4 ms·

Interesting article, I didn’t know all common colds were once deadly epidemics but it seems logical thinking about it. I wonder if the rna vaccines brought out

by Torkel 6y ago

Interesting article, I didn’t know all common colds were once deadly epidemics but it seems logical thinking about it. I wonder if the rna vaccines brought out for covid will be applied to more and more viruses. Seems like a path towards eradication of all viral diseases.

legerdemain 6y ago
Note that the article does not advance the claim that "all common colds were once deadly epidemics."
highmastdon 6y ago
Is this something we should wish for? It’s my understanding that for SARS-CoV-2 a lot of people seem to have t-cell immunity because they’ve been infected with other families of coronavirus. Correct me if I’m wrong but wouldn’t vaccinating against all of the coronavirusus prevent this from happening? Thus, eradication of all viruses would result in a new virus being much more deadly in a population when no one has had a “previous” less deadly “version”
- keithwhor 6y ago
  There's very little functional difference between being immune to a virus because of previous infection and being immune to a virus because of vaccination. The latter basically co-opts the body's response to the former to generate a lasting adaptive defense.
  - ibn-alfatal 6y ago
    That is old definition, now in accordance to the new definition immunity can only be achieved through vaccination. https://twitter.com/simondolan/status/1341306917076021248 https://twitter.com/simondolan/status/1341306917076021248
    - detaro 6y ago
      A random Q&A page is not "a new definition" as an universal standard. Also, quoting from that page today https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-serology https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease... > 'Herd immunity', also known as 'population immunity', is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection. WHO supports achieving 'herd immunity' through vaccination, not by allowing a disease to spread through any segment of the population, as this would result in unnecessary cases and deaths.
    - COGlory 6y ago
      That's herd immunity. Individual immunity is different.
    - onethought 6y ago
      Guess they never thought world leaders of world leading nations would need to be told: “don’t intentionally spread a deadly pandemic”.
      - highmastdon 6y ago
        Well a deadly pandemic wouldn’t need immunity, they’d all die. Regarding parent; I believe it was known that the measles vaccine wouldn’t protect for life but for a fair amount of time where having to go through the disease would’ve given life lasting immunity.
    - andi999 6y ago
      The new def has a problem though:'protected from ... passing it on'. In my country we are told even after gotten the vaccine we should continue with the measures, because one can still pass it on (meaning it is supposed that the corona vaccine doesnt prevent infection, but prevents all severe cases)
      - astrange 6y ago
        Each different vaccine may or may not give sterilizing immunity (whether or not you can pass it on without symptoms). It has to be proven for each one and this hasn't been done yet. The nasal vaccines, which aren't approved yet, seem more likely to do this.
  - logicchains 6y ago
    For influenza, immunity due to a previous infection is apparently broader than immunity due to vaccination: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870374/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870374/.
dragosmocrii 6y ago
I don't think eradicating viruses is a good thing. For one, the human placenta is the result of a virus doing its thing many years ago [1]. My personal opinion is that we should strive to create antidotes when the body fails to fix itself, instead of removing the threat altogether. Evolution needs viruses, in the same way the universe needs entropy. 1. https://whyy.org/segments/the-placenta-went-viral-and-protomammals-were-born/ https://whyy.org/segments/the-placenta-went-viral-and-protom...
- foobiekr 6y ago
  not just the placenta, we're full of these botched germ-line viruses. endogenous retroviruses in mammals are amazing. primates owe to one or more ERVs the effectiveness of the p53 gene activation (p52 is a tumor suppressor gene).
- raducu 6y ago
  That's a nice theory and it seems very likely to be true: that viruses have driven evolution, perhaps much faster than without them. But the cost for individuals is tremendous, 99.9999999% cases the infection would not be beneficial. Perhaps in a short while we can do much better ourselves, it certainly seems we humans want to transcend evolution and death.
  - FirstLvR 6y ago
    fascinating idea, we should trascend.. the alternative is death
- ajsnigrutin 6y ago
  > I don't think eradicating viruses is a good thing. Yep, if nothing else, we need them to "train" our immune systems. Treating the coronavirus as a flu would be a best option... vaccinate the most exposed and vulnerable groups, and let others get it.
  - _Microft 6y ago
    We do train our immune systems. Just no longer only with random brawls but also with specialized trainings: vaccines.

