shock

Being independently wealthy is irrelevant. Do you stop caring how your investment portfolio does, just because it won't bankrupt you if it goes to 0?

Quote from the study you linked: "[...] we found that BTIs[breakthrough infections] in recently fully vaccinated individuals have lower viral loads than infections in unvaccinated individuals. However, this effect starts to decline 2 months after vaccination and ultimately vanishes 6 months or longer after vaccination."

> even if it turns out to be no difference in load, there is still less opportunity for selection.

How so? Load means number of virus particles. Number of virus particles increases with the number of replication cycles. The probability of mutation increases with the number of replications. So, same number of replication cycles, (roughly) same chance of mutation.

He has financial interests in the health sector.

We're nearing the 2nd year of the pandemic.

You seem to be spreading misinformation all over this thread.

Here[0]'s a study from Nov 19th, saying that:

No significant differences were detected in duration of RT-PCR positivity among fully vaccinated participants (median: 13 days) versus those not fully vaccinated (median: 13 days; p=0.50), or in duration of culture positivity (medians: 5 days and 5 days; p=0.29).

[0] - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.11.12.21265796v...

Please provide some citations to back up your claims.

> the vaccine has been shown to reduce viral load which has an impact on rate of mutation even if you are infected.

This doesn't seem to be the case⁰:

A new study from the University of California, Davis, Genome Center, UC San Francisco and the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub shows no significant difference in viral load between vaccinated and unvaccinated people who tested positive for the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2. It also found no significant difference between infected people with or without symptoms.

When they analyzed the data, the researchers found wide variations in viral load within both vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, but not between them. There was no significant difference in viral load between vaccinated and unvaccinated, or between asymptomatic and symptomatic groups.

⓪ - https://www.ucdavis.edu/health/covid-19/news/viral-loads-sim... (Link to study in the article)

> [...] this has been well studied and widespread vaccination absolutely would help reduce the rate of mutation.

I don't understand how this could be. Studies have shown that peak viral load is the same for vaccinated/unvaccinated, that means roughly the same number of replicative cycles in vaccinated as in unvaccinated. Each replication is a chance for the virus to aquire mutations, so same number of replicative cycles in vaccinated/unvaccinated means same rate of mutation in vaccinated/unvaccinated.

> if we remembered everything we would be drowned in details and we wouldn't be able to distinguish signal from the noise.

Not to mention how difficult it would be to distinguish past from present.

You're free to "hack" it as much as you wish, but when you break it(if you don't know what you're doing) you get to keep all the pieces. And the blame.

It costs 1-2000€ in Europe. A day in the ICU costs 7-8000€.

> Rationed for the usual reason because it's hard to make and there isn't enough to go around.

The technology to make monoclonal antibodies is simpler than that for mRNA vaccines.

> That's also the reason they tend to be so expensive

Economies of scale play a big role. At similar scale mab should be cheaper than mRNA.

Batteries are heavy. A 100Ah battery weighs 25kgs. Cars have much bigger capacity batteries.

Probably some vesting schedule.

> Monoclonal antibody treatment is only usable within a specific window when a person is already ill.

This is not correct. See my other comment in the thread.

> On a side note, I am on of the 20000 Icelanders that got full double moderna inocculation and I suffered through the absolute worst nights of my life after the second dose.

I'm sorry you had that experience. I have a friend who had a similar experience (4 agonizing days) after his second Moderna dose and swore the he will not get a third one. Based on that I have to believe it was truly awful.

One the other hand I have several other friends who were quite fine afer Moderna. I wish we had the means to distinguish between the two groups, so nobody else has to endure what you did.

> There's not really a mechanism of action for an mRNA vaccine to have side effects that manifest after 15 months with nothing in between; any side effects would manifest themselves quite quickly.

Unless, the vaccine causes a "reprogramming" of the immune system, like some viruses do.

Have you considered this vector in your analysis?

The fact that the technology to produce monoclonal antibodies is older than the technology to produce mRNA vaccines.

> A Conditional Marketing Authorization is not an Emergency Use Authorization. The European Medicines Agency even explain this.

Please provide a citation for this claim. My reading of the EMA page for Conditional Marketing Authorization states: "Its use is also intended for a public health emergency (e.g. a pandemic). _For these medicines, less comprehensive pharmaceutical and non-clinical data may also be accepted_".

The fact that less comprehensive farmaceutical data is accepted for CMA leads me to believe they are experimental.

> Monoclonal antibodies are, as you say, a treatment. They are not used to prevent infection in the first place. They lessen the severity of the disease but do essentially nothing to avoid its transmission.

You, fundamentally, do not understand how antibodies work.

Just as with the antibodies from a vaccine, if the monoclonal antibodies are in your blood before contact with an infected person you will not get sick. So, monoclonal antibodies can be used profilactically, if so desired.

The vaccines cost in the tens of dollars, depending on the negociating power of the country/bloc.

Their cost, as well as the cost of monoclonal antibodies, depends on the economies of scale.

Monoclonal antibodies are easier to produce than mRNA vaccines, so at similar production scale should be cheaper.

In Europe all the vaccines that are authorized have a "conditional marketing authorization" with a 1 year time limit, and many countries have vaccine mandates. Under EMA, for a vaccine to be "fully approved" it needs to have a standard marketing authorization; none of the COVID vaccines do.

> Vaccine is the only thing that can (and does) make this pandemic manageable.

This is false. There are treatments available, like monoclonal antibodies, they just have not been publicized as much.

Somebody, somewhere made a choice to push the vaccines and not the monoclonal antibodies. As an interesting fact, before the pandemic the knowledge to produce the nanolipid capsule existed in only 2 small companies worldwide. Big scale facilities for producing the nanolipid particles necessary for the mRNA vaccines were non-existent, they had to be built. Just as well, facilities for producing monoclonal antibodies en-masse could have been built, but were not.

I plan to give LibreWolf a try.

FWIW, Atlas(Eclipse plugin) exists for Java and is very advanced.

It's very easy, even if not always practical, to separate bacteria from water with a centrifuge.

Why do cells secrete interleukin molecules?

I did not say there was a "massive surge" of cases in Gibraltar.

With regards to the open borders, most of the EEA has open borders, Gibraltar is not special in that regard.

> Looking at Provincetown, it's far from obvious that this is what happened. It seems more likely that a lot of vaccinated people got the virus in close proximity to unvaccinated people, but the chain of transmission mostly stopped there.

That doesn't seem to be the case in Gibraltar. There is a ~100% vaccination rate there and an increased number of infections recently.

From https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/seasonal-influenza/facts/quest...

> The infectious period varies a bit from person to person but it is considered that an adult with flu starts being able to pass on the infection from during the day before their symptoms appear and then they remain potentially infectious for three to five days. The start is probably the same for children but it is often stated that it runs on for up to seven days after onset.

> However, the risk to others is not constant throughout. Infectiousness rises steeply when the person starts feeling unwell and that is when he or she is most dangerous to others. The risk of catching influenza from someone even just before they become ill and after the end of the first three days is quite low.