" and policy. That is why this industry will never fully recover. Enjoy your new normal. Until you start to question the policies, you'll be stuck in this purgatory for perpetuity.
CDC study CV-19 vax released 19 December 2020. Note slide 6
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/me...OVID-CLARK.pdf
This is from zerohedge, but it is a good amalgamation of decent data and sources relating to the vax reactions:
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/c...ollowing-covid
There have been pretty much 7 major strains of these. Nothing new, they've been around for millennia. You can google them.
Coronaviruses are not prone to mutation like the regular flu strains. The impetus behind the vax was that since the coronavirus type is unlikely to mutate, at least rapidly like its flu brothers, it would be effective. Thus the upwards of 94% efficacy claims by the manufacturers.
The lack of critical thinking on this whole case over the last 9 months is breathtaking.
Now about the vax. I told you my wife's hospital group is not mandating the vax. You can take it if you want, but many are not. The doctors and nurses in this group would rather wait to see how the vaccine ultimately interacts with a human over a longer period of time than what was given in the trials. I also told you about the Univ of Pittsburgh Medical group not mandating it. A hospital system in Chicago has suspended vax to their front line providers due to the many severe reactions they are seeing. Further the CDC has issued a "informative" recommendation and report on the vax status thus far. I've attached it below. Interesting that of 118k vax, there have been 3152 sever reactions (look at the ** notes).
The only way we get out of this is for us to understand this is NOT a killer bug. You've been lied to about its "lethality" and the numbers are lies. Yes, it exists, yes it probably was the cause of 60-80k deaths this year. Not the 300k+ they are claiming. Your mask wear, lockdowns are not effective (just go look at the "case" charts of Florida compared to CA, NY, NJ, OH, PA, WA, OR etc, etc, etc).
I've shown you how the PCR tests are BS. Recall a post I made several months ago.. Here;s how the PCR test works, (A cycle is a heating):
"To amplify a segment of DNA using PCR, the sample is first heated so the DNA denatures, or separates into two pieces of single-stranded DNA. Next, an enzyme called "Taq polymerase" synthesizes - builds - two new strands of DNA, using the original strands as templates. This process results in the duplication of the original DNA, with each of the new molecules containing one old and one new strand of DNA. Then each of these strands can be used to create two new copies, and so on, and so on. The cycle of denaturing and synthesizing new DNA is repeated as many as 30 or 40 times, leading to more than one billion exact copies of the original DNA segment.
The entire cycling process of PCR is automated and can be completed in just a few hours. It is directed by a machine called a thermocycler, which is programmed to alter the temperature of the reaction every few minutes to allow DNA denaturing and synthesis." (https://www.genome.gov/about-genomic...ion-Fact-Sheet)
The issue of using the PCR to test for coronavirus is that if cycled more than ~30 times, you get high false positive rate. "The lower the virus concentration in the sample, the more cycles are needed to achieve a positive result. Many US labs work with 35 to 45 cycles, while many European labs work with 30 to 40 cycles." (Swiss Policy Research).
"The research group of French professor Didier Raoult has recently shown that at a cycle threshold (ct) of 25, about 70% of samples remained positive in cell culture (i.e. were infectious); at a ct of 30, 20% of samples remained positive; at a ct of 35, 3% of samples remained positive; and at a ct above 35, no sample remained positive (infectious) in cell culture (see diagram).This means that if a person gets a “positive” PCR test result at a cycle threshold of 35 or higher (as applied in most US labs and many European labs), the chance that the person is infectious is less than 3%. The chance that the person received a “false positive” result is 97% or higher.
(Note that the exact figures depend on the test and lab in question, and that if a sample was already positive at a lower cycle threshold (e.g. 20), chances of infectiousness are much higher.)
Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside, explained to the New York Times: “Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive. I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive. A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35.” According to the New York Times, up to 90% of positive tests at a cycle threshold of 40 would be negative at a ct of 30." (Swiss Policy Research).
The CDC’s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles. (SARS CoV2 Molecular Assay Evaluation: Results. FINDDX July 3, 2020.)
Just recently here in Florida, Gov DeSantis has mandated that with every positive CV case published, the corresponding cycle threshold (CT) be associated with that case. In just a few weeks, miraculously, look at our numbers. Many of our "positives" are actually very LOW viral loads. Hmmm. Here's and expert opinion:
"Although the cycle threshold (CT) is not reported on PCR tests, new evidence suggests the CT value could help to better inform clinical decisions, particularly when testing in the absence of symptoms for COVID-19. When SARS-CoV-2 virus is detected after fewer amplification cycles, that indicates a higher viral load and a higher likelihood of being contagious, while virus detected after more amplifications indicates a lower viral load.
“It’s just kind of mind-blowing to me that people are not recording the CT values from all these tests—that they’re just returning a positive or a negative,” said Angela Rasmussen, PhD, a virologist at Columbia University in New York. “It would be useful information to know if somebody’s positive, whether they have a high viral load or a low viral load,” she added"
US tests are running ~40-45 cycle extractions. Do the math. That is why case numbers are a BS metric to use. We beat the dead horse already, but face it, data is being manipulated and you are being lied to daily all for what? To protect you from what? A bug that is about .02% chance of killing you (that is if you are >65). You stand more of a chance dying driving than from this. You never ask why. You never ask what is the exit strategy from this "protocol" and policy. That is why this industry will never fully recover. Enjoy your new normal. Until you start to question the policies, you'll be stuck in this purgatory for perpetuity.
CDC study CV-19 vax released 19 December 2020. Note slide 6
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/me...OVID-CLARK.pdf
This is from zerohedge, but it is a good amalgamation of decent data and sources relating to the vax reactions:
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/c...ollowing-covid
12-21-2020, 12:38 PM
#16
777 - ret
Joined APC: Apr 2020
Position: Waco CG-4 center seat
Posts: 863
Originally Posted by Escargot
Can't we just call the new strain something different, like Miller-20?
12-21-2020, 01:27 PM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Position: NBC
Posts: 763
Originally Posted by Huell
Miller-20 is a hoax. Over by Easter... everything back to normal by April... it will just go away ... especially after the election.
Last edited by Speed Select; 12-21-2020 at 01:51 PM.
12-22-2020, 06:11 AM
#18
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,363
mRNA vaccines to be tested against new UK strain, they need two weeks of data, but expect the vaccines to work.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKBN28W1M8
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKBN28W1M8
12-22-2020, 07:25 AM
#19
Gets Everyday Off
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Position: Relaxed
Posts: 6,976
Originally Posted by rickair7777
mRNA vaccines to be tested against new UK strain, they need two weeks of data, but expect the vaccines to work.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKBN28W1M8
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKBN28W1M8
12-22-2020, 07:34 AM
#20
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,363
Originally Posted by TransWorld
I hope so. As a fairly intelligent, but not a medical professional, I would think it would. How much does a virus mutate? Not much.
Originally Posted by TransWorld
Influenza annual new strains are a whole different situation, as is the “common cold”.
There are so many viruses which cause the common cold (of various types, including some coronavirses) that trying to vaccinate against all of them is hopeless.
