OT: China covid

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 8:17:41 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:
> On 12/1/2022 11:24 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 7:36:56 AM UTC-5, Don Y wrote: 
> >> On 11/30/2022 5:03 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote: 
> >>> On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 11:15:11 AM UTC-5, Don Y wrote: 
> >>>> On 11/29/2022 8:32 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote: 
> >>>>>>> There is such a thing as racial response to vaccination. Some 
> >>>>>>> groups don't respond as well as others. 
> >>>>>> In this case though it seems fairly clear now that the Sinovac has 
> >>>>>> a 70% effectiveness against serious hospitalising Covid infections 
> >>>>>> and death whereas any of the mRNA or AZ/J&J viral vector vaccines 
> >>>>>> are 90% effective. They also have a really bad demographics 
> >>>>>> problem in China where people over the age of 80 do not believe in 
> >>>>>> modern medicine. 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 70% effectiveness is actually outstandingly good for a conventional 
> >>>>> whole virus vaccine. The original U.S. target for COVID-19 vaccine 
> >>>>> approval was just 50%. Then the mRNA vaccine has this unprecedented 
> >>>>> effectiveness which seems too good to be true. Actually it is too 
> >>>>> good to be true because it fades significantly by six months to no 
> >>>>> better than the whole virus vaccine. Whole virus vaccines have a 
> >>>>> track record of inducing immunity for life, the 
> >>>> That's not entirely true. There are many "childhood illnesses" that 
> >>>> can come back and bite you, later in life, despite vaccination. 
> >>>> Pertussis and varicella (and *then* "shingles") are notably resilient. 
> >>>> Ditto mumps and meningococcal disease. Smallpox and polio, if at risk 
> >>>> of exposure, also wane. Flu vaccines wane before the end of the flu 
> >>>> *season*! 
> >>> 
> >>> True immunity never wanes. Beyond a certain age, like 50, your immune 
> >>> system begins to fail you. The immunity is still there but you can't do 
> >>> much with it. In addition to old age, other conditions commonly present 
> >>> in old age also work to compromise the immune system, conditions like 
> >>> diabetes and internal organ dysfunction, especially the liver, damaged 
> >>> from previous disease or alcohol or substance abuse or long term use of 
> >>> certain medications, immunosuppressants for old age related disease like 
> >>> arthritis- the list is endless. Do you see how grossly oversimplified 
> >>> and unrealistic your viewpoint is now? 
> >> From 
> >> <https://www.science.org/content/article/how-long-do-vaccines-last-surprising-answers-may-help-protect-people-longer>: 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> "It's not just flu. Recent studies show vaccines for mumps, pertussis, 
> >> meningococcal disease, and yellow fever also lose their effectiveness 
> >> faster than official immunization recommendations suggest. Vaccines have 
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ been a crucial 
> >> public health tool for decades, so it may seem strange that their 
> >> durability isn't well understood. But vaccines are approved and come to 
> >> market years before it's clear how long protection lasts. Later, fading 
> >> protection can go unnoticed because a vaccine in wide use has largely 
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ eliminated transmission of the 
> >> microbes it protects against, making "breakthrough" infections rare. Even 
> >> if viruses or bacteria are still in circulation, people vaccinated against 
> >> them will sometimes receive natural boosting of their immunity. And 
> >> declining vaccine immunity is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon: A 
> >> breakthrough infection often leads to much less severe symptoms of the 
> >> disease." 
> >> 
> >> Do you see how ignorant/dated your understanding is? 
> > 
> > Author is a professional content provider.
> Yes, so obviously everything he is REPORTING ON is false. 

Where did I say he made false statements? Show me exactly where I made that statement. Content providers only very rarely understand their subject matter so their exposition is superficial and gives the uneducated reader a false sense of expertise. You're a case in point.

> Sort of like anonymous posters in electronics newsgroups 
> with nothing to say about electronics?

How is a misconstrued statement about worthless content providers "sort of like anonymous posters in electronics newsgroups?"

Here's how you're completely wrong about waning immunity from vaccination and how you're completely wrong about some things.

