CharonY

I don't think that this is even actually relevant. The original hypothesis was that vaccines are only (or mostly) effective protecting against developing symptoms. The poster did not spell it out and went on a tangent with an anecdote, but I took it as assuming that it is ineffective at preventing spread. That is also the only way the overinterpretation of the supplied graph in a later post makes sense. The focus is on transmission, so that is the element that needs to be traced in vaccinated and unvaccinated folks. The critical point that needs to be answered with regard to efficacy of the vaccine to curb spread is the difference in infection rate between these groups, which the poster continues to ignore (and which already has been posted). With regard to graphs I remember a few, but most are not neat comparative analyses, mostly individual patients with either condition (e.g. infection with SARS-CoV-2, one of the vaccinations etc.). I could pick out some if you'd like. However, it is important to note that antibodies are not telling the whole story when it comes to immunization. In all cases of infection and immunization the various antibody titres decline (but with vastly varying kinetics). However, an important of the adaptive immune system is the eventual formation of memory cells. Long-term protection is mediated by these T and B cells, as opposed to circulating antibodies. In the case of a new infection, these cells are necessary to produce new neutralizing antibodies to combat that disease. This is why even vaccinated folks with low circulating antibodies can mount effective responses, when exposed to the virus. Even in cases of successful infections (which practically means that the virus is able to replicate until they go over the sensitivity limit of established tests), the virus can be cleared out without resulting in associated damages and symptoms. Thus, declining antibody titres alone are insufficient to fully establish protective levels of a vaccine over time. That being said, a faster decline could indicate overall reduced responses, which see for example in the elderly. Recent infection data does indeed suggest that in these groups antibody titers decline faster and unfortunately also become more vulnerable to infections and sever outcomes (or to put it differently, the differential outcome between vaccinated and unvaccinated started to shrink in this group).

Please demonstrate how the infection rate among vaccinated is the same as among the unvaccinated based on the graph. What, in fact is the proportion of vaccinated folks in that graph. In case you forgot, you made two claims in the sentence. While mechanistically that is somewhat true (prevention of serious conditions is around 80%, depending on age and time of last jab, and reduction of infection of infection is about 50%), the provided data does not allow you to draw these conclusions. The minimum parameters that need to be established are how many among the infected are vaccinated or not (i.e. is there a bias between these groups). A second thing to establish is the age of infected in the last compared to the previous wave. Another, more technical issue is also how effective the testing program was in either time period (e.g. looking at test rate and test positivity). A simple alternative explanation (which is only partially true, but you would not know without looking at additional data) is that the third wave might have been driven by unvaccinated young folks, who have a reduced risk of dying.

Except of course that that data tells us nothing about the impact of vaccinations as the data is not separated between vaccinated and unvaccinated folks. The study above detailed that aspect by looking at differential infection rates and indicated the said difference (i.e. vaccinated folks have a third of the infection if using crude numbers, about 50% if adjusted for age and other factors). The sample size is meaningless if the necessary details are missing and therefore do not provide any information related to your claims.

IIRC, the cases in that report were based on cases before delta. The latter was found to have higher breakthrough rates. Not that it changes the argument, just nitpicking the actual numbers.

Read Elliot et al. Science 2021;eabl9551. It provides a comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.

Vaccinations reduce viral production and accelerate clearance and as such do mitigate infections to some degree. While breakthroughs still occur, risk of infection is about cut by half to a third, even with the delta variant. Risk of passing it on after transmission is also reduced a bit. But as delta seems to have a low infectious dose, the risk is still substantial. But especially in conjunction with masking and other public health measures we and others see less spread after a given outbreak after introduction of vaccines. That being said you are not wrong, with the disease getting endemic, new variants are bound to appear eventually.

Yeah, fair enough. My trust in the ability of humanity to pull together has been tested heavily. And I foresee a failing grade. Just like my class.

Or alternatively we forget all lessons learned within a few years and things will again go down the drain when feces hit the spinning thing again.

Also don't forget that while many richer countries have the capacities to vaccinate everyone as well as offering third shots, many parts of the world cannot afford even the first one. It is a general failing of all of us (as in humanity collectively).

As much of the world still remains unvaccinated, new strains continue to emerge. Recently a new variant of concern (B1.1.259, omicron). It carries 32 mutations compared to the original strain in the gene coding for the spike protein, raising worries that current vaccines might be less effective against this variant. https://www.who.int/news/item/26-11-2021-classification-of-omicron-(b.1.1.529)-sars-cov-2-variant-of-concern It is yet another reminder that the pandemic is far from being over.

