Mens Tennis Forums banner

3081 - 3095 of 3095 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,681 Posts
I am merely interested in the version Big Bro permits them to voice. Obviously, we'll not hear the truth until they obtain North Korean visas and escape to the free world.
Im afraid "free world" is becoming more and more of a self-induced delusion nowadays.

A bit like "Fed GOATery" or "Zverev's 2d serve"...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,107 Posts
Im afraid "free world" is becoming more and more of a self-induced delusion nowadays.

A bit like "Fed GOATery" or "Zverev's 2d serve"...
That's why everyone should apply for an NK visa pronto. Better than alternatives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,635 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,162 Posts
The province of East Java punished the mask violators with the manual labor (digging graves for Corona victims) at a local cemetery in hopes of deterring others from disregarding the nationwide face-covering mandate, the Jakarta Post reported.
Great replacement for closed gyms if you ask me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ExpectedWinner

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,635 Posts
it's no longer a pandemic, but a fraudulent and rigged casedemic.



“All tyrannies rule through fraud and force, but once the fraud is exposed they must rely exclusively on force.” George Orwell
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,635 Posts
a few UK propaganda gems. goebbels would be proud.






“When societies lose their liberty, it is not because liberty has been crushed under the boot of some tyrant. It is usually because they’ve been frightened into giving it up voluntarily, and that is what has happened. Fear is the number one instrument of every despot.”
Lord Sumption


i’d guesstimate well over 70% of citizens in the five eyes countries would obey this mandate without hesitation..



"The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those who blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves." Dresden James
 

·
Administrator | Chaos Theory
Joined
·
53,091 Posts
@MWW what is the locals' take on everything that is going on?
well I don't live in Melbourne or in the state of Victoria where the worst of it is happening.

Sydney has been somewhat lax with restrictions - 20 person household visitors (also applied in outdoor public place). COVID19 safety plans for businesses. Masks recommended where physical distancing may be difficult but not mandated. We still have cases popping up here and there, a couple linked to clusters but no major policy changes as yet, just call for vigilance, testing and contact tracing.

I'm not surprised some Melbournians are up in arms about what it going on in Victoria. The government applied a quencher to try and achieve suppression of new cases as quickly as possible, as opposed to take things slowly but at the expense of wider spread of the virus and considerably longer time to contain it. No doubt implementation is never as easy as it sounds and you must expect short term pain, though the degree to which certain measures were necessary is debatable. I will say one thing - I am glad I am not in the Victorian Premier's shoes, it's a tough role to be in right now.

On the other end you have Queensland who is pretty strict about keeping its border shut so NSW and VIC residents are barred from entering unless a 28 day period has elapsed with no new cases. This has been rather controversial, that even the Prime Minister has criticised this decision relating to QLD-NSW relations (e.g. a person living near QLD border could not receive medical treatment from a QLD hospital but had to fly to Sydney). Perhaps a key aspect in play is the QLD Premier is running for re-election in October, so wants her good cards with the Queensland public, one of which is sealing off potential COVID19 entry pts.


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,515 Posts
On T-cells / likely existing immunity to SARS-CoV-2 from other common cold coronaviruses:

[...]

Yet a stream of studies that have documented SARS-CoV-2 reactive T cells in people without exposure to the virus are raising questions about just how new the pandemic virus really is, with many implications.
Not so novel coronavirus?