Take the Shingles vaccine for older people, generally over 50. Shingles is a herpes virus. People in that age group don't "catch" shingles. The shingles they come down with is a reactivation of an internal latent reservoir of the virus from a previous childhood infection, it was not something they caught. Now here's the shocker for you. Nobody cares about you and your shingles. The main reason they want you old reservoir carriers re-vaccinated is to assure complete suppression of the re-activation so you don't go around spreading the infection to the most vulnerable in society, the children, who in turn will perpetuate the cycle when they get older. Apparently you can do this by just being present, you don't have to cough, sneeze, spit or touch a victim to infect them. So vaccinating older people is all part of the eradication strategy. 

Shingles isn't the only disease that does this. This can happen with *any* virus that is not completely cleared after infection and establishes a latent reservoir for itself. Long COVID looks like the SARS-CoV-2 falls in that category. And old age is not the only thing can result in a re-activation. Coming down with a severe infection that hogs every bit of resource your immunity can muster has been known to do the same thing.

All immunity, acquired through vaccine or infection, "wanes" with old age. And why shouldn't it? Your whole life is waning. Death beds aren't exactly occupied by people full of vitality.

You can't vaccinate a fence post. Almost all medical treatments, therapies, and what nots, for infectious disease, rely on the health of the patient, such as it is, to finish the job.

> > Did you miss the: 
> > 
> > "A breakthrough infection often leads to much less severe symptoms of the 
> > disease." 
> > 
> > That's not a coincidence, it's because of residual immunity from the 
> > original vaccination.
> BECAUSE THE IMMUNITY *WANES*. Otherwise, you would expect the same 
> sort of response as shortly after innoculation!
> > "much less severe" means most people don't even know they have it.
> And where did you come up with THAT definition?
> > You can't immunize a fence post. If people allow their health to decline, 
> > develop chronic illness, abuse substances, or a bunch of other things ( even 
> > settling into an ultra sedentary existence is very damaging ), then don't 
> > expect your immunity to come through for you.
> Wow, you must really be pissed that the World is as imperfect as it is! 
> I'm sure you never expect a doctor -- YOUR doctor -- to give less than 
> 100% and NEVER BE WRONG. And, police to never beat suspects (innocent 
> until proven guilty). And, spouses to be unfaithful. And, countries 
> to wage wars... 
> 
> Not everything is the fault of the individual. I wonder how your attitude 
> would change had you been born a black female? Obviously, you would blame 
> yourself for your plight in life...

On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 12:23:21 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 8:17:41 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote: 
> > On 12/1/2022 11:24 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote: 
> > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 7:36:56 AM UTC-5, Don Y wrote: 
> > >> On 11/30/2022 5:03 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote: 
> > >>> On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 11:15:11 AM UTC-5, Don Y wrote: 
> > >>>> On 11/29/2022 8:32 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote: 

> Take the Shingles vaccine for older people, generally over 50. Shingles is a herpes virus. People in that age group don't "catch" shingles. The shingles they come down with is a reactivation of an internal latent reservoir of the virus from a previous childhood infection, it was not something they caught. 

Chicken-pox.

> Now here's the shocker for you. Nobody cares about you and your shingles. The main reason they want you old reservoir carriers re-vaccinated is to assure complete suppression of the re-activation so you don't go around spreading the infection to the most vulnerable in society, the children, who in turn will perpetuate the cycle when they get older. 

Actually, carers do care about you and your shingles. They might not care much about Fred Bloggs and his shingles - he doesn't seem to have a particularly sweet nature - but they don't want their patients to get uncomfortable and unhappy. They won't want their patients giving vulnerable young children chicken pox either, but both motives can co-exist,

>Apparently you can do this by just being present, you don't have to cough, sneeze, spit or touch a victim to infect them. So vaccinating older people is all part of the eradication strategy. 

But it does have incidental advantages for the elderly people who get vaccinated.
 