by Torkel 6y ago

legerdemain 6y ago

Note that the article does not advance the claim that "all common colds were once deadly epidemics."

highmastdon 6y ago

Is this something we should wish for? It’s my understanding that for SARS-CoV-2 a lot of people seem to have t-cell immunity because they’ve been infected with other families of coronavirus. Correct me if I’m wrong but wouldn’t vaccinating against all of the coronavirusus prevent this from happening? Thus, eradication of all viruses would result in a new virus being much more deadly in a population when no one has had a “previous” less deadly “version”

keithwhor 6y ago
There's very little functional difference between being immune to a virus because of previous infection and being immune to a virus because of vaccination. The latter basically co-opts the body's response to the former to generate a lasting adaptive defense.
- ibn-alfatal 6y ago
  That is old definition, now in accordance to the new definition immunity can only be achieved through vaccination. https://twitter.com/simondolan/status/1341306917076021248 https://twitter.com/simondolan/status/1341306917076021248
  - detaro 6y ago
    A random Q&A page is not "a new definition" as an universal standard. Also, quoting from that page today https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-serology https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease... > 'Herd immunity', also known as 'population immunity', is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection. WHO supports achieving 'herd immunity' through vaccination, not by allowing a disease to spread through any segment of the population, as this would result in unnecessary cases and deaths.
  - COGlory 6y ago
    That's herd immunity. Individual immunity is different.
  - onethought 6y ago
    Guess they never thought world leaders of world leading nations would need to be told: “don’t intentionally spread a deadly pandemic”.
    - highmastdon 6y ago
      Well a deadly pandemic wouldn’t need immunity, they’d all die. Regarding parent; I believe it was known that the measles vaccine wouldn’t protect for life but for a fair amount of time where having to go through the disease would’ve given life lasting immunity.
  - andi999 6y ago
    The new def has a problem though:'protected from ... passing it on'. In my country we are told even after gotten the vaccine we should continue with the measures, because one can still pass it on (meaning it is supposed that the corona vaccine doesnt prevent infection, but prevents all severe cases)
    - astrange 6y ago
      Each different vaccine may or may not give sterilizing immunity (whether or not you can pass it on without symptoms). It has to be proven for each one and this hasn't been done yet. The nasal vaccines, which aren't approved yet, seem more likely to do this.
- logicchains 6y ago
  For influenza, immunity due to a previous infection is apparently broader than immunity due to vaccination: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870374/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870374/.

dragosmocrii 6y ago

I don't think eradicating viruses is a good thing. For one, the human placenta is the result of a virus doing its thing many years ago [1]. My personal opinion is that we should strive to create antidotes when the body fails to fix itself, instead of removing the threat altogether. Evolution needs viruses, in the same way the universe needs entropy. 1. https://whyy.org/segments/the-placenta-went-viral-and-protomammals-were-born/ https://whyy.org/segments/the-placenta-went-viral-and-protom...

foobiekr 6y ago
not just the placenta, we're full of these botched germ-line viruses. endogenous retroviruses in mammals are amazing. primates owe to one or more ERVs the effectiveness of the p53 gene activation (p52 is a tumor suppressor gene).
raducu 6y ago
That's a nice theory and it seems very likely to be true: that viruses have driven evolution, perhaps much faster than without them. But the cost for individuals is tremendous, 99.9999999% cases the infection would not be beneficial. Perhaps in a short while we can do much better ourselves, it certainly seems we humans want to transcend evolution and death.
- FirstLvR 6y ago
  fascinating idea, we should trascend.. the alternative is death
ajsnigrutin 6y ago
> I don't think eradicating viruses is a good thing. Yep, if nothing else, we need them to "train" our immune systems. Treating the coronavirus as a flu would be a best option... vaccinate the most exposed and vulnerable groups, and let others get it.
- _Microft 6y ago
  We do train our immune systems. Just no longer only with random brawls but also with specialized trainings: vaccines.