Possible Covid19 Protection

[CJJon]

Hello; I am not the one refusing to explain a link I posted. You come on here as if you are so very clever, but will not back up your own post. I suspect you have caught your self this time.
It is going to be pretty clear to the others who read this what the score is.

Yes indeed, caught.

I am certainly not in the same league as you regards cleverness and it definitely shows!

Congratulations!

Sponsored

 

[Gregs24]

Hello; I looked at the link. Before any of the rest of us make comments about it. Why don't you give us a summary yourself? Pull some quotes and break the information down for us.

Why would anybody need to do that. That is a scientific article, written up in an approved structured way ready to read. No need to paraphrase or quote and risk misinterpretation.

 

[Gregs24]

Hello; Some will figure you cannot summarize the article. That perhaps you just threw out a link you do not understand yourself. Such would be an irony.

So lets be clear. This is a review article, which by definition is itself a summary of research articles. I would respectfully suggest there are very few on here who will be able to 'understand' as you put it the details of the science covered in it and so expecting anybody to 'summarise' a summary without full understanding of the subject would be a folly.

 

[Gregs24]

This is where you are wrong. Just look at the pandemic numbers of sick and dead. Any sort of innate genetic immunity is so small as to not make much difference at all. Again, this is obviously so.

I think this is probably an over simplification and genetic factors do play a role in the severity of disease from COVID infection. There are factors such as race, sex, blood type, intercurrent diseases (that may be genetic) all play a role in determining severity of disease. It is important to distinguish immunity from resistance to infection, which are not the same thing.

 

[sk47]

So lets be clear. This is a review article, which by definition is itself a summary of research articles. I would respectfully suggest there are very few on here who will be able to 'understand' as you put it the details of the science covered in it and so expecting anybody to 'summarise' a summary without full understanding of the subject would be a folly.

Hello; So CJJon throws up a link which I assume is supposed to bolster his point of view. I ask him to explain how and to summarize. I often do such for the links I post. He refuses to do so leaving me to wonder if if he actually can explain. Perhaps he can do the deed, but until he does I will wonder about it.
Here is a plan. Since you are taking his side in this why don't you break down his link for us? Perhaps at least identify the most telling parts for us? The statements that bear the more important weight on the notion of natural immunity some people have to a never before encountered virus/pathogen?



"I would respectfully suggest there are very few on here who will be able to 'understand' as you put it the details of the science covered"

Hello; Why don't you give us a try at understanding? I have a lot more confidence in folks ability to understand. Not the science jargon to be sure. I have waded thru plenty of that in my time. But it ought to be possible put the gist of it into words we more simple folks can follow. I think we will understand if you choose to not do so.

 

[Gregs24]

Hello; So CJJon throws up a link which I assume is supposed to bolster his point of view. I ask him to explain how and to summarize. I often do such for the links I post. He refuses to do so leaving me to wonder if if he actually can explain. Perhaps he can do the deed, but until he does I will wonder about it.
Here is a plan. Since you are taking his side in this why don't you break down his link for us? Perhaps at least identify the most telling parts for us? The statements that bear the more important weight on the notion of natural immunity some people have to a never before encountered virus/pathogen?

I'm not taking anybody's 'side' merely pointing out that summarising a summary is a little pointless and prone to error.

I have already warned of the distinction between immunity and resistance to infection which are not the same thing.

The article is a good summary of where current thinking is - I have nothing to add or take away.

 

[CJJon]

Hello; So CJJon throws up a link which I assume is supposed to bolster his point of view. I ask him to explain how and to summarize. I often do such for the links I post. He refuses to do so leaving me to wonder if if he actually can explain. Perhaps he can do the deed, but until he does I will wonder about it.
Here is a plan. Since you are taking his side in this why don't you break down his link for us? Perhaps at least identify the most telling parts for us? The statements that bear the more important weight on the notion of natural immunity some people have to a never before encountered virus/pathogen?