At least six studies have reported T cell reactivity against SARS-CoV-2 in 20% to 50% of people with no known exposure to the virus.5678910
In a study of donor blood specimens obtained in the US between 2015 and 2018, 50% displayed various forms of T cell reactivity to SARS-CoV-2.511 A similar study that used specimens from the Netherlands reported T cell reactivity in two of 10 people who had not been exposed to the virus.7
In Germany reactive T cells were detected in a third of SARS-CoV-2 seronegative healthy donors (23 of 68). In Singapore a team analysed specimens taken from people with no contact or personal history of SARS or covid-19; 12 of 26 specimens taken before July 2019 showed reactivity to SARS-CoV-2, as did seven of 11 from people who were seronegative against the virus.8 Reactivity was also discovered in the UK and Sweden.6910
Though these studies are small and do not yet provide precise estimates of pre-existing immunological responses to SARS-CoV-2, they are hard to dismiss, with several being published in Cell and Nature. Alessandro Sette, an immunologist from La Jolla Institute for Immunology in California and an author of several of the studies (box 1), told The BMJ, “At this point there are a number of studies that are seeing this reactivity in different continents, different labs. As a scientist you know that is a hallmark of something that has a very strong footing.”
Swine flu déjà vu
In late 2009, months after the World Health Organization declared the H1N1 “swine flu” virus to be a global pandemic, Alessandro Sette was part of a team working to explain why the so called “novel” virus did not seem to be causing more severe infections than seasonal flu.12
Their answer was pre-existing immunological responses in the adult population: B cells and, in particular, T cells, which “are known to blunt disease severity.”12 Other studies came to the same conclusion: people with pre-existing reactive T cells had less severe H1N1 disease.1314 In addition, a study carried out during the 2009 outbreak by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 33% of people over 60 years old had cross reactive antibodies to the 2009 H1N1 virus, leading the CDC to conclude that “some degree of pre-existing immunity” to the new H1N1 strains existed, especially among adults over age 60.15
The data forced a change in views at WHO and CDC, from an assumption before 2009 that most people “will have no immunity to the pandemic virus”16 to one that acknowledged that “the vulnerability of a population to a pandemic virus is related in part to the level of pre-existing immunity to the virus.”17 But by 2020 it seems that lesson had been forgotten.
Researchers are also confident that they have made solid inroads into ascertaining the origins of the immune responses. “Our hypothesis, of course, was that it’s so called ‘common cold’ coronaviruses, because they’re closely related,” said Daniela Weiskopf, senior author of a paper in Science that confirmed this hypothesis.18 “We have really shown that this is a true immune memory and it is derived in part from common cold viruses.” Separately, researchers in Singapore came to similar conclusions about the role of common cold coronaviruses but noted that some of the T cell reactivity may also come from other unknown coronaviruses, even of animal origin.8
Taken together, this growing body of research documenting pre-existing immunological responses to SARS-CoV-2 may force pandemic planners to revisit some of their foundational assumptions about how to measure population susceptibility and monitor the extent of epidemic spread.
“The conventional wisdom is that lockdown occurred as the epidemic curve was rising,” Gupta explained. “So once you remove lockdown that curve should continue to rise.” But that is not happening in places like New York, London, and Stockholm. The question is why.

“If it were the case that in London the disease hadn’t disseminated too widely, and only 15% have experienced the virus [as serology tests indicate] . . . under those circumstances, if you lift lockdown, you should see an immediate and commensurate increase in cases, as we have observed in many other settings,” Gupta told The BMJ, “But that hasn’t happened. That is just a fact. The question is why.”
Possible answers are many, she says. One is that social distancing is in place, and people are keeping the spread down. Another possibility is that a lot of people are immune because of T cell responses or something else. “Whatever it is,” Gupta added, “if there is a significant fraction of the population that is not permissive to the infection, then that all makes sense, given how infectious SARS-CoV-2 is.”
Buggert’s study in Sweden seems to support this position. Investigating close family members of patients with confirmed covid-19, he found T cell responses in those who were seronegative or asymptomatic.10 While around 60% of family members produced antibodies, 90% had T cell responses. (Other studies have reported similar results.27) “So many people got infected and didn’t create antibodies,” concludes Buggert.
So, when we're heading into fall and your friend has a runny nose, go and pick up that common cold.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,162 Posts
On T-cells / likely existing immunity to SARS-CoV-2 from other common cold coronaviruses:

Buggert’s study in Sweden seems to support this position. Investigating close family members of patients with confirmed covid-19, he found T cell responses in those who were seronegative or asymptomatic.10 While around 60% of family members produced antibodies, 90% had T cell responses. (Other studies have reported similar results.27) “So many people got infected and didn’t create antibodies,” concludes Buggert.

So, when we're heading into fall and your friend has a runny nose, go and pick up that common cold.
I think in this case it is likely that the detected T cells were due to a SARS-2 infection and not cross-reactive ones from exposure to another Coronavirus (like in the other examples) which leads to the question whether antibodies were completely degraded already or whether the antibody test was just not sensitive enough to detect them.

Just as one of your quotes says, T (killer) cells alone should not account for an absolute immunity and "only" influence the severety of the disease while places like Stockholm or (even more extreme) New York definitely look like they have a level of absolute immunity that almost completely holds down the infections. Or alternatively second infections are just not picked up because they are all asymptomatic, but I think if those were a frequent occurence at least some of them were.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,515 Posts
I think in this case it is likely that the detected T cells were due to a SARS-2 infection and not cross-reactive ones from exposure to another Coronavirus (like in the other examples) [...]
Could be...

