WTF?

You've got to be kidding me. Is this some kind of joke? Or a pathetic troll?

You've made over a dozen comments in other discussions since my reply over a fucking day ago, and now you come back here with more of the same idiotic bullshit? Do you understand what it means to be "a day late and a dollar short"? Are you trying to get your fucking picture published next to the definition of that idiom?

My friend, I don't want to argue ANYTHING with you. I've made my points crystal clear. If you're unable to comprehend what I've written, too damn bad. That's entirely on you.

Fortunately for you this discussion is dead, so there's no one left here to watch you acting like a stupid cunt, posting yet another ridiculous "it's true because I say so" comment.

You can fuck right off. Go troll somewhere else, LOSER.

Another non-answer to my very simple question. I guess that's all you've got.

Have a nice day.

That in no way answers the question I asked.

The mRNA vaccines unquestionably cause an immune response that produces COVID virus antibodies in those vaccinated. That really isn't up for debate. Yet you claim that a vaccine which produces COVID antibodies in a patient does not convey immunity?

What is different about the immune response produced by say, the J&J vaccine that uses traditional technology, as opposed to the immune response produced by the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine? How does one convey immunity, but the other doesn't? "Lack of research" is not really an answer.

The Cambridge study I cited showed a single dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine reduced asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections by 75%. By what mechanism is transmission not also reduced? The citation I provided says the following:

That sounds to me like an actual scientist working in the field at a prestigious institution is saying COVID transmission is reduced with the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. The Israeli study basically says the same thing.

No extensive testing? The Cambridge study performed over 10,000 tests on some 5,000 healthcare workers. Look, if you're not going to even look at the citations I provided, I'm not inclined to continue this discussion.

IMO, posting things like "It bears noting that with the mRNA vaccine, you can still entirely spread it to other people asymptomatically if you are exposed to it" is irresponsible. By your own admission there is not enough data to reach such a conclusion.

And when you single out mRNA vaccines while there is even less observational data for vaccines using other technologies, vaccines whose Phase III trials showed lower efficacy than the mRNA vaccines, I really have to wonder what's going on here.

Incorrect.

"Compared with a SARS-CoV-2 infection rate of 74 per 10000 person-days in unvaccinated HCWs, infection rates were 55 per 10000 person-days and 30 per 10000 person-days on days 1–14 and 15-28 after the first dose of the vaccine, respectively. Adjusted rate reductions of SARS-CoV-2 infections were 30% (95% CI 2–50) and 75% (72–84) for days 1–14 and days 15–28 after the first dose, respectively"

There's a study out of Cambridge showing a strong likelihood that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine reduces asymptomatic transmission:

“New data from Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge suggests that a single dose of the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine can reduce by 75% the number of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections. This implies that the vaccine could significantly reduce the risk of transmission of the virus from people who are asymptomatic, as well as protecting others from getting ill.”

Then there's this expert, who says:

“The experts are saying that the vaccines do not reduce transmission, but that is an inaccurate statement,” Gandhi says. “Vaccines have always decreased transmission. What they should be saying is that the clinical trials were not designed to test for asymptomatic infection, but there is every biological reason in the world to believe that they will reduce asymptomatic transmission.”

There has been enough time for at least two observational studies on the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine to have been conducted and published. They both show reduced transmission or very likely reduced transmission. Just like vaccines have done in the past.

What is your basis for this statement? My understanding is that the test of whether or not a vaccine confers immunity is the presence of viral antibodies in those vaccinated. The mRNA vaccines absolutely do elicit an immune response that creates COVID antibodies, just like the inactivated/attenuated virus vaccines. I actually got an antibody test about 10 days after recieving my first dose of the Pfizer vaccine, and it came back positive. What is your definition of "convey immunity" that doesn't apply to mRNA vaccines, but does apply to other vaccine technologies?

LOL, you think "illegal" means you can't get weed in Texas? Weed is literally everywhere in the metro areas, especially in Austin.

"Wildly illegal"? Every major city in Texas including Austin is "cite and release" for minor marijuana possession.

I could walk out of a downtown Austin hotel and find pot within 30 minutes. If "most techies are potheads", there is *plenty* of weed available in Austin, and the APD generally looks the other way unless you're selling a bale of it out of your pickup in public.

I don't recall saying anything about anybody going to jail, and Austin isn't the only jurisdiction in Texas that does cite and release. Dallas, Houston and San Antonio also use the practice..

No, Williamson County also has a cite and release policy for minor marijuana possession.