> Shingles isn't the only disease that does this. This can happen with *any* virus that is not completely cleared after infection and establishes a latent reservoir for itself. Long COVID looks like the SARS-CoV-2 falls in that category. And old age is not the only thing can result in a re-activation. Coming down with a severe infection that hogs every bit of resource your immunity can muster has been known to do the same thing. 

> All immunity, acquired through vaccine or infection, "wanes" with old age. And why shouldn't it? Your whole life is waning. Death beds aren't exactly occupied by people full of vitality. 
> 
> You can't vaccinate a fence post. 

Why would you bother? It doesn't have an immune system.

> Almost all medical treatments, therapies, and what-nots, for infectious disease, rely on the health of the patient, such as it is, to finish the job.

If an infectious disease damages you - and disease symptoms are visible responses to that damage - you've got to rebuild the damaged tissues, and that's extra work that your metabolism has to carry out. Convalescence is when it happen.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 4:39:47 AM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 29/11/2022 13:13, Don Y wrote: 
> > On 11/29/2022 4:46 AM, Martin Brown wrote: 
> >> On 29/11/2022 06:45, Don Y wrote: 
> >>> On 11/28/2022 7:35 PM, bitrex wrote: 
> >>>> On 11/26/2022 4:05 PM, Don Y wrote: 
> >>>>> 

> > The fact that he *hasn't* fallen back to such a policy suggests he 
> > either is 100.0% convinced he's "got the correct approach" (despite 
> > evidence to the contrary) *or* that he realizes that vaccination isn't 
> > the answer, given their population density/working conditions. 

Actually he DOES have the correct approach. The confirmed deaths due to COVID in China over a two year period are less than typical single year's flu deaths in the U.S, and about half flu deaths expected in U.S. in a bad year. Those are raw numbers. Scale by a factor of 4 to adjust for population size.

It's been reported China has billions $ for Paxlovid on order. They're not to going to bother with another vaccination campaign.

>

On 12/2/2022 6:23 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote:

>>>>> True immunity never wanes. Beyond a certain age, like 50, your
>>>>> immune system begins to fail you. The immunity is still there but
>>>>> you can't do much with it. In addition to old age, other conditions
>>>>> commonly present in old age also work to compromise the immune
>>>>> system, conditions like diabetes and internal organ dysfunction,
>>>>> especially the liver, damaged from previous disease or alcohol or
>>>>> substance abuse or long term use of certain medications,
>>>>> immunosuppressants for old age related disease like arthritis- the
>>>>> list is endless. Do you see how grossly oversimplified and
>>>>> unrealistic your viewpoint is now?
>>>> From 
>>>> <https://www.science.org/content/article/how-long-do-vaccines-last-surprising-answers-may-help-protect-people-longer>:
>>
>>>> 
"It's not just flu. Recent studies show vaccines for mumps, pertussis,
>>>> meningococcal disease, and yellow fever also lose their effectiveness 
>>>> faster than official immunization recommendations suggest. Vaccines
>>>> have ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ been a
>>>> crucial public health tool for decades, so it may seem strange that
>>>> their durability isn't well understood. But vaccines are approved and
>>>> come to market years before it's clear how long protection lasts.
>>>> Later, fading protection can go unnoticed because a vaccine in wide
>>>> use has largely ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ eliminated
>>>> transmission of the microbes it protects against, making
>>>> "breakthrough" infections rare. Even if viruses or bacteria are still
>>>> in circulation, people vaccinated against them will sometimes receive
>>>> natural boosting of their immunity. And declining vaccine immunity is
>>>> not an all-or-nothing phenomenon: A breakthrough infection often leads
>>>> to much less severe symptoms of the disease."
>>>> 
>>>> Do you see how ignorant/dated your understanding is?
>>> 
>>> Author is a professional content provider.
>> Yes, so obviously everything he is REPORTING ON is false.
> 
> Where did I say he made false statements? Show me exactly where I made that

It was implied.  What else the value of that statement?

> statement. Content providers only very rarely understand their subject
> matter so their exposition is superficial and gives the uneducated reader a
> false sense of expertise. You're a case in point.

