Anti-Vaxxers Could Be Helping Create Deadlier Versions of Covid

Noboru said:

Why take the risk in the first place when the risk of a serious infection is very low?

deg said:
Unvaccinated and Anti-Vaxxers Could Be Helping Create Deadlier Versions of Covid

plus long term effects or complications from recovering with covid-19

Noboru said:
I don't believe in that. The virus won't become deadlier, that's not the type for it

Those long term effects are only affecting a minority and only those with comorbidities and/or of very old age, mostly. And even for that, there is already a medicament that has made someone recover from long covid:

https://www.fau.eu/2021/07/06/news/medication-for-autoantibodies-also-effective-for-long-covid/

deg said:


again viruses mutate faster especially if it can multiply rapidly like infect everybody

thats it for me hopefully

Noboru said:
So even when they mutate faster, it won't make a difference when they stay the same or evolve into less harmful variants

How do you mean that?

deg said:


read the first post dude and even watch the youtube video in the first post that is only 5 minutes long

also
COVID-19 (coronavirus): Long-term effects
COVID-19 symptoms can sometimes persist for months. The virus can damage the lungs, heart and brain, which increases the risk of long-term health problems. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-long-term-effects/art-20490351

Gween_Gween said:

i thought that you were not discussing with this negationist

deg said:
ye i think im done with them now if he still believe what he says then its hopeless

Noboru said:
Me too with you
Have fun living in fear against variants

deg said:


ye dont take this threat seriously so that this pandemic will last more longer

Fact check: Yes, viruses can mutate to become more deadly
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/07/14/fact-check-viruses-can-mutate-become-more-deadly/7839167002/

deg said:
ye dont take this threat seriously so that this pandemic will last more longer

Silverstorm said:
Which in itself is incorrect cause the point of viral evolution is to become more successful at getting hosts. Would mean they don't evolve to be less harmful but to be more contagious and spreadable, so variants from this virus, being the evolved (better) forms are going to be more "harmful", not less.

Kurt_Irving said:
Fact is that nobody is still taking the virus seriously.

Everybody is still just putting on masks to play along with what they call the scamdemic.

No point in arguing with anyone saying that they got a 99.5% chance of survival against the Wuhan virus.

Lastly, no point in arguing with anyone saying that seasonal influenza is or has been proven to be worse than corona, hoax, etc.

Noboru said:
The best immunity is already ingrained in our bodies and it's called "immune system"

Narmy said:

You know a vaccine just teaches your immune system how to fight a disease, right?

Noboru said:
If it works as intended, then yes
But the benefits/risk ratio is still too low and my immune system does already very well

Noboru said:
The "pandemic" is already under control, but yeah, continue with the fear-mongering so that this ridiculous situation will last longer

"successful" doesn't mean "harmful", as a virus doesn't get anything from killing its host

Zefyris said:

it WORKS as intended. You're just scared.

Noboru said:
Right, that's why Covid-19 is a thing of the past in Gibraltar where supposedly 100% of people have been fully immunized
I see no benefits for a virus that causes at most some minor cold for most people at my age
I'm not seeing convoys of ambulances and funeral cars to pick up the sick and to transport their remains, respectively

edit @Silverstorm: A virus can replicate itself better when the host stays alive
There is no virus goal to destroy the host

Silverstorm said:
Of course its not a virus goal to destroy the host, but the destruction and assimilation of cells in the host winds up doing that regardless of the "intent", which is why some flus (viral) are still considered dangerous even if majority of flus are not actually dangerous (immune can handle them). We don't have to pretend history hasn't shown this already with scarlet fever, yellow fever etc etc don't intend to kill those infected, but because its replication is spread by destroying cells when it hijacks em. Really if one previous host dies while the virus infects another, did the original host matter after transmission. Not really, cause the goal was completed already--it spread to someone else. So, better replication when the host stays alive isn't saying a virus doesn't cause hosts to die, doesn't mean viruses keep their hosts alive-- the host keeps themselves alive actually. It can replicate itself better by being efficient and contagious is more its view than making sure the host stays healthy.

