…the traditional epidemiologic triad model holds that infectious diseases result from the interaction of agent, host, and environment. More specifically, transmission occurs when the agent leaves its reservoir or host through a portal of exit, is conveyed by some mode of transmission, and enters through an appropriate portal of entry to infect a susceptible host. This sequence is sometimes called the chain of infection.
CDC Principles of Epidemiology
In the case of SARS-2 CoV-19, the reservoir was the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Man-made viruses can complicate the traditional epidemiological framework of infection somewhat — especially when the virus makers refuse to disclose crucial information about their handiwork.
Scientists quickly determined that healthy children and young adults were resistant to serious disease from the Chinese manufactured virus. But public health officials failed to take advantage of that “loophole” when they devised their anti-pandemic measures. That failure is largely responsible for the nature of the lingering pandemic in advanced nations.
Nations such as Sweden, which allowed herd immunity to develop in the young and resistant, were quicker to move beyond most of the deadly complications of the disease — except perhaps in the immigrant populations which are impossible to control.
Time for Genetic Profiling?
[Of great interest is] the potential to stratify populations for risk of infectious disease based on genetic profiling. This has not been a priority until now as most preventive interventions such as childhood vaccines have been aimed at universal coverage. However, as more potentially useful vaccines are licensed and the costs of new vaccines escalate, targeted use is becoming a consideration. When a genetic profile costs less than a vaccine and the profile has many other applications in predicting disease risk, it may well be cost-effective to target newer vaccines to those who will benefit most from them. The recent awareness that low-frequency large-effect variants may make a large contribution to inter-individual genetic variation in susceptibility to many diseases [6] should increase interest in defining, early in life, the constellation of potentially deleterious variants that comprise an individual’s inheritance.
… A better approach is to compare the concordance of disease in fraternal and identical twin pairs, where a greater concordance in the latter provides a measure of heritability. Such studies have been undertaken for several infectious diseases, usually many years ago, and a relatively consistent picture of significant heritability for chronic infectious diseases emerges. The evidence is less clear for acute infections such as measles, where exposure and infection rates were very high when these early twin studies were performed [8]. But in tuberculosis [9], leprosy [10], Helicobacter pylori infection [11], chronic hepatitis B infection [12] as well as in the phenotype of immune responses to vaccination [13,14], there is evidence of greater concordance in monozygotic compared with dizygotic twin pairs.
The introduction of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) has revolutionized the field of complex disease genetics. The availability of millions of SNPs mapped across the human genome and of microarrays that allow cost-effective genotyping of millions of SNPs in thousands of individuals provided, for the first time, the opportunity to test fairly comprehensively for genetic markers that would tag causative variants [55]. In many diseases, the yield of this approach has been spectacular, with hundreds of loci now identified in, for example, autoimmune diseases. This is providing new insights into the molecular pathogenesis of these diseases as a route to designing and developing new treatments. There is also potential value in devising diagnostic arrays that would allow some prediction of risk of certain diseases.
Evolution, Revolution, and Heresy
Genetically, we are all different. But we are just now developing the tools of genetic analysis which allow us to make practical use of these very real differences. We could even look at ourselves as “walking bags of gene water” subject to a wide array of environmental triggers wherever we go.
This is true for assessing the variable risks of infectious diseases, non-infectious diseases, mental illnesses, and the risks of success, failure, happiness, and despair.
That means that the benefits of genetic profiling using the new tools of GWAS (genome-wide association studies) probably outweigh the political risks of learning that evolution has not prepared all of us equally for the likely challenges of our particular futures.
The idiocy of the US Biden administration* approach to controlling the Chinese-birthed pandemic stands in stark contrast to the brilliance of what genetic scientists are learning about genetic susceptibility to disease, life success, criminality, and intelligence.
Who is at maximum risk? Who is at moderate risk? Who is at minimal or essentially zero risk? And what kind of idiot wants to treat all of them the same way? What kind of punishment is suitable for such idiots?
Recovery from COVID Provides Extensive and Long-Lasting Immunity
For over 9 months, we have known that recovery from illness with the Chinese virus that causes Covid provides extensive and long-lasting immunity. This is not something that we are just now learning, although repeated studies bear out that conclusion.
A new study appears to contradict previous data about the efficacy of vaccines, claiming that those who have recovered from Covid-19 previously have more immunity from the Delta variant than those who are fully vaccinated with the Pfizer and BioNTech vaccines.
Conducted by Israeli researchers, it is the largest real-world study that compares the natural immunity people get from having recovered from Covid-19 to the safety provided by the Pfizer vaccine. And while previous studies showed that previously having Covid-19 provided decent immunity from reinfection, but not as much as vaccines, this new research seems to suggest otherwise.
One big difference that may explain the report seeming to conclude the exact opposite of other studies: previous research was not compared with the Delta variant of Covid-19.
The new study shows that people with 2 Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines are 6 times more likely to catch the Delta variant of Covid-19 than those who have recovered from Covid-19 previously. It also showed that those vaccinated are 7 times more likely to have symptomatic infections versus those who had Covid-19 previously.
But the research did show that, like vaccines, natural immunity decreases over time. That 6 times figure for reinfection jumps to 13 times higher for vaccinated people compared to people who had Covid-19 in 2021 versus in 2020.
These findings would suggest a blow to the idea that vaccination is a definite solution to the Covid-19 pandemic while giving a boost to those who advocate for allowing Covid-19 to run its natural course through the world population allowing for natural immunity and eventually herd immunity.
Vaccine vs. Natural Immunity
Once the Chinese SARS-2 CoV-19 escaped the Wuhan viral lab, it was likely that large numbers of people around the world would die. It is no surprise that those who are old and those who are seriously ill, are most likely to suffer serious and fatal illness. It was a pleasant surprise to find that healthy children and young adults were by and large resistant to serious and fatal infections.
But the greatest casualty of the global Chinese SARS-2 pandemic was common sense and wisdom in government and public health circles. It is disheartening to learn that we are being led by unscrupulous and opportunistic morons who are apparently willing to impoverish and sicken their populations to the last human, if it means that they themselves can acquire more power and more access to ill-gotten gains.
Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
It is never too late to have a Dangerous Childhood ©.
al fin next level 
Reblogged this on muunyayo .