How does the CONTENT PROVIDER (unpaid or otherwise) "Fred Bloggs"
differ?  "Only very rarely [do they] understand their subject matter"

Ah, yes, I forgot it was Dr Fred Bloggs who was issuing these opinions.

>> Sort of like anonymous posters in electronics newsgroups with nothing to
>> say about electronics?
> 
> How is a misconstrued statement about worthless content providers "sort of
> like anonymous posters in electronics newsgroups?"

What is the value of "content providers" in an electronics newsgroup -- when
the content isn't even electronics related?

It would be as if "science.org" started posting woodworking plans for
captain's beds.

> Here's how you're completely wrong about waning immunity from vaccination
> and how you're completely wrong about some things.
> 
> Take the Shingles vaccine for older people, generally over 50. Shingles is a
> herpes virus. People in that age group don't "catch" shingles. The shingles
> they come down with is a reactivation of an internal latent reservoir of the
> virus from a previous childhood infection, it was not something they caught.
> Now here's the shocker for you. Nobody cares about you and your shingles.
> The main reason they want you old reservoir carriers re-vaccinated is to
> assure complete suppression of the re-activation so you don't go around
> spreading the infection to the most vulnerable in society, the children, who
> in turn will perpetuate the cycle when they get older. Apparently you can do
> this by just being present, you don't have to cough, sneeze, spit or touch a
> victim to infect them. So vaccinating older people is all part of the
> eradication strategy.

Yes, and "shingles" is one of those "childhood illnesses" that I alluded to,
right?

"Show me exactly where I made that statement"

> Shingles isn't the only disease that does this. This can happen with *any*
> virus that is not completely cleared after infection and establishes a
> latent reservoir for itself. Long COVID looks like the SARS-CoV-2 falls in
> that category. And old age is not the only thing can result in a
> re-activation. Coming down with a severe infection that hogs every bit of
> resource your immunity can muster has been known to do the same thing.

Again, how is covid one of those "childhood illnesses" that I alluded to?

Why don't you address the specific cases cited in the research papers.
And, why waste your talents *here* in an ELECTRONICS newsgroup that
MD's and immunologists would likely never read?  Why not *educate*
them as you suspect yourself to be so expert on the subject?

You can find them in the lists of references for the article.  If not
there, then try these:

<https://www.pharmacytimes.com/view/waning-immunity-creates-risk>
<https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2019/06/whooping-cough-cases-tied-waning-vaccine-protection>

I'm sure they're all waiting to have their misconceptions corrected.
And, I'm sure the journals in question will be more than happy to post
your INFORMED research to that effect.

(Though they may insist on seeing some credentials and an "ID")

> All immunity, acquired through vaccine or infection, "wanes" with old age.

I guess the 18-29 year old populations that experienced the Mumps outbreaks
will be surprised to know they are now considered "old age".  18 is the new 50?

And, the *6* year old pertussis victims will be devastated to know they
are already circling-the-drain -- before even attaining PUBERTY!

> And why shouldn't it? Your whole life is waning. Death beds aren't exactly
> occupied by people full of vitality.

How long *prior* to The Death Bed (the endpoint of life) do you think "waning
(everything)" manifests?  Surely, there are no 80 year-olds who are full of
vitality?  70?  90?  30??  Wow, you must really be dreading getting old!

But, I *do* thank you for reminding me that I shouldn't bother reading
posts by "content providers" who "only very rarely understand their subject
matter so their exposition is superficial and gives the uneducated reader a
false sense of expertise".  So, folks who don't demonstrate any knowledge of
ELECTRONICS -- given that this is an electronics newsgroup -- likely have
nothing worthwhile to contribute.

At your apparent posting frequency, it won't take more than a few days
(I suspect) of ignoring your posts for my news agent to decide that I'm
uninterested in anything you might have to say -- and stop offering me
your posts to "download".

Say hi to Wilma for me!

