SirBillybob

Getting somewhere, maybe. It’s conceivable based on these metrics that many folks have accurately assessed their infection history. The basis of information for known yes/no infection incidence to date is based on lab measurable markers among subpopulations tested for those markers within immunity task force projects, eg blood donors, and extrapolated to genpop. Isolation is relative as its own state as well as in a context of other protective measures. It is one component of exposure risk. Pure chance is a major determinant. For a population single-infection history of 850,000 within one million persons over 4 years the estimate of 2-week contagion within interaction is 1%, 8500. You can estimate exposure risk from that. Non-exposure is 99%, as it is the pool from which infection could not occur. Over 4 years, a single-infection transmission potential from an infected person to a virus-free person is roughly 1%. Let’s assess the interaction exposure that yields a 15% chance of infection evasion. The number of unprotected single-event person interactions irrespective of closeness, intimacy level, etc, that nevertheless results in a 15% probability of non-exposure simply because infection and its transmission is impossible due to no pathogen present is approximately 189, minimally, a higher number in fact when accounting for one in seven persons within the total pool having not been capable of transmission because they never acquired infection. A lot of random or planned encounters could occur in Ozarks or wherever without incurring infection. That is why some of us were spared infection for a lengthy or total period of pandemic time while retired from lighthouse-keeping and canoodling with objects of affection.

At some point in the future the claim that most people from 2020 on caught SARS-CoV-2 will be an assertion more valid than currently. Perhaps the non-infected to date gap will close more rapidly if incidence patterns surge going forward. It will be as relevant as the question of how many folks have had a common cold.

I have referred to both the population proportions having caught the virus and the science that grounds the reality that a substantial minority, irrespective of regional population density and breadth of human interaction, did not catch it. There was never a good reason to suggest that the few older persons upthread misconstrued their history of not having been infected. They are not particularly outlier cases. The virus does leave measurable biological footprints; in fact, that has been central to related vaccine research that excluded volunteers based on such a scientific marker in order to eliminate outcome bias. I fail to understand why you insist on refuting that reality.

Well, no. Asymptomatic infection and whatever natural immunity results is an occurrence in a minority of the total infected population. The only reason it is of clinical significance is that protective measures within a background of higher community incidence should account for exposure risk that is not overtly manifest. And a proportion of non-vaccinated persons with an inaccurate assumption of previous natural immunity will incur greater morbidity as a result of previously held false belief. There is otherwise little significance at the level of disease immunity because the vast majority have natural, artificial, or hybrid immunity, all of which are unsustainable in the longterm because the virus mutates and re-infects. There exist clinical markers of infection that is symptomatic or not. There exist clinical markers that differentiate both infection immunity and hybrid immunity from vaccine induced artificial immunity alone. There is understandably a relation between having had asymptomatic infection and assuming historical non-infection. Of the approximately 20% with historical asymptomatic infection that have second-guessed infection history (and natural but likely timing-out immunity if infected), according to a combination of spidey-sense and the factor of actual community rates of historical infection to date that have been estimated at 80-85%, then a percentage inevitably less than 20% have misidentified their infection history one way or another. OK, let’s say then, favouring an overestimate of population infection to date, in keeping with your assertion of a vast majority having been infected, that 100,000 with asymptomatic infection history within a community of one million have incorrectly discounted the reality of true infection history. Why actually bother to attempt to disabuse them of a false notion, as in “Oh, you don’t know it but you have actually been infected”? Other possibilities exist, including “You don’t it but you think you were infected but weren’t”, or “Your assumption of non-infection is correct”. The subgroup absolute numbers for each scenario are quite high and no assumption can legitimately take precedence. At this higher estimate of genpop infection history there will still be a proportion, in the thousands, that could be swayed into falsely assuming a history of infection because the science has been misrepresented. How do the implications of such a narrative lean? How avoid the unforced error of unintended maleficence? The best theoretical assumption scenario is for everybody to believe that they are vulnerable to infection. If you had to choose an assumption binary, such as nobody was infected versus everybody was infected, the former would be more responsible. Because past infection is not durably protective, there is no point asserting to your neighbour their infection history actually occurred yet is denied, the reason being that a person falsely assuming infection history is potentially vulnerable in a particular way, for example, bypassing vaccination. In contrast, a person assuming that infection was evaded when it actually occurred is not subject to the same level of harmful consequences in the longer term; the liability was transmission during unknown contagion. In fact, older persons are less inclined to have asymptomatic infection. Therefore, the coherence between their assumption of non-infection history and actual genpop infection rates to date, with measurable nucleocapsid antibody seroprevalence, and with transient natural immunity is much greater. In sum, there is often no discernible benefit for one to assert that they are on to something that might be of interest to another for whom the idea didn’t occur and it suffers from misguided logic deficiency in the first place.

Ha. Authorized as of today. Novavax 2024-2025 Formula COVID-19 Vaccine Now Authorized and Recommended for Use in the U.S. - Aug 30, 2024 IR.NOVAVAX.COM Novavax expects pre-filled syringes will be broadly available in thousands of locations across the U.S. Novavax's...

