knehrke

I suspect that much of what we think we know now about the vaccine, we learned over the past eight months. Short term studies with small cohorts of people rarely provide a full picture, and often miss effects that are constrained to select populations. Unfortunately, the situation was bad enough that long term efficacy wasn't the primary goal, just a safety profile and short term protection - but I'm reasonably sure that the uncertainty over how long immunity would persist was conveyed loud and clear from the beginning, so the booster push should not come as a surprise. The flu shot is a vaccine, but requires a new shot every year. Perhaps this will become the norm for COVID? I just don't know. I'm not convinced myself yet by the data on boosters, but I can tell you that the number of breakthrough cases among the population that was vaccinated back in January is substantial. I can also tell you that I'd rather acquire protection, albeit incomplete, from a vaccine than from the disease itself, regardless of persistence. As the numbers evolve the secondary consequences of infection seem IMHO to far outweigh those of the jab. I will freely admit that the data is accumulating so fast now that even an expert has trouble staying on top of it, and I'm no expert in either vaccine biology or immunology. The tidal wave of papers on pre-publication servers, which haven't undergone peer-review, make it very difficult to separate the wheat from the chafe, and everyone engages in confirmation bias by cherry picking the data. I certainly don't trust pencil pushers to be able to decipher the emerging issues, but it seems that the public has lost trust in scientists, and perhaps with cause given the poor communication and emphasis on consistency of the message trumping accuracy during the worst of the pandemic. I wish there were clear answers - I am in the same boat as everybody here, trying to figure out what's best for me and mine. But Alaska rocked, and two weeks removed from the daily grind has given me renewed hope. For today at least.

Great example of how name calling degenerates into mistaking even potential allies for enemies. Good thread, though lol.

We have endowed lectures that allow us to bring in some big names to talk, and the family of the person who the lecture is named after is invited and acknowledged prior to the presentation. This is as it should be, in perpetuity. I'd contact the selection committee and ask whether they conveyed the donor's information to the student. In fact, the scholarship should be awarded in your (or your designee's) name. IMHO, your generosity should be acknowledged by the institution at the very least, every single year.

Try tying your lifeline to the bottom of the stand - it makes moving the prusik hitch up as you climb MUCH easier (but does also prevent you from using the safety line as a bow haul). I generally carry my bow on my back as I climb, and all our our stands have cord for lifting your bow up anyway. I'm not sure that I saw anyone mention the Millennium L110 yet, but it is the Cadillac of ladder stands. Pricey at ~$329 shipped, but we've had several in place for a decade with almost zero signs of wear. And at 22' tall, without needing a stabilizer bar, they are simply outstanding for remaining above a deer's awareness. Regardless, I'd suggest at least 17' tall with a platform that extends all the way to the tree and a flip up seat as being a minimum for a bowhunting ladder. The Muddy Bowman Pro has done well for us, as well. Finally, don't forget to check all your ladders annually for strap safety. They're as prone to mishap as hang-on stands, but for some reason often get ignored more frequently.

Sorry, been off the grid for the past four days. I don't have any authority whatsoever to be able to address your question, unfortunately, being a gene jockey by trade rather than an infectious diseases guy. I know just enough to be dangerous lol. Good question though - anybody have an answer?

Good point - absolutely differences in transmission (I know that we never touch dead prairie dogs after a round of shooting out west). I'd never heard the viral theory for Black Plague before, but I'm going to read about it when I have a chance. As for bacterial vaccines, there are a few, but this isn't my area of expertise. I think maybe diptheria? And I recall that they can use killed bacteria, but that would seem to be dicey to me, since LPS or lipopolysaccharide is a component of bacterial cell walls used to induce inflammation in the absence of infection in many classic models. No worries on pulling me away from the mountains of Alaska. The body can only take so much lol.

Okay, I managed to get a connection to watch the video. Lots of fast talking and words that sound like science. But you can always find published evidence to support controversial positions. That means nothing. It's weighing competing evidence for rigor and reproducibility that differentiates the scientific method. Doctors can cherry-pick as easily as anybody. I don't disagree with some of what he said. Vaccines don't prevent infection. But heck, antibiotics don't prevent infection either. In general, modern medicine is reactive rather than prophylactic. And antibody dependent enhancement is a real thing that's being monitored closely with the COVID vaccines, but thus far has not been a factor for concern. Vaccines have great value in reducing transmission rates and disease severity, and that's where he seems to be at odds with the consensus, but there is always room for improving our understanding of systems physiology. It seems to me like he's throwing the baby out with the bathwater though. I will point out with respect to animal reservoirs that the Black Plague still exists in rodents, but somehow we manage to survive. Not all animal reservoirs are relevant. Ferrets can get COVID. I don't know whether they can spread it to humans. But I don't interact with ferrets much. I don't know the complete species profile, so I'll refrain from making further commentary. Time to hike. In short, I think that the doctor's opinion is not quite as clear cut as he'd have you believe...sorry for my rambling this morning. It's been a long, wet week with another on the way.