"I would respectfully suggest there are very few on here who will be able to 'understand' as you put it the details of the science covered"

Hello; Why don't you give us a try at understanding? I have a lot more confidence in folks ability to understand. Not the science jargon to be sure. I have waded thru plenty of that in my time. But it ought to be possible put the gist of it into words we more simple folks can follow. I think we will understand if you choose to not do so.

You assume too much yet again. Here is my entire post regarding the link:

Here is an interesting read...I have not found anything more current, but I didn't search too hard.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7404857/

Here is the abstract from the article:

This article provides a review of studies evaluating the role of host (and viral) genetics (including variation in HLA genes) in the immune response to coronaviruses, as well as the clinical outcome of coronavirus‐mediated disease. The initial sections focus on seasonal coronaviruses, SARS‐CoV, and MERS‐CoV. We then examine the state of the knowledge regarding genetic polymorphisms and SARS‐CoV‐2 and COVID‐19. The article concludes by discussing research areas with current knowledge gaps and proposes several avenues for future scientific exploration in order to develop new insights into the immunology of SARS‐CoV‐2.

Way different than MSN, huh? It is up to you to read the article and come up with your own conclusions. I didn't try and put any personal spin on the information, I merely mentioned it was an interesting read.

Your bias is showing in a painful way.

 

[sk47]

I'm not taking anybody's 'side' merely pointing out that summarising a summary is a little pointless and prone to error.

I have already warned of the distinction between immunity and resistance to infection which are not the same thing.

The article is a good summary of where current thinking is - I have nothing to add or take away.

Hello; I understand and suspect many others will as well. You may note I did not ask you for a summary. I asked this " why don't you break down his link for us? Perhaps at least identify the most telling parts for us? The statements that bear the more important weight on the notion of natural immunity some people have to a never before encountered virus/pathogen? "

I stopped asking for a summary. I tried to make it even more simple for you had you chosen to accept the challenge. But the situation is what it is.

 

[CJJon]

Hello; I understand and suspect many others will as well. You may note I did not ask you for a summary. I asked this " why don't you break down his link for us? Perhaps at least identify the most telling parts for us? The statements that bear the more important weight on the notion of natural immunity some people have to a never before encountered virus/pathogen? "

I stopped asking for a summary. I tried to make it even more simple for you had you chosen to accept the challenge. But the situation is what it is.

Wow...

 

[K4fxd]

This is a review article, which by definition is itself a summary of research articles. I would respectfully suggest there are very few on here who will be able to 'understand' as you put it the details of the science covered in it and so expecting anybody to 'summarise' a summary without full understanding of the subject would be a folly.

Here is the rub, you think everyone, except you and a few "experts" are idiots.

 

[K4fxd]

The initial sections focus on seasonal coronaviruses, SARS‐CoV, and MERS‐CoV.

What do these sections say about them?

The article concludes by discussing research areas with current knowledge gaps and proposes several avenues for future scientific exploration in order to develop new insights into the immunology of SARS‐CoV‐2.

What is one of these avenues?

 

[CJJon]

What do these sections say about them?

What is one of these avenues?

Why are you asking questions that can easily be found by actually reading the article?

HINT: See sections 7 and 8

 

[CJJon]

Here is the rub, you think everyone, except you and a few "experts" are idiots.

Indeed, people are idiots that discount the experts in any field when they know little or nothing about the subject.

Idiot = utterly foolish person

 

[K4fxd]

Most people when they link do some quoting from that link, usually with their opinion on what it says.

You are too lazy to do that or too, shall I say.......... No won't go there.

 

[K4fxd]

Indeed, people are idiots that discount the experts in any field when they know little or nothing about the subject.

I've been on this earth a long time. I have found that so called experts have been wrong more often than right.

The problem with people who think like you is when the supposed utopia hits these people think they will be among the upper class elites.

Sorry you will just be with the rest of us peasants. Ask the Cubans, Venezuelans, ect ect ect...........

Sponsored