Actually reasonably likely (about 20% across all our regions) no exposure as it would elicit nucleocapsid antibodies. Canada continues statistically representative infection seroprevalence surveillance through an immunity task force. It’s a common misconception that only a small minority have escaped infection. Contagion is but one factor. I myself did suck and fuck for 40 months with Lady Luck 🍀 hovering but acquired infection with incidence at a nadir.

It’s likely your history is exclusively mRNA uptake: homologous dosing. Mine is heterologous as I’ve had both mRNA and protein subunit formulations, reverse order compared to most. Non-mRNA from the outset. However, I always want to know if there’s a bit of an edge, though don’t get too wrapped up in it, and now possess the added factor of capital H hybrid immunity having caught moderately severe COVID prior to my next upcoming vaccine dose. The latest meta-analysis available suggests no benefit either way across key outcomes. Temporality/duration of protection is virtually impossible to compare for logistic reasons. Novavax’ Nuvaxovid formulations are mostly a subjective preference. My protein subunit intake was associated with bedridden level reaction no less than with Comirnaty or Spikevax. I’m not adamant currently about cross-platform vaccine consumption. I’ll shoulder first one out of the gate. I think at this point the FDA (and Health Canada also dragging, etc) review's Nuvaxovid, albeit slowly, and approves it to accommodate mRNA refuseniks, or recipients that may have a true or anticipated contraindication. Products are now reviewed according to preclinical and indirect clinical data with efficacy metrics relatively absent and resting on laurels. Heterologous versus homologous COVID-19 booster vaccinations for adults: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials | BMC Medicine | Full Text BMCMEDICINE.BIOMEDCENTRAL.COM Background To combat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), booster vaccination strategies are important...

It’s only duplicitous if the insinuation to all johnsons wilton is not grasped.

That had better not be rushed, but be accompanied by approximately 25%, or 3-4 additional post-inflation denouement pelvic contractions.

In which case you or he more than likely were vigorously sloshing around and spraying fine queefy droplet mists of contaminants up into your face ping-pong stage show-grade that otherwise would have eventually ended up in wastewater pathogen surveillance lab test tubes. The average doggie knows there’s no bargaining with a virus or worm. Pass him the hazmat suit either side of the glory hole.

I think my own extreme resistance to laughing with is set up externally, while any and all resistance to laughing at is long lost.

Actually, there is lacking evidence of the prophylactic value of a follow-up 3rd Mpox vaccination because there is insufficient current incidence of Clade IIb to determine whether greater protection would be conferred by an additional dose. A two-year follow-up booster dose is offered in Canada to lab workers at high risk of orthopox occupational exposure. This is based on evidence of waning humoral immunity and the idea that boosting may be restorative for antibody levels. The number of vaccinated GBMSM at risk for current MPox exposure some years on may actually exceed the occupational exposure protected class. It is hoped that cell-mediated immunity compensates for humoral immunity decay.

I didn’t use +1 agree because the first part is not accurate in its finality and the second 2-dose part is also not accurate in the context of historical vaccinia inoculation. However, the simplest guidance is two Mpox vaccinations using MVA-BN, 3rd generation orthopox vaccine, because the association between humoral immunity (antibody titres from MVA-BN, whether historically primed or not by vaccinia that had eradicated Smallpox) and Mpox protection is not established. However, yes, you received Mpox vaccination if you took Jynneos, Imvamune, or Imnavex from 2022 on. Smallpox protection is moot short of a reverse time travel pod. MVA-BN theoretically provides real life protection against a disease that no longer exists, but is authorized for a possible eventual emergence of it. It is essentially a back-up contingency for Smallpox and its effectiveness would only be assessable if Smallpox incidence swung back. It has been used for uptake among lab workers potentially exposed to the broader orthopox virus class. In fact, the parent product, MVA, was briefly considered as a Smallpox pre-vaccine aimed at attenuating the toxicity of earlier generation vaccination but didn’t get off the ground. All we really know is that if Smallpox (variola virus) re-emerged then MVA-BN would probably be protective along with fewer adverse events. Current research differentiates between Smallpox vaccination and Mpox vaccination because antibody titres against Mpox are the important thing. For decades, the interest has been developing vaccination for outbreaks of Mpox, formerly Monkeypox but name-changed due to lack of specificity of primates as the sole disease-vector mammals to which zoonotic transmission is attributable.

On that note, you literally went and told it on the mountain.

I think of limerence or cathexis as a change in condition as much biochemical as cognitive, but neither in arbitrary sequence or necessarily with a central feature of abandonment fear because these psychological states can occur in neutral interactive contexts. The state or term is moot in a way because its existence and quality is no guarantee of a good outcome. The question is one of capacity to experience a sufficient degree of being just overwhelmed enough as opposed to nonchalance. Indifference could be absolute absence of interest, or suppression of interest (in fact either feigned or alternatively successfully shut down) that might otherwise flourish if reciprocated.