On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 9:11:33 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 12:23:21 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote: 
> > On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 8:17:41 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote: 
> > > On 12/1/2022 11:24 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote: 
> > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 7:36:56 AM UTC-5, Don Y wrote: 
> > > >> On 11/30/2022 5:03 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote: 
> > > >>> On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 11:15:11 AM UTC-5, Don Y wrote: 
> > > >>>> On 11/29/2022 8:32 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote: 
> 
> > Take the Shingles vaccine for older people, generally over 50. Shingles is a herpes virus. People in that age group don't "catch" shingles. The shingles they come down with is a reactivation of an internal latent reservoir of the virus from a previous childhood infection, it was not something they caught.
> Chicken-pox.
> > Now here's the shocker for you. Nobody cares about you and your shingles. The main reason they want you old reservoir carriers re-vaccinated is to assure complete suppression of the re-activation so you don't go around spreading the infection to the most vulnerable in society, the children, who in turn will perpetuate the cycle when they get older.
> Actually, carers do care about you and your shingles. They might not care much about Fred Bloggs and his shingles - he doesn't seem to have a particularly sweet nature - but they don't want their patients to get uncomfortable and unhappy. They won't want their patients giving vulnerable young children chicken pox either, but both motives can co-exist,

Your care provider doesn't care about you, you're just a case to be processed IAW government guidelines. What are you, like 5 yo or something?

> >Apparently you can do this by just being present, you don't have to cough, sneeze, spit or touch a victim to infect them. So vaccinating older people is all part of the eradication strategy.
> But it does have incidental advantages for the elderly people who get vaccinated.
> > Shingles isn't the only disease that does this. This can happen with *any* virus that is not completely cleared after infection and establishes a latent reservoir for itself. Long COVID looks like the SARS-CoV-2 falls in that category. And old age is not the only thing can result in a re-activation. Coming down with a severe infection that hogs every bit of resource your immunity can muster has been known to do the same thing. 
> 
> > All immunity, acquired through vaccine or infection, "wanes" with old age. And why shouldn't it? Your whole life is waning. Death beds aren't exactly occupied by people full of vitality. 
> > 
> > You can't vaccinate a fence post.
> Why would you bother? It doesn't have an immune system. 

LOL- that's the point.

> 
> > Almost all medical treatments, therapies, and what-nots, for infectious disease, rely on the health of the patient, such as it is, to finish the job. 
> 
> If an infectious disease damages you - and disease symptoms are visible responses to that damage - you've got to rebuild the damaged tissues, and that's extra work that your metabolism has to carry out. Convalescence is when it happen. 

That's assuming those tissues even are re-buildable. Lungs, heart, brain, neurons, are famously resistant to being rebuilt.

> 
> -- 
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 9:12:00 AM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:
> On 12/2/2022 6:23 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote: 
> 
> >>>>> True immunity never wanes. Beyond a certain age, like 50, your 
> >>>>> immune system begins to fail you. The immunity is still there but 
> >>>>> you can't do much with it. In addition to old age, other conditions 
> >>>>> commonly present in old age also work to compromise the immune 
> >>>>> system, conditions like diabetes and internal organ dysfunction, 
> >>>>> especially the liver, damaged from previous disease or alcohol or 
> >>>>> substance abuse or long term use of certain medications, 
> >>>>> immunosuppressants for old age related disease like arthritis- the 
> >>>>> list is endless. Do you see how grossly oversimplified and 
> >>>>> unrealistic your viewpoint is now? 
> >>>> From 
> >>>> <https://www.science.org/content/article/how-long-do-vaccines-last-surprising-answers-may-help-protect-people-longer>: 
> >> 
> >>>> 
> "It's not just flu. Recent studies show vaccines for mumps, pertussis, 
> >>>> meningococcal disease, and yellow fever also lose their effectiveness 
> >>>> faster than official immunization recommendations suggest. Vaccines 
> >>>> have ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ been a 
> >>>> crucial public health tool for decades, so it may seem strange that 
> >>>> their durability isn't well understood. But vaccines are approved and 
> >>>> come to market years before it's clear how long protection lasts. 
> >>>> Later, fading protection can go unnoticed because a vaccine in wide 
> >>>> use has largely ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ eliminated 
> >>>> transmission of the microbes it protects against, making 
> >>>> "breakthrough" infections rare. Even if viruses or bacteria are still 
> >>>> in circulation, people vaccinated against them will sometimes receive 
> >>>> natural boosting of their immunity. And declining vaccine immunity is 
> >>>> not an all-or-nothing phenomenon: A breakthrough infection often leads 
> >>>> to much less severe symptoms of the disease." 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Do you see how ignorant/dated your understanding is? 
> >>> 
> >>> Author is a professional content provider. 
> >> Yes, so obviously everything he is REPORTING ON is false. 
> > 
> > Where did I say he made false statements? Show me exactly where I made that
> It was implied. What else the value of that statement?
> > statement. Content providers only very rarely understand their subject 
> > matter so their exposition is superficial and gives the uneducated reader a 
> > false sense of expertise. You're a case in point.
> How does the CONTENT PROVIDER (unpaid or otherwise) "Fred Bloggs" 
> differ? "Only very rarely [do they] understand their subject matter" 
> 
> Ah, yes, I forgot it was Dr Fred Bloggs who was issuing these opinions.