Sorry for the late response. I'm in Alaska with zero connectivity most of the time, out in the wilds climbing and fishing. I can't see the video, so have no idea what this thread references. I'm going to assume that some doctor said something that challenged dogma regarding COVID. It's always good to challenge dogma. But there are lots of doctors out there that have forgotten most of what they ever knew about molecular biology, virology, or whatnot. Like most of us, unless you keep current, it's use it or lose it. So, to quote one of my favorite sayings, "trust...but verify"

I guess it could be. But I'm headed to Alaska tomorrow for two weeks, and the majority of my colleagues simply said, "Have fun, be safe". So yeah, there's definitely still fear out there, but there's also a bunch of folks who are willing to weigh the evidence and act rationally. IMHO, I see no reason the bikers shouldn't have fun. I bet helmets are better than masks lol... But I'm with you in the media trying to stir the pot. Constantly.

I just read a recent review on viral transmission and relative humidity. Thank you for the question - I learned something new. It's not straightforward, and it's not intuitive either. The bottom line from my brief reading of the review is that there's a balance between higher humidity preventing the aerosol particles from traveling through the air and a lower humidity resulting in inactivation of the virus. Some of this depends on the viral coat parameters, and there are anomalies that have yet to be explained, too. I guess this makes sense, if you think about sneezing into a pool or into a vacuum. There's a sweet spot, maybe 40-60% is a number I saw touted.

Really quick answers: I shouldn't say always. I know better. But for practical purposes, nearly always is appropriate. I don't know anything about N99 masks, sorry. My familiarity ends with N95 and KN95 - and I HATE masks, but wear what's most effective in a clinical setting of course. I'm glad I'm in academic medicine and not treating patients. I haven't looked at how humidity influences transmission rates, but the detrimental effect of low humidity on our respiratory system might outweigh any benefits. I do not have any evidence to share, though, sorry. Interesting idea though. Low humidity might allow for faster evaporation...

Sorry to interrupt, but when you make a statement like that I feel a strong need as a scientist in medical research to gently correct you. COVID 19 virus particle size is 125 nanometers (0.125 microns); the range is 0.06 microns to .14 microns. The N95 mask filters down to 0.3 microns. The particle size is smaller than the mask pore. But masks don't work like a net under water. The mechanism is more of a sticky collection basket. These masks are 95% efficient at 0.3 microns, but counterintuitively can be even more efficient with smaller particles! And COVID isn't floating free in the air. It is always attached to something, most often water vapor or droplets. So it presents as something much larger. N95 masks without doubt work to stop COVID transmission. Other types of masks may not, particularly homemade ones, and of course wearing the mask correctly is essential. This has been dealt with many times, though, and reiterating debunked myths don't help anyone make good decisions.

Funny, I changed mine to "Rock Bottom". I figure if I ever decide to pursue a late life career change into soft core, I can go with the tag line, "you've hit Rock Bottom...now come hit him again". Man, bow season cannot get here fast enough.

Holy crap, this is one hot topic!! I did some looking at illegal immigration numbers yesterday - the actual numbers, not what's being touted in the media. As it turns out, there have been over a million illegals crossing the border this year alone. Which seems like a crazy high number, right? However, most of them were turned back (and multiple attempts to cross are not unusual). In fact, the numbers are not really that much more that what was seen pre-COVID. In fact the idea that this is a surge given the "meh" increase seems a bit silly, now that I've actually read the facts. And they are all (supposedly) tested for COVID, though as usual getting any real numbers on infection rates and such is impossible, at least for me. Whether they actually contribute appreciably to our COVID rates is beyond my ability to ken, but with Florida going off the deep end, I'm going to stick with drop in a bucket. What has changed so far as I can see is the number of minors entering by themselves. And they do not appear to be getting deported at the same rate as the older folks. So maybe the surge is kids? Anyway, the numbers aren't what I expected to see given the furor. But don't believe me, look for yourself!

There is certainly no shortage of uninformed opinions, on both sides of the fence. My favorite is the ones that go, "I don't know anything about anything, but I'm going to tell you how I feel, and if you don't like it, go tread water". I find those to be incredibly useful in making rational, well-considered decisions. FYI, while I do not support illegal immigration, the numbers of COVID+ hosts here in the states far outweigh any influx from over the border. Drop in a bucket, and simply an excuse to rail against the administration. It's a talking point for the right. I think that the border situation is a joke, but I will use facts to support my arguments.