The vast majority of LEOs in Texas do not check THC levels for misdemeanor possession of marijuana. In fact, no Texas state crime lab will test suspected marijuana in low-level cases.

Once again, no. Cite and release policies require the confiscation of marijuana for any citation issued. The citation sets a court date, and the weed is evidence in the case. Now, an individual policeman may decide not to issue a citation and dump the weed on the ground (or keep it for himself) because he doesn't want to hassle someone, but if a citation gets issued, the weed is confiscated.

Your information is way out of date, or you're getting it from a bad source.

Austin is one of the hardest places in the country to avoid smoking pot.

LOL!

As I said: I'm looking for something besides "take my word for it".

Your claim is "The original goal of BioNTech was: an anti corona vaccine." Apparently, you expect people to believe that a company founded by pure cancer researchers was created to focus on coronaviruses instead of cancer. I find that claim rather extraordinary. Do you know what extraordinary claims require? (hint: they require something you haven't provided)

Given the multiple published statements from BioNTech itself that directly refute your claim, I'm going to go with what they say instead of what you say.

On the other hand, if you can post *actual evidence* supporting your claim, I'll be more than happy to consider it.

But If you want to continue posting "It is so because I say it is so", go right ahead. FYI, that argument is not considered very convincing among the users here, especially when used to support an extraordinary claim and especially when it's repeated over and over.

Here is the BioNTech website section on COVID-19. Funny, I was wondering why a company whose original goal was "anti corona vaccines" makes absolutely no mention of it anywhere in their COVID section. Or anywhere else on their site that I can find.

I would expect a company that was founded expressly for producing corona vaccines, who now has such a vaccine on the market, would be shouting to the rooftops about their long experience in that specific area. But they aren't. Are you really asking people to believe that BioNTech changes their story "depending on who is asking" for some reason? What reason would that be?

Here is the earliest snapshot of biontech.de I could pull up on archive.org, from August of 2014. I find absolutely no mention of corona viruses anywhere. In the "History" section of the snapshot there's a milestone timetable, and it's all about cancer/tumors.

When I ask people on Slashdot for evidence, like most others here I'm looking for something besides "take my word for it". Since that appears to be all you're offering, I will bid you adieu.

Sorry, borked the link for "On BioNTech's "Science" [biontech.de] website page". Should be

https://biontech.de/science/individualized-cancer-medicine

According to BioNTech's SEC filing:

"BioNTech was founded in 2008 on the understanding that every cancer patient’s tumor is unique and that in order to effectively address this challenge, we must create individualized treatments for each patient."

On BioNTech's "Our Vision" website page, the first text you come across is:

"We aspire to individualize cancer medicine"

On BioNTech's "Science" website page, the first text you come across is:

"We aspire to individualize cancer medicine"

...along with a quote from BioNTech's CEO:

"When we started BioNTech in 2008 we asked ourselves a fundamental question – if every patient’s tumor is unique, why do we treat all patients the same? We saw immense potential in leveraging a tumor’s unique profile to enable the patient’s immune system to locate and target the specific cancer cells and engage to attack the tumor. We founded BioNTech to advance and develop key technologies and bring together the right people to realize our vision for the future of cancer medicine. "

Wikipedia says:

"BioNTech was founded in 2008 based on research by Uur ahin, Özlem Türeci,[10] and Christoph Huber,[11][citation needed] with a seed investment of €150 million. The company's activities focus on the development and production of technologies and drugs for individualized cancer immunotherapy. "

I can't find anything that says BioNTech was even looking at coronaviruses when it was founded. What is your evidence that "The original goal of BioNTech was: an anti corona vaccine"?

LOL! Only 2100 rated? I have a 0 rating, but I do know one thing. If you have a 2100 rating, you are probably in >95th percentile of players.

But as a novice player, I do have to question the wisdom of giving up your ability to castle on your second move. Seems pretty dumb, but what do I know?

So in your estimation, what would be the worst opening in chess?

FTFY

Jesus Fucking Christ. Can you read? Do you understand simple English? For the last time, I have made ZERO analogies. I have made ZERO comparisons. In fact, I've said the exact fucking opposite:

I'm not aware of any power outage in California history that affected more customers for a longer period than what happened in Texas. The comparison between the two is ludicrous.

So what is it with you? Are you drunk? High? Schizophrenic? All of the above? What's your excuse for these persistent hallucinations?

LOL, you've shown no evidence of thinking at all - so that takes care of 1 and 2. As far as 3 goes, nothing I've said has anything to do with politics. I guess 3 is just another one of your hallucinations. You really should have those checked out.

