The virus itself is airborne - comes out with breathing. Better to imagine it like the air is water that is saturated with particles near an infected person (during a seasonal wave when viral loads all go higher at once and the virus hits "critical mass" so to speak), imo.
You mentioned cytokine storm initiated by that mechanism and I wondered why there was a very strange signal in UK Zoe App Symptoms tracker for users.
The Single Dosed folks suppressed every single symptom compared to the unvaccinated except two which was higher than unvaccinated: Sneezing and Shortness of Breath.
I think you might be on to something. I have my own intuition, but I know too little about immunology to make any inference.
I did notice that when we sleep, and we have a persistent source of something that the body considers a toxin (say a fan drying up your nasal airway enough to allow viral replication to start) then it will literally block the nostril completely to the point were we can't even breath but it won't wake us up or sneeze etc.
Circling back to Mucosal immunity, I have this intuition that getting any kind of immune recognition of progressive pathogenesis of Covid infection couldn't possibly be dismissed a-priori as negative. In fact, I think it's the most important thing we are missing, and you suggested that a spike protein exposure has more downside than up. I do think it could have downside but I do not know for sure how if we don't even know if this kind exposure happens at all.
For example: I'm convinced but happy to be proven wrong, that the transmission between two vaccinated persons in cohabitation will be higher, and multifold higher if what I think about mucusal immunity is right. I wouldn't happen as often between two unvaccinated and would be highest between partially vaccinated and fully vaccinated. I can't prove this, but I think some data does exist but is censored. Dutch study about transmission between people by vaccination status.
I'm curious why you think it's not desirable to have mucosal immunity in terms of slowing down evolution of the virus which can't be measured exactly but would result in fewer infections in my view.
If they contribute to "sterilizing" immunity, then yes. In simplistic Darwinian logic anything that is a cataclysm is a bottleneck that selects for only the member of the swarm that has the genetic solution.
How much "sneeze juice" do you normally drink in a given day? Personally I've never noticed a correlation between proximity to sneezing and coughing people and whether I get sick.
Google says no.
What do you think it means, in terms of inference we could draw about involvement of infection blocking or infection attack rates?
The sneezing? I don't think sneezing has a prominent role in spreading respiratory viruses...
Isn't coughing more efficient and aerodynamic?
The virus itself is airborne - comes out with breathing. Better to imagine it like the air is water that is saturated with particles near an infected person (during a seasonal wave when viral loads all go higher at once and the virus hits "critical mass" so to speak), imo.
You mentioned cytokine storm initiated by that mechanism and I wondered why there was a very strange signal in UK Zoe App Symptoms tracker for users.
The Single Dosed folks suppressed every single symptom compared to the unvaccinated except two which was higher than unvaccinated: Sneezing and Shortness of Breath.
I think you might be on to something. I have my own intuition, but I know too little about immunology to make any inference.
I did notice that when we sleep, and we have a persistent source of something that the body considers a toxin (say a fan drying up your nasal airway enough to allow viral replication to start) then it will literally block the nostril completely to the point were we can't even breath but it won't wake us up or sneeze etc.
Circling back to Mucosal immunity, I have this intuition that getting any kind of immune recognition of progressive pathogenesis of Covid infection couldn't possibly be dismissed a-priori as negative. In fact, I think it's the most important thing we are missing, and you suggested that a spike protein exposure has more downside than up. I do think it could have downside but I do not know for sure how if we don't even know if this kind exposure happens at all.
For example: I'm convinced but happy to be proven wrong, that the transmission between two vaccinated persons in cohabitation will be higher, and multifold higher if what I think about mucusal immunity is right. I wouldn't happen as often between two unvaccinated and would be highest between partially vaccinated and fully vaccinated. I can't prove this, but I think some data does exist but is censored. Dutch study about transmission between people by vaccination status.
I'm curious why you think it's not desirable to have mucosal immunity in terms of slowing down evolution of the virus which can't be measured exactly but would result in fewer infections in my view.
You slow down evolution by not creating bottlenecks. Anti-spike antibodies are a bottleneck; natural immunity lets them wane.
Anti-spike antibodies anywhere are a bottleneck?
If they contribute to "sterilizing" immunity, then yes. In simplistic Darwinian logic anything that is a cataclysm is a bottleneck that selects for only the member of the swarm that has the genetic solution.
Source for the UK Breakthrough symptoms study. https://els-jbs-prod-cdn.jbs.elsevierhealth.com/cms/attachment/034a93f2-63c4-4467-8b40-0b1fec881dec/gr4.jpg
There seems to be a flaw in that statement. I just can't quite put my finger on it. Give me a minute....ЁЯШЫ
How much "sneeze juice" do you normally drink in a given day? Personally I've never noticed a correlation between proximity to sneezing and coughing people and whether I get sick.