Just as one of your quotes says, T (killer) cells alone should not account for an absolute immunity and "only" influence the severety of the disease while places like Stockholm or (even more extreme) New York definitely look like they have a level of absolute immunity that almost completely holds down the infections. Or alternatively second infections are just not picked up because they are all asymptomatic, but I think if those were a frequent occurence at least some of them were.
T cell immunity can also manifest similarly in that as the (T cell countered) infections aren't that severe (or even asymptomatic according to the article) no further infections aren't registered/detected as people don't need to react in any specific way.

Speaking of Sweden, FHM seem to have been lucky / lucked out in the sense that their strategy/calculations did not account for T cells and thus a much lower immunity threshold, but instead they were initially aiming for the 60% or so seroprevalence. The already existing immunity seemingly halted the spread far earlier than expected/presumed, resulting in fewer deaths as a consequence. Strategy by serendipity.

Here's a glimpse on how their strategy came to be (in Swedish):
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,162 Posts
On what basis do you think so?
The alternative would be that the family members were not infected despite living very closely together with an infected person and were at the same time abnormally likely to possess T cells from other infections.

I think the other way around is more likely although we still have the possibility that they were not affected byv SARS-2 because of their cross-protective immunity. :lol:

T cell immunity can also manifest similarly in that as the (T cell countered) infections aren't that severe (or even asymptomatic according to the article) no further infections aren't registered/detected as people don't need to react in any specific way.

Speaking of Sweden, FHM seem to have been lucky / lucked out in the sense that their strategy/calculations did not account for T cells and thus a much lower immunity threshold, but instead they were initially aiming for the 60% or so seroprevalence. The already existing immunity seemingly halted the spread far earlier than expected/presumed, resulting in fewer deaths as a consequence. Strategy by serendipity.

Here's a glimpse on how their strategy came to be (in Swedish):
They also believed the antibody levels would be much higher though, I think they were pretty shocked to see how low the seroprevalence was in early May or so (think everybody believed it was much higher based on the slowing down of the spread). Their original evaluation/modelling probably was not that much off overall and close to the eventual reality. Closer than every other models for sure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,635 Posts
‘Covid Hospitalizations’

Audit findings

“The audit of inpatients identified 384 patients in hospital at 1am on 26 August across Scotland who had previously tested positive for COVID-19. The majority of these patients (87%) were in hospital for a condition unrelated to COVID-19.
….
The audit showed that 8% of patients were either receiving treatment for COVID-19, were in rehabilitation after their treatment for COVID-19 was completed, or were in hospital for COVID-19 related complications. (5% of patients could not be classified into the above categories.)”

Counting people in hospital with COVID-19

384 x .08 = 31 actual covid patients. big difference.

unfortunately, the ‘new’ methodology will implement standard time periods instead of actual figures for reasons of ‘pragmatism’, lol. we're dealing with the plague of the century (supposedly) yet hospitals can’t be bothered to count actual patients once a day and key that figure into the database.

obfuscation and confusion are their method.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,635 Posts
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
6,413 Posts
well I don't live in Melbourne or in the state of Victoria where the worst of it is happening.

Sydney has been somewhat lax with restrictions - 20 person household visitors (also applied in outdoor public place). COVID19 safety plans for businesses. Masks recommended where physical distancing may be difficult but not mandated. We still have cases popping up here and there, a couple linked to clusters but no major policy changes as yet, just call for vigilance, testing and contact tracing.

I'm not surprised some Melbournians are up in arms about what it going on in Victoria. The government applied a quencher to try and achieve suppression of new cases as quickly as possible, as opposed to take things slowly but at the expense of wider spread of the virus and considerably longer time to contain it. No doubt implementation is never as easy as it sounds and you must expect short term pain, though the degree to which certain measures were necessary is debatable. I will say one thing - I am glad I am not in the Victorian Premier's shoes, it's a tough role to be in right now.

On the other end you have Queensland who is pretty strict about keeping its border shut so NSW and VIC residents are barred from entering unless a 28 day period has elapsed with no new cases. This has been rather controversial, that even the Prime Minister has criticised this decision relating to QLD-NSW relations (e.g. a person living near QLD border could not receive medical treatment from a QLD hospital but had to fly to Sydney). Perhaps a key aspect in play is the QLD Premier is running for re-election in October, so wants her good cards with the Queensland public, one of which is sealing off potential COVID19 entry pts.


States like Qld and WA are deluded and overreactive , and their Premiers just pander to the parochialism that exists there.
WA in particular is just an isolationist state.
At least the NT just bans hotspot areas.
 
3081 - 3095 of 3095 Posts
Top