What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Mu variant could be more vaccine resistant. Update: The R.1 Variant (1 Viewer)

Rich Conway said:
Yes, let's.  Let's crank up production and ship billions more vaccine doses all over the world.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately America is buying up a lot of the available vaccines.  It's more important Americans get boosters than third world countries get their first shots. 

 
Max Power said:
Unfortunately America is buying up a lot of the available vaccines.  It's more important Americans get boosters than third world countries get their first shots. 
Click to expand...
As discussed in a different thread, the US government should be prioritizing (and is generally sworn by oath to prioritize) the health/safety of Americans.  By that rationale, there will always be instances where some may feel the "morally right thing to do", or as in this case, feel the "scientifically right thing to do", is X internationally, but the duty-bound appropriate thing for government to do is still Y.

Personally, I honestly don't know whether Americans would be better served by efforts to boost existing domestic vaccines versus efforts to distribute first international vaccines.  I suspect Americans are better served by the former in the short term, but quite possibly better served by the latter over the long term, but the reality is nobody can say for certain.

 
parasaurolophus said:
Yep. So many people need this to continue. 

Reporters. Politicians. Doctors wanting to move to a social media career. Public health. Virtue signalers. 
Click to expand...
Reporters don't need COVID.  The continued existence of the Kardashians is plenty of evidence that people will still click on whatever replaces it in the next news cycle.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rich Conway said:
As discussed in a different thread, the US government should be prioritizing (and is generally sworn by oath to prioritize) the health/safety of Americans.  By that rationale, there will always be instances where some may feel the "morally right thing to do", or as in this case, feel the "scientifically right thing to do", is X internationally, but the duty-bound appropriate thing for government to do is still Y.

Personally, I honestly don't know whether Americans would be better served by efforts to boost existing domestic vaccines versus efforts to distribute first international vaccines.  I suspect Americans are better served by the former in the short term, but quite possibly better served by the latter over the long term, but the reality is nobody can say for certain.
Click to expand...
I'd argue that if all these new variants are mutating in the unvaccinated and the new variants will beat the vaccine, it would make more sense for America to get the rest of the world (who actually want the vaccine) vaccinated. 

The WHO is recommending this course of action, so why are we not playing along this time? 

It's short sighted to keep spending vaccines on Americans to protect them slightly more from a current strain while mutations in the rest of the world are creating a super strain that will evade all vaccines.  Hell it's almost dangerous.

 
Max Power said:
I'd argue that if all these new variants are mutating in the unvaccinated and the new variants will beat the vaccine, it would make more sense for America to get the rest of the world (who actually want the vaccine) vaccinated. 

The WHO is recommending this course of action, so why are we not playing along this time? 

It's short sighted to keep spending vaccines on Americans to protect them slightly more from a current strain while mutations in the rest of the world are creating a super strain that will evade all vaccines.  Hell it's almost dangerous.
Click to expand...
Remember that the WHO and the US government have different charters.  The WHO's mission is to recommend what's best for the world as a whole, while the US government's mission is to act on what's best for Americans.

As to the rest of your post, it might be short-sighted, as you describe (and as I implied above that I suspect something similar).  But... the real answer is I don't know and neither do you.  Probably no one knows for certain right now what would protect Americans best over the long run.  For example, suppose Pfizer said to Biden's administration, "We know that these boosters will help more Americans survive for the next 8 months, and we're 75% of the way to a new vaccine that can protect against all variants including future variants, due to the way in which we've targeted the spike proteins."?  Wouldn't the administration be duty-bound to order up boosters for the short-term, even if more people worldwide would die?

 
Rich Conway said:
Remember that the WHO and the US government have different charters.  The WHO's mission is to recommend what's best for the world as a whole, while the US government's mission is to act on what's best for Americans.

As to the rest of your post, it might be short-sighted, as you describe (and as I implied above that I suspect something similar).  But... the real answer is I don't know and neither do you.  Probably no one knows for certain right now what would protect Americans best over the long run.  For example, suppose Pfizer said to Biden's administration, "We know that these boosters will help more Americans survive for the next 8 months, and we're 75% of the way to a new vaccine that can protect against all variants including future variants, due to the way in which we've targeted the spike proteins."?  Wouldn't the administration be duty-bound to order up boosters for the short-term, even if more people worldwide would die?
Click to expand...
But you're jumping to conclusions we don't know yet. I think if we take what we know and apply it, it would make more sense to get a worldwide distribution in place. 