I have enough of you already. I have not downvoted you once, despite the fact that you keep calling me names and accusing me of some innuendo that appears to be entirely in your head. I have done my best to lay out my arguments, but you keep going down your ideological arguments. You are not even reading what I am saying. Nowhere I said that there was a third sex. In contrast, I laid out a couple of classifications that would create two categories. The big issue being that they do not cover all individuals and hence are incomplete definitions. Whether we need to define new ones or not is entirely contextual, but it just a fundamental truth in science, we only create representations of reality, not reality itself. Whatever else you think is going in is independent of my arguments I have it with your projection. It is ironic that I am the one being accused of PC that or postmodernism that or downvoting folks, whereas it is others that keep doing that. It is just clear to me that apparently many folks claiming to be science minded are only so as long as the science agrees with their worldview or is sufficiently intuitive for them to grasp. Confronted with even minor variations there is a lot happening that makes folks lose their ability to reason. It seems to me that many using science to argue against certain dogmatic aspects only do so not because they believe in scientific discourse, but rather because they are just against the dogma (or religion). You freaking did not, you just know to little on the subject to know that you missed by a mile. That is the abstract of the paper as googling seems to be beyond you. Have you googled sex pilus, for example? Read just a couple of papers on conjugation, or on the evolution of sex. What the heck do you think is sex in the first place but a means of genetic recombination? You can also find a summary from both authors summarizing their efforts in Science, 1953 118:3059 pp.169-175. Assuming you are able to find it, check out the title. Yes and that is why we obviously do have crated names for mixtures. After all we are (mostly) trichromatic so we therefore only have categories three colours. I think I am done here.

Oh science is now done in links? How brilliant. If I knew that I could have finished my PhD in a weekend. And of course it shows that you are missing the mark entirely as you only provide links to asexual reproduction. My question was aimed to help you understand what sexual processes are and where the overlap within the broader aspect of genetic recombination is. How about you read some Lederberg and Tatum who were among the first to characterize recombination in bacteria. (Nature volume 158, page558 (1946)). From then onward they described sexual processes in bacteria, specifically E. coli.

Then explain to me the fundamental difference and how we biologists got it so wrong for decades.

No, they are doing asexual reproduction. But they actually do have sex (in the biological sense i.e. sexual recombination, not the common use... though sex pili are involved, so perhaps not that far off).

What are you trying to say? Anything beyond a certain distribution is not part of the population anymore? I.e. NBA players are abnormal and therefore not human? Because if you argue that they are human, then obviously it means that whatever you define as "abnormal" is actually part of the population (just at the edge) and therefore are part of any categories you make. If you say all tigers have for legs, a two-legged animal born to a tiger would, according to this definition, not be a tiger. Since that does not make a lot of sense, it simply means that this definition on its own is not sufficient (e.g. to categorize that animal, one would need information like the identity of parents or genetic analyses). Likewise if a definition of a human would include being a maximum of 1.90 cm then clearly the definition is wrong. You cannot make the definition correct by declaring that anything not fitting into it is simply an outlier. Trying to bend existing reality according to ones definitions is a rather dogmatic approach, but we have been over that a couple of times by now. Objective reality is what exists, even in the absence of an observer. But only an observer defines what is consider normal and what is not. And any deeper dive into things we consider normal typically just reveals that it is either just something that we experience frequently or that we otherwise assume to be common. And as such, it is not a property of the object itself. There is no "normal" gene or normal height. Just a range of variation that exists in nature that we can segment in order to investigate or even talk about it. After all, you would not claim that a photon is actually a particle and if it behaves like a wave, well that is just an exception. What you seem to think is that just because nature does not have clear delineation, everything must be the same. That is of course not so. If there is a continuum, there are quantitative differences. A 2.14 person is not the same as 2.13 or a 2.12 person, despite the fact that most would call all of them tall. That just shows that a category such as "tall" can be helpful for rough distinctions but clearly it is not a fixed property. For example, depending on population a 1.80 m person might already be considered tall. But moving that person into a group of NBA player that description would seem out of place. Thus, the moniker of "tall" is variable and is only useful in a particular context. It is not the same as specific property that is largely invariable (e.g. having a certain DNA sequence or using height as continuous, rather than a categorical variable). I suspect that it won't help much to clarify as there is clearly some ideological overlay here, but what one could (mostly) accurately state is that in humans (and mammals) reproduction involves two sexes. However, this definition uses the reproductive angle, which means that individuals who are e.g. sterile from birth would not fall under either category.