Noboru said:
I'm not sure what you want to say, but humanity went through so many pandemics already and this one isn't even remotely as serious as the previous ones, at least not if you live in a modern first world country and are not even part of any risk group

Noboru said:
edit @Silverstorm: A virus can replicate itself better when the host stays alive
There is no virus goal to destroy the host

Silverstorm said:
Agreed, for the most part (I think the modern age is what makes it riskier regardless of national containment status compared to old pandemics imo). I was saying facts about viruses while trying to stay out of the topic of the thread. I can see both sides of what you and deg are saying and believe more clarity on viral spread can maybe help a middle ground be found was the aim.

Ryuk9428 said:
Quite honestly, all this government propaganda is disgusting. I can't confirm that the theories about vaccines effecting fertility are real but quite honestly I have no faith in our institutions to tell the truth anymore and I'd much rather catch COVID then lose my ability to have children. It doesn't matter to me what the CDC says, I don't trust them anymore, and quite frankly, its their fault that people don't trust them because they've been caught telling too many lies.



This is accurate. Quite frankly, nobody cares anymore and that's the way it should be. People are over this shit. We're sick of the government fearmongering on a constant basis over a virus that isn't even that dangerous. I'm sick of corporations talking about how "we care about your safety." Fuck off, you don't give a shit about me, you care about your profits and reputation. I'm certainly not going to inject some weird crap into me to protect myself from a virus I am almost guaranteed to survive if I do catch.

Noboru said:

@deg: yes, viruses can mutate to become more dangerous, but SARS-CoV-2 is not the type for it
We've had over one year already, yet there is no significant increase in deadliness

deg said:


never say never when random mutations occur and the more it spreads the more random mutations will happen

Noboru said:
I'm not taking part in your fearmongering

deg said:
fact check again there is already a new variant of concern

Noboru said:
Keep your "fact checks" for yourself and take a look outside. Is the situation any different from how it was the years before? Other than things having become more restrictive

Noboru said:
Keep your "fact checks" for yourself and take a look outside. Is the situation any different from how it was the years before? Other than things having become more restrictive

deg said:
ye keep in denial of the new variants thats making this pandemic last longer

its sad that youve become an extremist now so much for that cool user persona you got in the past

laslodj said:


Pls stop talking, you're just embarrassing yourself.

Noboru said:
I'm not sure if I got it right, but isn't the sentence in brackets basically contrary to your very first sentence?
Also not sure there is even a middle ground

Silverstorm said:
Agreed, for the most part (I think the modern age is what makes it riskier regardless of national containment status compared to old pandemics imo).

Noboru said:
@Silverstorm:

I'm shortening things to the relevant parts, maybe that makes it easier:


My statement was that compared to earlier times, this pandemic is not even remotely as dangerous, at least not in a highly developed country with a good enough health system.
Your first sentence seems to have confirmed it, but the part in the brackets makes it appear like the modern age makes the pandemic now riskier than if it happened at an earlier time
I'm having a hard time to follow your thought in the bracket

The only middle ground I can find with pro-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine supporters is to support vaccination for risk groups and that it would be also a good idea to prioritize people in the health system and in other key functions, but I'm strictly against forcing people or pressuring them in one form or other, at the very least not at this current stage. If it were as deadly as Ebola or even worse, I would have already got the jab, but at this stage I can safely say that it's best to at least wait until the vaccine studies are concluded, at least when you're a healthy young person

Silverstorm said:
Ah, that really helped! I was avoding using the word dangerous, instead using riskier cause the former imo implies deadly-- which I agree with you, past pandemics were deadlier cause effective measurements and treatments weren't available or known. 'Riskier" was meant as the likelihood for the pandemic or its effects on things (ie economies, personal finance, prices) to linger, like trying to climb out a whole but slipping down a few inches with each foot gained. Thats not really deadly, like "dangerous"-- putting spikes at the bottom of said "hole-in-ground".

Sounds like thats a good middle ground, I see the reasoning of it, makes sense.