 
Max Power said:
But you're jumping to conclusions we don't know yet. I think if we take what we know and apply it, it would make more sense to get a worldwide distribution in place. 
Click to expand...
I understand what you're saying.  I likely agree, based on what I understand of the science and data.  But my point is, if you and I are being fair, we aren't scientists, we aren't doctors, and we aren't privy to all the data that those making such decisions are.  Bottom line, neither you nor I know for certain which course would be better for Americans over the short term or the long term.  More to the point, I'm reasonably convinced that no one knows for certain, and all anyone can do at this point is make educated guesses (some guesses more informed/educated than others).

 
Rich Conway said:
As discussed in a different thread, the US government should be prioritizing (and is generally sworn by oath to prioritize) the health/safety of Americans.  By that rationale, there will always be instances where some may feel the "morally right thing to do", or as in this case, feel the "scientifically right thing to do", is X internationally, but the duty-bound appropriate thing for government to do is still Y.

Personally, I honestly don't know whether Americans would be better served by efforts to boost existing domestic vaccines versus efforts to distribute first international vaccines.  I suspect Americans are better served by the former in the short term, but quite possibly better served by the latter over the long term, but the reality is nobody can say for certain.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree, but, where it this written?  Constitution, laws, just the oath they take when sworn in, where?

 
Wait....the vaccines couldn't possibly be less effective against strands that didn't even exist before the vaccines did, right?  What is wrong with these scientists!!!!!!  How could they let this happen?!?!!?!

 
We have to slow the spread or else this is going to keep happening

the good thing is the modifying the current vaccines to meet future variants should be much simpler

 
killface said:
We have to slow the spread or else this is going to keep happening

the good thing is the modifying the current vaccines to meet future variants should be much simpler
Click to expand...
What % change or mutation does a variant need to justify another vaccine?

 
Max Power said:
What % change or mutation does a variant need to justify another vaccine?
Click to expand...


I'll leave that up to the scientists to decide. They have spent decades learning these things 

If i had to guess, if the efficacy drops below 60% or so they will start thinking about it

 
killface said:
I'll leave that up to the scientists to decide. They have spent decades learning these things 

If i had to guess, if the efficacy drops below 60% or so they will start thinking about it
Click to expand...
The correct answer was 'as long as they can profit off it' 

I'm coming around on this natural immunity stuff. They found people who had sars covi 1 still had antibody protection against the Covi2 strain. 20 years later.... yet now were looking at boosters within 5 months for slight mutations in v2.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Max Power said:
The correct answer was 'as long as they can profit off it' 

I'm coming around on this natural immunity stuff. They found people who had sars covi 1 still had antibody protection against the Covi2 strain. 20 years later.... yet now were looking at boosters within 5 months for slight mutations in v2.
Click to expand...


You are free to think the earth is flat as well...doesn't make it right

 
https://www.foxnews.com/health/covid-19-variant-mu-49-states

COVID-19 variant mu detected in 49 states

The mu coronavirus variant has been detected in 49 states and 42 countries, according to estimates, as health officials keep an eye on the strain to see if it becomes dominant. 

The strain, also known as B.1.621, was first identified in Colombia in January and was added to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) "variants of interest" list, however 49 U.S. states and the District of Columbia have since detected the mu variant, with the exception of Nebraska, according to estimates compiled by Outbreak.info. States with a higher estimated prevalence of the variant include Alaska and Hawaii, though nationwide the variant has been detected in less than 1% of samples.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the government’s leading infectious disease expert, on Sunday said the delta variant is over 99% of the cases. The mu variant has mutations that "indicate that it might evade the protection from certain antibodies."

He said the mu variant was "not an immediate threat."
Click to expand...
Here we go. 

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
Posts in this thread summarize pretty well why the US response to this virus has been among the worst on the globe. Especially in states where this mindset is more prevalent.
Click to expand...
Just imagine how bad things would be if we didn’t have essentially the best access to the vaccine in the world.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LawFitz
COVID UPDATE: What is the truth?
5 6 7
Replies
305
Views
18K
LawFitz
LawFitz
GordonGekko
Pfizer Employees Caught Claiming That Natural COVID Antibodies Offer 'More Protection' Than Vaccination (10/7/21 07:20 PST)
2
Replies
52
Views
3K
Biff84
B
GordonGekko
Johnson & Johnson Employee Caught Denouncing COVID19 Vaccine For Children (10/1/21 04:24 PST)
Replies
46
Views
2K
(HULK)
(HULK)

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top