I think OP could have saved themselves a lot of grief if they had framed the question more narrow. E.g. does human reproduction only involve two sexes? Once we include things like general physiology and the finer points of genetics biology gets really messy. I also think because we are all biological entities, we tend to overestimate our understanding of how we function. Many folks use simple concepts and then think that this all there is to it. Feynman was a good example who summarily dismissed biology as a student but came around when he actually did tried his hands on biological problems.

There are a lot of papers dealing with the neurophysiology of aggression, including fMRI studies. Especially in humans the question is whether the tests used to assess aggression are sufficiently accurate (so that the measured neuronal correlates are actually related to aggression and not e.g. just stress or other associated states). But this is way outside my expertise and at least from the little I have seen there is (I think) no consensus model as of yet.

I mean, if you wanted to you can. The difference is that in single-celled organism, sex is decoupled from reproduction. In a way we could argue that the combination of sex and procreation is a kind of abnormality, as originally they were clearly two different aspects. In bacteria you can find genetic elements (together often called Fertility factors, as originally their identity were not known) which allow horizontal gene transfer via conjugation. Typically, cells that already have those only conjugate with cells that do not have them. So in a way it could considered binary (presence of absence of these genes), and a distinction among single cells would actually be much more obvious than in multi-cellular organisms. Please go ahead and define a good classification scheme that allows us to capture the whole diversity in human sexual development using only two categories. If nature is strictly binary, there must be technical characteristics that we can use to build these classification without selectively throwing out things that don't fit (which is the very definition of a biased approach). The argument that you may have missed is not that there are three sexes, rather that any classification we use is artificial and, while it captures much of nature, is always incomplete. If folks here think that they have such an impeccable understanding of biology, I would really like to see some evidence of an unambiguous definition that we can use. What people fail to see is that nature does not define "normal" or "exceptions". Those are human constructs. Or alternatively we could argue that we are all exceptions as we all carry some form of mutations or "abnormalities". However, at this point the distinction is at least equally meaningless. What we can define are frequencies (i.e. how common certain traits are- e.g. most humans are bipedal, all viable humans have a brain etc.) and roughly outline the range of variability. The idea of (strict) normality runs against the very idea (and basic understanding) of evolutionary processes where a huge range of variety is generated. If nature adhered and forced a given norm, we would still be normal single-celled organism with a decent separation of sex and reproduction. As I mentioned, one can force an accurate binary definition (e.g. every human with a Y chromosome is male, everyone without is female) and as definitions go, it would neatly and completely separate a given human population into two groups. The issue is that this definition then runs across other definitions used by posters here, which rely on traits such as female outward features.

Pot, kettle and such. A discussion does not require to accept everyone's argument, rather. Especially in science we look at the limitations of an argument. You are not accepting the counterarguments provided so why should one blithely accept your position, especially as they appear to be faulty? Anencephaly is a lethal condition. So what it is your argument? That a species which requires a brain to survive can produce unviable offspring without a brain? Sure that is correct. So if you want you can add as folks without brains as a specific group of humans (which will die shortly after birth). Whether that distinction is useful, depends on context, but clearly they exist and it is not wrong to say so. Interestingly, that should actually challenge your thoughts on that matter how things should be, as everything that nature produces, literally exists. Whether to call something faulty requires to develop a narrative context that requires an observer to interpret and is therefore not a reflection of nature itself. Think about it that way, is the ability to digest lactose a genetic defect or not? Most adult mammals used to lose the ability to digest it in adulthood. So the "normal" development is to lose lactase once one weans off milk. But in some humans we find the "abnormal" mutation that allows the enzyme to be produced also later in life. So based on what one might consider "normal" this is clearly an abnormal trait. Same goes for lack of pigments, or any other range of traits. Some persist while being detrimental. So again, the issue is that nature does not classify things as normal or abnormal. We do and we can discuss that. However, stating that just because two things are similar are the same (any organism without a brain is the same species) is faulty logic and you know better.