For that to be true, you have to believe that high winds don't count as weather. Such an idiotic belief is hardly surprising coming from someone who

1) thinks an anecdote about a sparking transformer in Redmond is relevant to a discussion about the grid in California.
2) repeatedly claims comparisons/analogies are being made where none exist.
3) repeatedly claims "gaslighting" tactics are being used where none exist.
4) makes the ridiculous statement that the core cause of PSPUs isn't relevant.
5) claims his "logic" trumps statements made by the largest electric utilities in the country.
6) suffers from hallucinations.
7) can't read or understand simple English.

Not gonna happen. I'm done wasting my time with you. I'll go with what PG&E, SoCalEdison and the CPUC say, rather than what an ignorant, mentally ill internet crackpot says.

Uh huh. So you've got nothing. Nothing other than "because I say so".

Again, here's what PG&E says:

We monitor the below weather factors to decide whether a PSPS is needed to keep communities safe. Although you may not live or work in a high fire-threat area or an area experiencing high winds, your power may be shut off if your community relies on a line that runs through an area that does.

Again, here's what you say:

If you can't see the glaringly obvious conflict between what you say and what the largest utility in the US is saying, there is clearly something very wrong with you.

You don't know what you're talking about. Rolling blackouts are completely different than Public Safety Power Shutoffs. Rolling blackouts are instituted when the grid can't meet demand, and occur relatively briefly across changing areas of the grid. Public Safety Power Shutoffs occur in specific areas of the grid affected by weather, and remain in place until the weather event has passed. It's really not worth my time to debate someone who's unable to grasp these basic concepts.

DamnOregonian: [clasps hands to ears] Gaslighting! Gaslighting!! Gaslighting!!!

I won't waste the keystrokes pointing you to definitions of "gaslighting". People like you are impervious to facts that conflict with your settled ideas.

High winds combined with hot, dry weather are what causes power to be shut off in California preemptively. The transmission infrastructure in parts of California isn't capable of withstanding the high winds, resulting in compromised lines that can spark wildfires.

Here is what Pacific Gas & Electric says about Public Safety Power Shutoffs:

A Public Safety Power Shutoff, also called a PSPS, occurs in response to severe weather. We turn off power to help prevent wildfire and keep communities safe.

Here is what Southern California Edison says about Public Safety Power Shutoffs:

Powering Off for Wildfire Safety
When there are potentially dangerous weather conditions in fire-prone areas, we may need to call a PSPS event. During these events, we will proactively turn off power in high fire risk areas to reduce the threat of wildfires.

Other components of the CA grid can fail when stressed and can cause fires as well.

The blackout "business decision" you speak of is entirely weather driven. This is not rocket science.

Nice anecdote about a transformer in the city of Redmond, but I'm talking about the grid in the state of California, responding to a comment you made about the grid in California. Talk about comparing apples to tomatoes.

Unlike you, I haven't compared anything. Not one single thing. Perhaps you mistakenly believe I agree with some or all of what the guy you responded to said. I don't. In fact, I'm not aware of any power outage in California history that affected more customers for a longer period than what happened in Texas. The comparison between the two is ludicrous. Not quite as ludicrous as comparing a transformer in Redmond to the entire California grid, but ludicrous nonetheless.

The viewpoint I'm "pushing" is that hot, dry, windy weather is the reason California power providers preemptively blackout areas where those conditions exist, and my viewpoint is also "pushed" by the major California power providers. When electric providers in CA preemptively shut off power, what is it you think causes those decisions to be made? They say it's the weather:

How a PSPS is determined

We monitor the below weather factors to decide whether a PSPS is needed to keep communities safe. Although you may not live or work in a high fire-threat area or an area experiencing high winds, your power may be shut off if your community relies on a line that runs through an area that does.

Red Flag Warning
A warning declared by the National Weather Service that weather conditions could lead to fire and rapid spread.

Low Humidity
20% or lower humidity. Low humidity creates dry vegetation, which fuel fire.

High Winds
Sustained wind speeds above 25 MPH and wind gusts above 45 MPH can cause fire to spread.

PG&E Observations
On-the-ground findings from PG&E crews.

You're viewpoint seems to be the power shutdowns are not because the CA grid can't handle weather conditions. Well, if it's not the weather, what the hell is it?

You clearly don't know the meaning of the term "gaslight". All I've done is challenge a statement you made. Sorry, that's not gaslighting.

Look, I've given you several sources backing up my statements. Do you have anything, anything at all to back up yours? Or is "you're an idiot" the most intellectually rigorous argument you've got?