Typical response of uneducated vulgarity. So much of that around these days. Are you really so simple you think I'm just rattling this stuff off the top of my head. I checked first. Sites like this:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/index.html



> >> Sort of like anonymous posters in electronics newsgroups with nothing to 
> >> say about electronics? 
> > 
> > How is a misconstrued statement about worthless content providers "sort of 
> > like anonymous posters in electronics newsgroups?"
> What is the value of "content providers" in an electronics newsgroup -- when 
> the content isn't even electronics related? 

About 99% of the so-called electronics related post aren't really electronics related either.

> 
> It would be as if "science.org" started posting woodworking plans for 
> captain's beds.
> > Here's how you're completely wrong about waning immunity from vaccination 
> > and how you're completely wrong about some things. 
> > 
> > Take the Shingles vaccine for older people, generally over 50. Shingles is a 
> > herpes virus. People in that age group don't "catch" shingles. The shingles 
> > they come down with is a reactivation of an internal latent reservoir of the 
> > virus from a previous childhood infection, it was not something they caught. 
> > Now here's the shocker for you. Nobody cares about you and your shingles. 
> > The main reason they want you old reservoir carriers re-vaccinated is to 
> > assure complete suppression of the re-activation so you don't go around 
> > spreading the infection to the most vulnerable in society, the children, who 
> > in turn will perpetuate the cycle when they get older. Apparently you can do 
> > this by just being present, you don't have to cough, sneeze, spit or touch a 
> > victim to infect them. So vaccinating older people is all part of the 
> > eradication strategy.
> Yes, and "shingles" is one of those "childhood illnesses" that I alluded to, 
> right?
> "Show me exactly where I made that statement"
> > Shingles isn't the only disease that does this. This can happen with *any* 
> > virus that is not completely cleared after infection and establishes a 
> > latent reservoir for itself. Long COVID looks like the SARS-CoV-2 falls in 
> > that category. And old age is not the only thing can result in a 
> > re-activation. Coming down with a severe infection that hogs every bit of 
> > resource your immunity can muster has been known to do the same thing.

> Again, how is covid one of those "childhood illnesses" that I alluded to? 

Looking more and more like COVID is setting up persistent reservoirs in the victim in as yet to discovered compartments.

> 
> Why don't you address the specific cases cited in the research papers. 
> And, why waste your talents *here* in an ELECTRONICS newsgroup that 
> MD's and immunologists would likely never read? Why not *educate* 
> them as you suspect yourself to be so expert on the subject? 
> 
> You can find them in the lists of references for the article. If not 
> there, then try these: 
> 
> <https://www.pharmacytimes.com/view/waning-immunity-creates-risk> 
> <https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2019/06/whooping-cough-cases-tied-waning-vaccine-protection> 

Whooping cough, and many of the other childhood diseases, is caused by a bacteria. Bacteria are notoriously difficult to vaccinate against. 