I'm just seeing this post now. Marek's is a crazy virus, because it's so virulent that it would normally burn itself out before it can spread. The vaccine protects a host enough that it can spread more easily. So yes, the analogy holds up, but with the Delta variant, I don't think we're looking at anything close to that magnitude of danger. And while the jury is still out on it's effectiveness overall, ;particularly as the virus mutates, the COVID vaccine appears to be more like those geared toward measles and mumps than toward malaria, which is leaky. For example, in Marek's the vaccinated chickens shed 10,000 times more viral particles than unvaccinated hosts (which die quickly). Vaccinated Delta hosts may develop transmittable levels of virus in their nasal passages. It's orders of magnitude different, even though the same principle applies. Great point for discussion.

So, I am in academic medicine, and I got the jab as soon as I was able. However, I think that it's each person's right to choose for themselves. As many on here have remarked, we just don't have all of the answers on long-term safety or efficacy. How could we? But I do know that there are an alarming number of folks presenting with post-COVID complications including neurologic and cardiac abnormalities, and IMHO, I'd rather take my chances with the jab than get the virus. Because you can say the same of the disease as of the vaccine - how do you know what the consequences may be years down the road? Life is a chance. You have to bank intel and make the best decision you can. My major concern right now is that conversation has transitioned from protecting the health care system from being overwhelmed or reducing mortality to simply getting the numbers down. To me, that doesn't fit the narrative that we've been fed this past year. I'm also confused as to how vaccination is going to significantly slow the spread of the Delta variant, if the variant is ten times more infectious overall but you are only two times less likely following vaccination to develop transmittable levels of virus (even if you avoid severe disease). I'm missing something in the numbers. I wonder what the rate of repeat infection is with Delta? Is the latency decreased, or is there vaccine elusion? So much unknown. I think that the jury is still out on whether we are going to continue to see post-infective complications down the road from Delta, so I'd still opt for the jab, but I think that the powers-that-be have turned the corner on justifying some of the new policy decisions. I was on board until now, but I'm becoming a bit skeptical as the new data emerges. Perhaps it was inevitable as this thing became political that politics would play a role in what should be evidence based decision making. It really feels like this new data is saying, "You can't rely on vaccinated folks to protect you, because the vaccine only protects autonomously - get the jab!", and I'm very skeptical when new data emerges that just happens to support the government's hard sell. It feels too much like scare tactics to me. But that is a personal and not a professional call.

I've ordered from Europtics before, and they're easy to deal with - I even had a return that they proceeded immediately, no questions asked (piece of Sitka rainwear that was too loud for tree stand hunting).

I once had a guy send me an empty box that was supposed to contain downriggers, just to keep me from filing a claim with PayPal. He photo'd the box at the post office and everything. How'd I know it was fake? Shipping weight was 2 lbs, and the dummy left the tag on the box so I could read it. PayPal wanted me to keep after him but I said no way, this is why I pay through you, and they actually came through for me. I don't know if they ever went after the guy himself, but he mailed the boxes from a postal office near where somebody with the name he provided me lived, so...maybe? Not the sharpest tool in the shed though.

Yeah, me too. Last time I ate Ethiopian, I wore much of it. Of course, that's not abnormal for me. It's good that T is strong - and hopefully he will be stronger for having made it through. Prayers.

I just shot a friend's new Bowtech and asked him, "what's this set at, 52, maybe 53 lbs?" He told me that it was 65 lbs! I was shocked. I felt like I could draw it with one finger. I have a new Hoyt RX5 Ultra, and the draw cycle is nice, but it sure as heck doesn't carve ten pounds or more off the set point. I'm still not sure he wasn't screwing with me. Might be worth checking out. Pricey, I'm sure though.

We are on exactly the same wavelength. It's difficult to know how to even begin to effect change, any the payoff won't be known for decades. This problem didn't emerge overnight, and it won't disappear even with the right medicine. COVID exposed the cracks. I run into this all the time in my job, when we try to do STEM outreach to URM students. It's difficult to identify metrics for success, and at the end of the day, you wonder whether you're just some well-intentioned idiot who's deluded themselves into thinking that they made a difference.

If we go the liberal route, we end up with armed gangs waging war in the streets. If we go the conservative route, we end up with police and gangs waging war in the streets. Nothing we do seems to be effective, which IMHO means we are trying to use easy answers to solve a complex problem. The root cause is social issues that transcend guns, police, and even politics. As the gap between the haves and the have-nots becomes wider, cracks emerge in the system. It's been that way since the beginning of time. Guns allow an exaggerated response. I think I'm part of the mostly silent majority that doesn't see a feasible route out of this mess. And it sucks waking up wondering how much worse it's going to get. That having been said, most of the time I think we can slow down the freefall spin by communicating more effectively, without rancor or denigration. Other times I think that being reasonable just provide an opportunity for the "other side" to get in another blow. I haven't had enough coffee yet to game this one out...

I smell a bunch of trolling in the neighborhood. And I'm fairly sure that everyone understands exactly what each other is saying lol. Funtime's over, enjoy your 4th!!

The heck with massaging seats, I want an actual masseuse.