Yes, I understand the distinction. However, both have been referenced on a gradient from extreme at one end to simply the messy glue that bonds initially and not necessarily pathologically. The boiling bunny rabbit on the stove won’t quibble about it bring collateral cathected or limerenced damage. Not gonna split hares. 😉

Try to get ahold of this chapter. I found long ago that it contained some interesting insights on how limerence can be overly activated for various functional psychological reasons, on the one hand, or on the other hand suppressed for similar adaptive reasons. It won’t solve a problem necessarily but a lot of people find the ideas relatable. Don’t get caught up in the ‘sexual desire’ labelling; that part is simply illustrative within the context of mismatched desire in primary attachment relationships.

To coin the term falling in love, infatuation etc for want of better descriptors, even limerence may hinge on more than the most fleeting and minimalist of encounters, however plentiful in quantity of new ones. I’m just not sure what the relative contribution to the ejection seat pattern is here. You suggest that you are comparatively subject to being let go? Not sure.

I wonder if somehow the raw material that would aid in determining your true attachment style is somehow paradoxically inaccessible to you in spite of the high volume of introductory interaction.

OP, it seems that nobody has added any new suggestion that you hadn’t already considered or that even the most basically skilled therapist wouldn’t have already covered. In fact, your responses may represent a parallel to the core dynamics : as if that’s sweet of you and I can engage with any input, you add politely, but that’s not the one key idea that could help yet I appreciate it and all but still a mismatch etc. I am not suggesting contrarianism but simply lack of fit of opinion, as mine might also be inadequate. I have tried to extract your central inquiry about your potential. I think it may be whether limerence is possible for you, the state of ‘vapours’ for want of a better term, a pronounced activation of desire for a specific person that persists long enough to build substantial sustainable multidimensional connectivity when the initial but superficial spark naturally fades and morphs into meaningful BF territory or more. You insinuated, though I cannot be sure, that nobody evocative of limerence in you has yet to be subject to its activation in them by you. So it appears that you have an idiosyncratic lack of inclination to limerence (I wasn’t sure whether in principle you are cynical about this human characteristic or pessimistic based on experience to date) or that the two it takes to tango has yet to occur. Essentially, then, have you been excited about any one fellow that did not reciprocate? Then it’s more a matter of kissing more frogs. Alternatively, you may not have the temperament for a lasting romantic connection and the additive value of sequential encounters may be the model you are working with and could be meaningful in its own way if not the ideal.

This topic has the gravity of the ISS, where it has no gravity. If you stink in space can anybody smell it?

Madrid airport is screening for Mpox from Clade I endemic areas. Thailand border control, a bit oddly, has confirmed a single Clade I case and launched flight contact tracing with respect to a European traveller that had been in Africa, yet has mapped ‘high risk’ foreign nationals entering as subject to screening according to the list of about 45 countries for which it requires Yellow Fever vaccination for entrants. This could also mean a traveller not from a YF high risk nation but having recently been in transit. However, there seems to be no scientific basis for the broadening of screening foreign nationals from select South and Central America nations. Also a few more Asian nations initiating arrival screening.

There are a few post-peak reviews of MVA-BN effectiveness, but any article that suggests the benefits of older age is always welcome in my books. Interestingly, a single recent dose among Vaccinia-experienced was just as good as two doses for immune antibody response temporal waning in this small sample, as Bavarian Nordic had already indicated two years ago. I went and received my second dose latently yesterday anyway, due to upcoming travel, screening that could evolve due to possible Clade I seepage globally, and the possible benefit of recorded doses in one’s immunization booklet. I wouldn’t go as far as blithely broadcasting uptake history to any border control agent, however, due to possible overreactive stigmatizing. In a scenario of being detained due to unrelated but elevated body temperature it might come in handy. Study reveals waning antibody response to monkeypox vaccine over time WWW.NEWS-MEDICAL.NET New research to be presented at this year's European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases...

Geez! Thanks for the Emily post, Governess. Yes it would be rude and dismissive but that is not the playbook I described. It would be superfluous, and silly in fact as being unnecessarily pre-emptive, to indicate intent to ‘play the field’ prior to the question of private dance coming up. I would have to disown you if witnessing such.😉 Did I indicate abruptly truncating social chit-chat following a few seconds post-greeting? No. These chats may evolve for several minutes duration prior to politely extricating myself. It’s all in the balance of social discourse while not impeding his chances for other prospective employers. I don’t stratify according to private potential versus outright snubbable. My agenda is to be selectively financially deprivational while leaving egos intact. If anything, at times the dancer may seem a little surprised at my attentive borderline flirty ‘betiquette’ where I wasn’t the best bet after all, followed by my gentle migration away into the maddening crowd. I appreciate the laugh, though. I assume you’ve worked the room at a cocktail party but not said ‘well, I’m going to see who else here is worth my attention’, if not intersected with corridors of manned conference booths or speed-dating venues. LOL

A mixologist after our own hearts.