> 
> I'm sure they're all waiting to have their misconceptions corrected. 
> And, I'm sure the journals in question will be more than happy to post 
> your INFORMED research to that effect. 
> 
> (Though they may insist on seeing some credentials and an "ID")
> > All immunity, acquired through vaccine or infection, "wanes" with old age.
> I guess the 18-29 year old populations that experienced the Mumps outbreaks 
> will be surprised to know they are now considered "old age". 18 is the new 50? 
> 
> And, the *6* year old pertussis victims will be devastated to know they 
> are already circling-the-drain -- before even attaining PUBERTY!
> > And why shouldn't it? Your whole life is waning. Death beds aren't exactly 
> > occupied by people full of vitality.
> How long *prior* to The Death Bed (the endpoint of life) do you think "waning 
> (everything)" manifests? Surely, there are no 80 year-olds who are full of 
> vitality? 70? 90? 30?? Wow, you must really be dreading getting old! 
> 
> But, I *do* thank you for reminding me that I shouldn't bother reading 
> posts by "content providers" who "only very rarely understand their subject
> matter so their exposition is superficial and gives the uneducated reader a
> false sense of expertise". So, folks who don't demonstrate any knowledge of 
> ELECTRONICS -- given that this is an electronics newsgroup -- likely have 
> nothing worthwhile to contribute. 
> 
> At your apparent posting frequency, it won't take more than a few days 
> (I suspect) of ignoring your posts for my news agent to decide that I'm 
> uninterested in anything you might have to say -- and stop offering me 
> your posts to "download". 
> 
> Say hi to Wilma for me!

Did you use that AI writer to compose that post? Seems like a lot of non-sensical repetition in there.

On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 1:27:27 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 9:12:00 AM UTC-5, Don Y wrote: 
> > On 12/2/2022 6:23 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote: 

<snip>

> > Ah, yes, I forgot it was Dr Fred Bloggs who was issuing these opinions.
>
> Typical response of uneducated vulgarity. So much of that around these days. Are you really so simple you think I'm just rattling this stuff off the top of my head. I checked first. Sites like this: 

What Fred ignores is that he doesn't seem to fully understand the sites he reads. He's not as bad as Gnatguy who can always persuade himself that any site he reads supports what he likes to think, but Fred does seem to see quite a bit more of what he wants to see than is obvious to more objective readers.

<snip>

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 1:17:43 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 9:11:33 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote: 
> > On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 12:23:21 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote: 
> > > On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 8:17:41 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote: 
> > > > On 12/1/2022 11:24 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote: 
> > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 7:36:56 AM UTC-5, Don Y wrote: 
> > > > >> On 11/30/2022 5:03 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote: 
> > > > >>> On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 11:15:11 AM UTC-5, Don Y wrote: 
> > > > >>>> On 11/29/2022 8:32 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote: 
> > 
> > > Take the Shingles vaccine for older people, generally over 50. Shingles is a herpes virus. People in that age group don't "catch" shingles. The shingles they come down with is a reactivation of an internal latent reservoir of the virus from a previous childhood infection, it was not something they caught. 
> >
> > Chicken-pox. 
> >
> > > Now here's the shocker for you. Nobody cares about you and your shingles. The main reason they want you old reservoir carriers re-vaccinated is to assure complete suppression of the re-activation so you don't go around spreading the infection to the most vulnerable in society, the children, who in turn will perpetuate the cycle when they get older. 
> > Actually, carers do care about you and your shingles. They might not care much about Fred Bloggs and his shingles - he doesn't seem to have a particularly sweet nature - but they don't want their patients to get uncomfortable and unhappy. They won't want their patients giving vulnerable young children chicken pox either, but both motives can co-exist,
>
> Your care provider doesn't care about you, you're just a case to be processed IAW government guidelines. What are you, like 5 yo or something?

Just turned 80, but there are doctors who like their patients.