I have not caught up with all posts, so apologies if that has been addressed already. Basically that is not what I am arguing. Rather, I am saying that what is generally accepted (even if we use terms in scientific literature) are only an approximation of the true complexity of a system. However these approximations can serve important purposes. It makes a lot sense to define two sexes into which the vast majority of a given species falls into, for a wide range of reasons. What I am saying, however, is that despite its usefulness, it still remains an approximation. As String Junky (via Markus) mentioned, it is a map, a representation of nature's complexity. It is not nature itself. What it also means is that rarities are something that exist in nature. I.e. we cannot ignore them because they do not neatly fall into our neat representation of nature. To take the map vs territory example. A map might not need all the nook and crannies in a particular area in order to help you find the way. But it does not mean that those finer detail are not part of the landscape. Moreover, not everything that exist in nature has to be operational based on narratives we made up. Especially in biology there are exceptions for virtually every model we have. Evolution by natural selection is a simple narrative, for example, but if we look at individual traits (or history of genes and proteins) then the situation becomes very tricky indeed. So while the theoretical framework is not wrong per se, it is incapable of covering all the diversity we see today (all the nook and crannies). Folks often do not seem to understand the complexity of biological systems and how limited our understanding on the most detailed level really is. And at some point, our approximations break from reality. If the question is are there two sexes in humans, I would say yes. But if the question is are there only two, my answer based on my understanding of biology is it is complicated. We can play the same thing with species. "Are there different species?" Why, yes of course how else would we talk about e.g. biodiversity or speciation? "So what is the precise definition of species that covers the biodiversity we see?" Well, we got a couple and each covers a different segment of the natural world, but none really covers all. And then you could ask, if that is the case, are species actually real? Well kind of, but only in a continuum (as measured by overall genetic distance, for example) and we just make artificial delineation based ultimately on the question we are working on. To summarize the overall argument, we use sexes as categories, just like species, because they are useful and are at least kind of a representation of nature. But either definition does not fully cover the complexity of nature. If we confuse both (maps and territory, again) we run the risk of overriding nature/reality with our assumptions of it, which ultimately is bad science. It has little to no impact for common usage and even in many scientific areas we can ignore these finer distinctions. But if your research is to exactly look at these gaps, of course you cannot ignore those finer points anymore.

How about you argue your position then instead of calling everyone else's argument grotesque? If it is so easy it must be trivial for you to present a definition that is universal and covers all cases we find in nature. As for child bearing, if an individual is unable to bear children for whatever reasons, is that male or female? If that is insufficient information, what else is? Saying that it is evolutionary built in trait is akin to the teleological argument, but obviously in nature everything that exists, exists, including infertility. Of course they are generally not positively selected against, but since they continue to appear it means that there are biological mechanisms that result in these cases. It is like saying that homosexuality does not exist in nature as they do not produce offspring. Perhaps to help on the way, I still think that the karyotype is probably going to cover more ground than complex traits (such as childbearing). And if one wanted to force a binary categorization one could simply state that everyone with a Y-chromosome in any of the cells is male. That would be a perfect binary qualifier (either a Y chromosome is present or it is absent). A bit of an issue are for example folks with the Swyer syndrome. They develop female external genitalia, have a functional uterus and fallopian tube, but generally have underdeveloped gonads. Just looking at external features, one would classify them as female, though. Also there are rare cases of chimerism when an otherwise female appearing individual may have tissue with Y-chromosomes. So while this classification seems to be useful in, say, more than the above mentioned 98% or so of the cases, there are still few exceptions not covered. This alone again indicates that our map in this case is fairly accurate but still fails cover all the nook and crannies.

That was a very nice way of phrasing it (I keep forget to use it). The reverse is also true, just because we do not have mapped something, does not mean that the territory does not exist. I find it sad that otherwise intelligent folks start to throw accusations around once they are encountering especially scientific viewpoints that differ from their personal experiences, rather than at least trying to engage into the reasons why ideas are shifting (and obviously, the mere fact that scientific ideas are amenable to changes is what makes science, science, rather than doctrine).

Since when has being scientifically correct become PC? Do you call folks who think that time is relative PC because you think your watch is an accurate and objective representation of time? Considering your interest in physics I find it very odd that you have such a hard time to understand that our nomenclature (scientific or not) are just help us to build representations of nature rather than being nature itself (most of theoretical physics relies on some form of simplification when one tries to apply them).

Let's assume you meant "sex" here and I am saying no, not necessarily, only if a certain research question or perspective makes it useful to do so. As you said yourself, there is variation in nature, and if we, as humans decide, we only want to use two categories, it is basically our decision to do so. Nature does not care and continues to happily exist in a continuum. We have many such examples, such as healthy vs sick. Obviously we are in a continuous state between these extremes and generally do not have fixed categories for the states in-between. Yet, clearly they do exist. What you are hung up on is the difference between common usage which indicates what we think of nature and what nature really is. The question whether there are two sexes is really philosophical as it goes into how we perceive reality. Sometimes we use more gradation (in one of the above examples we clearly use continuous measures for colour, even if made of two pigments, we names for things like darker or lighter grey, we do not try to cram everything using just two categories), sometimes we use less.