Notice
Ethereal, you are hereby instructed to cease and desist from issuing insults otherwise stepped up moderation will occur
If you have questions or concerns about this moderation action, please use the Report button to let us know.
http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/122719?p=2897631#post2897631
God Bless America, God Bless our Military and God Bless the Police who defended the country against the insurgents on January 6, 2021
Think 3rd party for 2024 folks. Clean up America.
Once I tell you that we agree to disagree there will be no more discussion between us in the thread so please don't waste your time continuing to argue your points because I will not respond.
BenjaminO (06-23-2020)
No, not everything; a small research group from a reputable Chinese medical school wouldn't necessarily fall under that; might fly under the radar, be considered not as important to be so closely scrutinized. Better proof, this study did go through, and it doesn't portray the pandemic in a good light (which I'd think would be contrary to China's interest). So this study might be the exception that shows that some things do fall through the cracks. It's a vast country, after all; it must be difficult to keep everything under a lid. We've heard of Chinese dissidents before so it's not like they can control everything.
By the way, recently there was talk from people inside Wuhan that the government was underplaying the number of dead people (something that obviously I see them doing), and we did hear about it, so the Chinese government was unable to silence all dissidents and the information did get out to the West.
Anyway, no, I couldn't think of a reason. But maybe you have a point. Hm... China is also trying to make a vaccine. We all know that the front runner for a vaccine will get a boost in stock sales. I'd rather get our own Moderna to get that boost rather than British-Swedish's AstraZeneca or China's Sinovac (or any other foreign competitor), but if this study spells bad luck for vaccines, I don't see how discrediting Moderna's and AstraZeneca's efforts would boost Sinovac. Besides, a small study like this wouldn't be enough to stop Moderna's or AstraZeneca's efforts. Maybe if vaccines don't succeed, some Chinese maker comes up with an effective treatment? I haven't seen any signs of that, and again, how would this small study stop the efforts? Do they want Moderna and AstraZeneca to waste time looking into that? But I don't think they'd slow down. They are in a wicked race. The maximum that this might do to influence Moderna and AstraZeneca would be for them to use higher doses of the vaccine in the hope of a more robust effect. One might say, this would increase the risk of side effects, thus slowing down the makers. But see, this might also HELP Moderna and AstraZeneca, if given the ref flak raised by the Chinese, they end up increasing doses and ending up with a MORE efficacious vaccine. How would the Chinese calculate if the effect of this small study would be positive or negative on Moderna's and AstraZeneca's efforts??? Too many variables that they wouldn't be able to control. Besides, if they wanted to really derail Moderna and AstraZeneca, the way to go would be different: if they started falsely claiming the emergence of a totally different, mutated strain of the virus. THAT could give Moderna and AstraZeneca pause, because they might want to use that genetic information to make a bi-valent vaccine, start trying to negotiate with the Chinese to get the info while pausing their production in the hope of incorporating the new strain (which would not exist, the Chinese would stall, etc., meanwhile Sinovac would be plowing ahead...). Well that would work for a while but not forever, because they'd have to show evidence of the new strain, and if they didn't, then the Western vaccine makers would likely eventually call their bluff. But I mean, if the goal here were to delay Moderna and AstraZeneca, they'd accomplish it much more by claiming a dangerous mutation, than by saying that IgG antibody titres drop 2-3 months after recovery.
Could you be thinking that it is because asymptomatic people getting a smaller immune response would give to China the excuse to say "they went undetected, it's not our fault if they spread"? No, because these are antibody studies, not antigen studies. The PCR test which is an antigen test is the one that catches infected people when they are still contagious. Antibody tests are for the aftermath, so this study wouldn't deliver this angle, at all.
Frankly, and I'm being very honest here, I don't see what the political agenda would be to falsely say (as you contend) that IgG antibodies drop after 2 to 3 months after someone recovers from COVID-19. Seriously, if I'm not seeing it, maybe I *am* clueless, but then, please help me out. What do you think the reason might be? I'm open to considering your idea, and if I find it to be compelling, like I've done over and over since I joined this site, I'll say "good point."
_________________________
Please take COVID-19 seriously; don't panic but don't deny it; practice social distancing (stay 6ft from people); wear a mask, wash your hands a lot, don't touch your face, don't gather with too many people, so that you help us contain it.
Countryboy, I made several hypotheses about what their bias might have been, what could explain it, and asked for your help to find out (said "maybe you have a point"). Said I want to consider your idea. So, read it, please. It's not that long. It's longish because I tried to put a lot of thought into what you said, that is, I'm respecting your take and trying to figure it out (especially in that long middle paragraph). But if you choose to simply ignore what I'm saying and not read it, then we won't reach a conclusion.
_________________________
Please take COVID-19 seriously; don't panic but don't deny it; practice social distancing (stay 6ft from people); wear a mask, wash your hands a lot, don't touch your face, don't gather with too many people, so that you help us contain it.