Revising a decision made just two months ago, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on Tuesday that people vaccinated against the coronavirus should resume wearing masks in public indoor spaces in parts of the country where the virus is surging.

C.D.C. officials also called for universal masking for teachers, staff, students and visitors in schools, regardless of vaccination status and community transmission of the virus. With additional precautions, schools nonetheless should return to in-person learning in the fall.

The recommendations are another baleful twist in the course of America’s pandemic, a war-weary concession that the virus is outstripping vaccination efforts. The agency’s move follows rising case counts in states like Florida and Missouri, as well as growing reports of breakthrough infections of the more contagious Delta variant among people who are fully immunized.

“The Delta variant is showing every day its willingness to outsmart us,” Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the C.D.C., said at a news briefing on Tuesday.

The C.D.C. said Americans should resume wearing masks in areas where there are more than 50 new infections per 100,000 residents over the previous seven days, or more than 8 percent of tests are positive for infection over that period. Health officials should reassess these figures weekly and change local restrictions accordingly, the agency said.

By those criteria, all residents of Florida, Arkansas and Louisiana, for example, should wear masks indoors. Nearly two-thirds of U.S. counties qualify, many concentrated in the South.

The agency said that even vaccinated Americans in areas without surges might consider wearing a mask in public indoor settings if they or someone in their household has an impaired immune system or is at risk for severe disease, or if someone in the household is unvaccinated.

That includes vaccinated parents of children under age 12, who are currently ineligible for the shots.

C.D.C. officials were persuaded by new scientific evidence showing that even vaccinated people may become infected and may carry the virus in great amounts, perhaps even similar to those in unvaccinated people, Dr. Walensky acknowledged at the news briefing.

Data from several states and other countries show that the variant behaves differently from previous versions of the coronavirus, she added: “This new science is worrisome and unfortunately warrants an update to our recommendation.”

Opticflash said:


Your logic is ridiculously flawed. Here's the actual logic:

Unvaccinated
1. 90% of original virus dies.
2. 10% survive and produce new variants A (1%), B (1%), that spread to other people. B is resistant to the vaccine.

Vaccinated
1. 99% of original virus dies.
2. 1% survive and produce new variants A (<< 0.1%), B (0.1%) that spread to other people. B is resistant to the vaccine.

Slawadia said:

C.D.C. officials were persuaded by new scientific evidence showing that even vaccinated people may become infected and may carry the virus in great amounts, perhaps even similar to those in unvaccinated people, Dr. Walensky acknowledged at the news briefing.

Slawadia said:


Another idiot who doesn't understand what darwinism is.
When you incentivize something to survive given a set of conditions, those that survive those conditions will spread and thrive, stupid.
The argument isn't about the raw volume of mutations, but specifically about dangerous vaccine-resistant mutations.

The argument isn't about the raw volume of mutations, but specifically about dangerous vaccine-resistant mutations.

sirius said:
shouldn't it be the other way around?

Aren't vaxxers basically giving the virus more challenge to deal with thus making it stronger?

deg said:
Don’t think if you are vaccinated and live in an area with higher vaccination rates that the Covid story is over. “If you have states that are hotspots for Covid, it puts everybody at risk,” said Labus.

That’s because pockets of unvaccinated people are petri dishes for the Covid-19 virus to spread and mutate. “The more people that the virus infects, the better and better that the virus is going to get at infecting people,” said Erin Mordecai, PhD, a biology professor at Stanford University.

Mordecai tells us to imagine the virus buying a lottery ticket with every new infection. Sure, each individual infection has a low chance of becoming a mutation that spreads across the world. But more infections means more lottery tickets and more chances the virus has to win—and winning for the virus means becoming more contagious and able to pierce the effectiveness of our vaccines.

more here
https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/anti-vaxxers-could-helping-create-105000576.html
https://www.menshealth.com/health/a37069291/anti-vax-spreads-variants/

yep more infections then more chances of mutation or evolution for the virus #HerdImmunityNow

this is a great in depth video about this too here https://youtu.be/Ha6yUxze1vk