> > >Apparently you can do this by just being present, you don't have to cough, sneeze, spit or touch a victim to infect them. So vaccinating older people is all part of the eradication strategy. 
> >
> > But it does have incidental advantages for the elderly people who get vaccinated. 
> >
> > > Shingles isn't the only disease that does this. This can happen with *any* virus that is not completely cleared after infection and establishes a latent reservoir for itself. Long COVID looks like the SARS-CoV-2 falls in that category. And old age is not the only thing can result in a re-activation. Coming down with a severe infection that hogs every bit of resource your immunity can muster has been known to do the same thing. 
> > 
> > > All immunity, acquired through vaccine or infection, "wanes" with old age. And why shouldn't it? Your whole life is waning. Death beds aren't exactly occupied by people full of vitality. 
> > > 
> > > You can't vaccinate a fence post. 
>
> > Why would you bother? It doesn't have an immune system.
>
> LOL- that's the point.

It's not the clearest expression of that insight that I've ever seen.
 
> > > Almost all medical treatments, therapies, and what-nots, for infectious disease, rely on the health of the patient, such as it is, to finish the job. 
> > 
> > If an infectious disease damages you - and disease symptoms are visible responses to that damage - you've got to rebuild the damaged tissues, and that's extra work that your metabolism has to carry out. Convalescence is when it happens.
>
> That's assuming those tissues even are re-buildable. Lungs, heart, brain, neurons, are famously resistant to being rebuilt. 

Another one of those medical insights that isn't quite up to date.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-adult-brain-does-grow-new-neurons-after-all-study-says/

The Scientific American isn't any kind of peer-reviewed journal, but it's a bit more accessible for the ageing brain.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 9:46:50 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 1:27:27 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote: 
> > On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 9:12:00 AM UTC-5, Don Y wrote: 
> > > On 12/2/2022 6:23 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> <snip>
> > > Ah, yes, I forgot it was Dr Fred Bloggs who was issuing these opinions. 
> > 
> > Typical response of uneducated vulgarity. So much of that around these days. Are you really so simple you think I'm just rattling this stuff off the top of my head. I checked first. Sites like this:
> What Fred ignores is that he doesn't seem to fully understand the sites he reads. He's not as bad as Gnatguy who can always persuade himself that any site he reads supports what he likes to think, but Fred does seem to see quite a bit more of what he wants to see than is obvious to more objective readers.
> <snip> 

You're the one who couldn't figure out what on Earth the chapter on innate cellular immune response had to do with adjuvants- in the NLM text I linked.

That CDC site is written for the general public. It doesn't assume advanced education in any specific area. Advanced education is largely highly focused education anyway, and that's not what's needed to make out the forest from the trees, and may even be a hindrance.



> 
> -- 
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 5:18:05 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 9:46:50 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote: 
> > On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 1:27:27 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote: 
> > > On Friday, December 2, 2022 at 9:12:00 AM UTC-5, Don Y wrote: 
> > > > On 12/2/2022 6:23 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote: 
> > <snip> 
> > > > Ah, yes, I forgot it was Dr Fred Bloggs who was issuing these opinions. 
> > > 
> > > Typical response of uneducated vulgarity. So much of that around these days. Are you really so simple you think I'm just rattling this stuff off the top of my head. I checked first. Sites like this: 
> >
> > What Fred ignores is that he doesn't seem to fully understand the sites he reads. He's not as bad as Gnatguy who can always persuade himself that any site he reads supports what he likes to think, but Fred does seem to see quite a bit more of what he wants to see than is obvious to more objective readers. 
> > <snip>
> You're the one who couldn't figure out what on Earth the chapter on innate cellular immune response had to do with adjuvants- in the NLM text I linked. 

And I can't figure out why you thought that it did. Vaccines don't have anything to do with the innate cellular immune response.
 
> That CDC site is written for the general public. It doesn't assume advanced education in any specific area. Advanced education is largely highly focused education anyway, and that's not what's needed to make out the forest from the trees, and may even be a hindrance. 

Advanced education is mostly about teaching you where to find what you need to know and how to extract the information  you need to know from texts designed to be used by people with other interests, so you've got it pretty much exactly backwards. My skills were instilled in the process of getting a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry.

They proved remarkably useful in working out how to make phased array ultrasound machines and scanning electron microscopes work rather better.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney