27 ms·

Vaccines should end the pandemic, despite the variants, say experts

346 points by mrfusion 6y ago

yaledioma 6y ago
So also the digitalizzation and 4th industrial revolution will end... Let's hope to don't see the army on the street before 2026
- weakfish 6y ago
  Why the FUD?
superkuh 6y ago
This is a hopeful but possible take. But the 501Y.V2 (B.1.351) and 501Y.V3 (P1) lineages have the mutation within the conserved region for coronaviruses near the spike protein cleavage site. These show massively (1000x) decreased monoclonal antibody binding for original genetic sequence designs. It's better for the mRNA vaccine produced human-body-made antibodies which show only 5-10x reduction in binding. But antibody binding isn't the full story and there may be T-cell stuff helping too. The data seems to indicate updated spike protein designs will be needed but if there's other stuff going on we don't know about old spike vaccines could still work. I can't say it will definitely help because the vaccine rollout is so slow and air travel is so fast that this negative pressure will probably provoke more variants as long as host numbers remain high. ref: "Antibody Resistance of SARS-CoV-2 Variants B.1.351 and B.1.1.7" [pdf] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03398-2_reference.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03398-2_reference... https://i.imgur.com/8co1IoL.jpg https://i.imgur.com/8co1IoL.jpg "SARS-CoV-2 VoC B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 neutralization evasion" table. https://covariants.org/variants/S.501Y.V2 https://covariants.org/variants/S.501Y.V2 https://covariants.org/variants/S.501Y.V3 https://covariants.org/variants/S.501Y.V3
- Pyramus 6y ago
  Thank you for the references!
- randomsearch 6y ago
  How does a 5x reduction in binding actually impact infection?
  - mlyle 6y ago
    The vaccines create a much more potent antibody response than the titers we see in convalescent plasma. 5-10x less binding probably translates to somewhat reduced efficacy (no one really knows, but 75% vs. 95% might be a reasonable guess). Of course, this is a really complicated thing, because it's not just the immediate antibody response, but also the T-cell response, and also how quickly on a subsequent infection the set of antibodies develops and broadens even more. We do know that e.g. in Israel where there's very high amounts of vaccine deployed and nasty variants, that case control studies show a large effect still.
- hanklazard 6y ago
  The monoclonal data is less concerning since the human antibody response is polyclonal. It’s not surprising that this virus can escape from a single targeted antibody and if I were in pharm, this is why I wouldn’t spend billions on a mAb drug. I agree that the decreased convalescent plasma effectiveness is not ideal but I doubt this virus will be able to fully escape the mRNA vaccines on a population level. Polyclonal antibodies against spike + t-cells + herd immunity should be enough to quell this pandemic. At least I hope so.
  - abacadaba 6y ago
    The new one is supposed to be targeting a conserved site on the protein, where any change would make it non functional https://www.investorideas.com/news/2021/biotech/03122Vir-COVID-19-Trial.asp https://www.investorideas.com/news/2021/biotech/03122Vir-COV... "The company commented that compared with other monoclonal antibodies, "VIR-7831 binds to a highly conserved epitope of the spike protein, which may make it more difficult for resistance to develop." Vir Biotechnology's CEO George Scangos, Ph.D., commented, "These exciting data with a single antibody against a conserved epitope bring us one step closer to delivering an effective new solution to patients around the globe."
    - hanklazard 6y ago
      I guess I'm just skeptical that anyone can be truly sure of which exposed epitopes are conserved (I haven't seen data on this residue or drug, these are just my thoughts). Given that we're talking about a three dimensional structure, you really need a number of conserved residues in physical proximity to have an inescapable monoclonal antibody. It seems quite possible that there aren't any targets like this and that only a polyclonal immune response, or maybe a cocktail of monoclonals, can be effective in the long-term.
thepangolino 6y ago
These kind of pandemic tend to end themselves after about 20-30 months. We’re about half way there anyway.
- loloquwowndueo 6y ago
  Citation needed.
  - 2-tpg 6y ago
    Maybe China can help with a cite. They did have a 5-6 month head start and first encountered: brain-blood barrier pass, blood cloths and brain/lung aneurisms, reinfection, patient 0, airborne COVID, effect of mask wearing, pets getting infected, and more. Too bad they don't allow the WHO full access to investigate, nor share critical information with the rest of the world, now suffering thousands of deaths. Most likely is a lab leak accident (Israel, UK, and US all said as much!). But unfortunately, the "China Virus" has become a political issue, and you won't find cites in the popular media anymore. Just articles about xenophobic conspiracy theories, and to listen to health experts when they tell you masks are not protective, go eat at China Town to show your support, don't worry about losing weight, and that vitamin D deficiency is a hoax.
    - loloquwowndueo 6y ago
      Well no, sorry - all your allegations here have zero to do with the initial “it’ll Peter out in 20-30 months” claim.
- hannob 6y ago
  Which other pandemic do you think is even remotely comparable to Covid-19? (All pandemics with a comparable transmission rate happened in times that simply aren't comparable to the modern world in terms of mobility, which obviously affects the way this goes.)
  - ArkanExplorer 6y ago
cybert00th 6y ago
>Galit Alter, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and the Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT, and Harvard, said the fast-spreading U.K. variant seems able to evade some vaccine protection, and the South African variant appears able to skirt even more. Despite that, she said, none have completely escaped the body’s post-vaccination immune responses. Weak on facts and strong on persuasive language: >seems able to evade Either they can evade or they can't, there's no seeming to about it! >appears able to skirt even more Either it can skirt around or it can't, there's no appearing about it! And anyway, herd immunity to these kinds of viruses comes from full-blown exposure - not hiding behind a vaccine. After all is said and done, this is all about money and power - a great pile of public money and the opportunity to concentrate the power to run countries in the hands of a few for as long as possible. And then too, the opportunity for academicians to puff their CVs and to ensure their place in the sun of scholarly tenure and advancement. I rest my m'lud.
- throwaway72h9a 6y ago
  Yeah I make it a point to never trust the opinion of "experts" on such matters which can potentially create panic in society. It's just far easier to sound assuring than tell the naked truth as it is. Most of these experts earlier said that the UK variant was nothing to worry about. Now we know it not only spreads faster but is also much deadlier. Same thing might happen here.
  - h3cate 6y ago
    Here in the UK we've already been warned that the new Brazilian variant is unlikely to be stopped by vaccines. It's surprising to see this story pop up all of a sudden.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - sterlind 6y ago
      Pfizer seems to be effective against the Brazilian variant in-vitro: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/03/09/coronavirus-covid-live-updates-us/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/03/09/coronavirus... J&J vaccine seems to have less trouble with Brazil than the other variants: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/single-dose-johnson-johnson-vaccine-effective-variants-data/story?id=76084549 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/single-dose-johnson-johnson-...
bsaul 6y ago
i'm very surprised to see remdesivir mentionned in this article at all... Isn't this drug officialy not working at all against covid-19 , and as such should be banned because of perfusion side-effects ? (in addition to the fact that it seems to be known to increase the amount of virus genetic mutations in people treated with it)
- Robotbeat 6y ago
  I’m as skeptical of your last parenthetical as you should be about remdesivir’s overall effectiveness. In any case, the effects are too small to matter.
- inglor_cz 6y ago
  Here in the Czech Republic, doctors in Brno are trying a combination of remdesivir and convalescent plasma in oncological Covid patients. They say that the combo has, so far, worked much better than either of the components in isolation. Out of the small cohort, they lost no one so far. Source in Czech: https://ct24.ceskatelevize.cz/jihomoravskykraj/3278822-brnenskym-lekarum-se-osvedcila-u-onkologickych-pacientu-s-covidem-kombinace https://ct24.ceskatelevize.cz/jihomoravskykraj/3278822-brnen...
  - mfkp 6y ago
    That's the treatment that I got back in September in the US. I think they stopped using Remdesivir since then because it didn't correlate with any positive outcome. It also was destroying my liver, so they had to cut off the treatment halfway through. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2021/01/31/remdesivir-covid-coronavirus/?sh=621db3066c27 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2021/01/31/remdesivir...
    - inglor_cz 6y ago
      Maybe the total balance of results is better for immunosuppressed oncologic patients. Or maybe it is just a form of medical nationalism, given that the leader of the Remdesivir scientific team, Tomáš Cihlář, is a Czech scientist. We had some critical patients improve and heal on remdesivir, though. I wonder how big of a role genetic diversity plays. There are many uncertain suspicions that Covid hits some people harder than others based not just on lifestyle, but things such as blood groups. Research into that will be a good PhD material for years to come.
williesleg 6y ago
Biden ended the pandemic. And the good news is Facebook has pictures of all of us in masks and without masks.
credit_guy 6y ago
What I don't understand is this: with tens of millions of people already vaccinated, why aren't we seeing a huge drive to collect plasma from vaccinated people with high level of antibodies? In the early days of the pandemic (about 1 year ago), I remember China sent a large amount of plasma to Italy. Why can't the US do the same now? The US is sitting on millions of AstraZeneca vaccines (that are not even approvad by the FDA), and doesn't want to share. How about sending plasma?
- sm4rk0 6y ago
  Maybe because it's not profitable?
  - mensetmanusman 6y ago
    Here the billboards are advertising $700 for plasma donation.
- xadhominemx 6y ago
  Because it’s a lot easier to manufacture and distribute the vaccines
  - gizmo686 6y ago
    Vaccines and plasma serve 2 different purposes. A vaccine will provide long term protection, but do nothing to help a patient who is sick now [0]. In contrast, plasma will help a patient who is infected now, but provide no long term protection. [0] Or, at least, the Covid vaccine has not been proven to do anything to help a patient who is sick now. There are cases (such as rabies) where getting vaccinated after being infected is still beneficial.
    - xadhominemx 6y ago
      At any point there are millions or tens of millions of people with COVID. Can’t really make much of a dent with plasma.
- 6y ago
walterbell 6y ago
> the immune system has an array of other defenses... including antibodies that attack other parts of the virus, and, importantly, T-cells that attack the infected cells the virus hijacks in order to replicate. “What we’re seeing is that these variants don’t seem to affect T-cell immunity all that much and they [the T-cells] seem to be as effective in recognizing these variants as they do the original virus” People with healthy immune systems, who have been exposed to SARS1 and other coronaviruses, have active T-cell defenses which recognize SARS-Cov-2 even without a vaccine. > SARS-CoV-2 induces robust memory T cell responses in antibody-seronegative and antibody-seropositive individuals with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.29.174888v1.full.pdf https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.29.174888v1.... (June 2020) > ..some people who have not been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 have preexisting reactivity to SARS-CoV-2 sequences ..previous exposure to widely circulating common cold coronaviruses might be involved .. preexisting reactivity against SARS-CoV-2 comes from memory T cells and that cross-reactive T cells can specifically recognize a SARS-CoV-2 epitope as well as the homologous epitope from a common cold coronavirus, https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6512/89 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6512/89 (Oct 2020) Prior HN discussion on T-cells: https://hn.algolia.com/?prefix=true&query=t-cell https://hn.algolia.com/?prefix=true&query=t-cell
- graeme 6y ago
  Don’t remember the study but pretty sure that cross reactivity thesis to common cold eventually didn’t pan out. Believe Derek Lowe wrote about it.
  - walterbell 6y ago
    Lowe's Feb 2021 article was about antibodies, not T-cells, https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/02/10/does-prior-exposure-to-coronaviruses-protect-you https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/02/10/do... > Now, you can still make an argument that the T cell component of immunity might provide some protection after a previous coronavirus infection. The current study didn’t address this directly Lowe's July 2020 article on T-cells, https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/07/15/new-data-on-t-cells-and-the-coronavirus https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/07/15/ne... > there are, in fact, people who have both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells that recognize protein antigens from the new coronavirus even though they have never been exposed to SARS, MERS, or the new virus. The paper speculated that this might be due to cross-reactivity with proteins from the “common cold” coronaviruses”, and raised the possibility that there might be a part of the population that has at least some existing protection against the current pandemic. and > patients who had caught SARS back in 2003 and recovered ... still have (17 years later!) a robust T-cell response to the original SARS coronavirus’s N protein ..This new work finds that these cross-react with the new SARS CoV-2 N protein as well There is an open question in the Nature study, about prior, unknown animal coronaviruses which may have previously infected humans and conferred T-cell protection against SARS-CoV-2.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tubularhells 6y ago
What nobody wants to talk about is that it might take several more years for things to go back to somewhat normal. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00424-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... >In developing its COVID-19 Scenarios Project, the ISC has consulted with WHO and the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. The ISC has established in February, 2021, a multidisciplinary Oversight Panel made up of globally representative world experts in relevant disciplines to work with a technical team to produce the scenario map. The Oversight Panel will report within 6–8 months to the global community on the possible COVID-19 scenarios that lie ahead over the next 3–5 years, and on the choices that could be made by governments, agencies, and citizens to provide a pathway to an optimistic outcome for the world.
- beervirus 6y ago
  The fact that they’re planning for years in the future doesn’t mean it’ll take that long for things to get back to normal.
  - tialaramex 6y ago
    That also depends what "normal" means to you. If normal just means you get to hug your grandmother who lives an hour away it might be safe right now (in a bunch of countries) or permitted but perhaps unwise (in a lot more countries) and it's likely that for most HN readers it will become a reasonable thing to do around mid-2021. If it means snogging random strangers at a crowded nightclub after a night of drinking that is safe in a very few places (only a handful of countries with elimination or close enough have "crowded nightclubs" in the first place, those aren't a thing on tiny Pacific islands many of which are COVID free) and legal but unwise in some parts of the world right now but it might not be a reasonable thing to do until late 2021 or after for most of us. If it means spending a week on safari in some poor country to see exotic wildlife, that likely will not be a reasonable thing to do until at least 2022 and maybe later, it may be technically safe for you earlier, but it probably needlessly exposes the locals to a virus they have yet to receive immunisation for so you shouldn't do it.
thrwayv2311 6y ago
Right, but are all vaccines equal ? Take the chinese Sinovac one for instance, which several countries have been using for their mass vaccination program. Preliminary data in Brazil showed an efficacy of about 50% in preventing asymptomatic infection[1]. Are we sure that it will be able to "end the pandemic" in these countries as well as the mRNA ones? I remain a bit skeptical. In a CDC simulation[0] back in June 2020, the conclusion was that: > This study found that the vaccine has to have an efficacy of at least 70% to prevent an epidemic and of at least 80% to largely extinguish an epidemic without any other measures (e.g., social distancing). Could someone more educated than me in the matter chime in? [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7361120/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7361120/ [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-55642648 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-55642648
- lamontcg 6y ago
  There isn't one efficacy number for Sinovac: “As of December 16, 2020, there were 12,396 health workers over 18 years old enrolled. A total of 253 positive cases were collected during the observation period. After 14 days following vaccination with 2 doses of vaccine following a 0, 14 day schedule, the efficacy rate against diseases caused by COVID-19 was 50.65% for all cases, 83.70% for cases requiring medical treatment, and 100.00% for hospitalized, severe, and fatal cases.” The near 100% efficacy against hospitalization and severe disease is still sufficient to end the disease burden of the pandemic. The virus may become endemic to the human race, but if the disease burden is somewhere in between the common cold and seasonal influenza then the _pandemic_ is over. The achievable goal is probably not eradication.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
rubyist5eva 6y ago
Not if power grabbing politicians and beaurocrats have anything to say about it.
gregwebs 6y ago
These articles are missing an important aspect of the vaccine: the immunity gained is non-sterilizing. [1] The vaccine stops the infection from becoming severe and spreading throughout the body, but it doesn't actually stop infection (and transmission) in the upper respiratory tract. So we don't have any evidence showing we can achieve herd immunity even with a 100% vaccination rate (this article is wrong). The only thing we know for sure is we can dramatically reduce the severity of infection. Beause vaccine efficacy is never 100%, some experts predict that we will see more deaths this year as we attempt to resume normal societal activities while SARS-COV-2 continues to circulate. [2] Although I think if we develop very good antibody tests and vaccines against the latest variants there should be a path towards minimizing deaths and severe complications and effectively turning this virus into a cold and effectively ending the pandemic. [1] https://drhyman.com/blog/2021/01/27/podcast-ep155/ https://drhyman.com/blog/2021/01/27/podcast-ep155/ [2] https://dalewharrison.substack.com/p/covid-year-1 https://dalewharrison.substack.com/p/covid-year-1
- rimliu 6y ago
  Transmission is greatly reduced.
  - gregwebs 6y ago
    I hope this is true. Do you have any studies to back this up? I see statements by government officials to this effect, but never any studies or data to back it up.
- pbourke 6y ago
  > some experts predict that we will see more deaths this year as we attempt to resume normal societal activities while SARS-COV-2 continues to circulate. Some 35 million Americans - heavily weighted towards the most vulnerable - are fully vaccinated. Unless something wild happens with variants, I think these experts are being overly negative.
v9ewY51pMwWq 6y ago
FYI, Galit Alter has conflict of interest with Bill and Melinda Gates foundation: https://seromyx.com https://seromyx.com
- scarface74 6y ago
  How do you have a conflict of interest with a non profit?
  - xeromal 6y ago
    I'm not sure what the person you're replying to is talking about but it sounds pretty easy to have a conflict of interest. If a non profit is doing something for free that a company is charging for, anything they say about the non-profit should be observed with caution.
fhunt 6y ago
OT: Imagine "experts" from our industry explain the mainstream our world: e.g. what's the right programming language, or database technology, why types matter, or not? Why do we trust "experts" from other industries?
- rfrey 6y ago
  Because software development is a skilled trade, not a science. The consortium discussed in the article is made up of actual scientists who do actual science. "I am surrounded by bullshitters therefore all fields are equally deep in it" is not a correct view.
  - fhunt 6y ago
    Then take data science or deep learning which is a science as sophisticated, same there. We trust experts from other industries so much that we do not tolerate any other view without having a clue what is going on ourselves. The reason is simple, we have our views, they are political and we refer to "experts" to make our views scientific. Just my opinion and I bet that a huge number will disagree again with this comment. But—could I be right? Why not admit that I might be right? Because it's a political topic and your opinion is set.
    - barbazoo 6y ago
      I think parent is talking about professions where the scientific method is followed. It's not about how "sophisticated" something is.
      - fhunt 6y ago
        Do you anything about data science or deep learning? If this is not about scientific methods then what else? And even if not? Why not question existing methodology, people just follow some news outlets believing one and only thing.
    - rimliu 6y ago
      Data science is a science in a name only.
DoreenMichele 6y ago
I hope they are correct. I also hope we will continue to be more careful about germ control from here on out in myriad ways. I hope we do not blithely go back to "business as usual" in a way that fosters future pandemics as if we learned absolutely nothing here.
- Covzire 6y ago
  I worry also about an overreaction. At some level people who can survive a virus with little to no symptoms are better off contracting it than not, if only to form the antibodies to be ready for future mutants they might come in contact with. The behavior changes we make because of COVID could be dooming a lot of people to one day encounter much worse mutant viruses they could have been ready for.
  - DoreenMichele 6y ago
    I really hate this kind of logic. I get where it comes from but I still hate it. I have a genetic disorder that causes a compromised immune system, so germ control is my life. My life got better in some important ways with the entire rest of the world being less germy and disgusting. About one of out every five people is officially labeled "handicapped" and at least one study suggests that up to three out of every five people may have more minor impairments that they mostly cover up and don't want to label as a "handicap" because it's stigmatizing. A great many people with various handicaps are immunocompromised or otherwise vulnerable. A lot of handicapped people saw some things improve for themselves while the entire world temporarily felt that germ control was super important. As one of those people, I am very concerned that "business as usual" will be a terrible thing for me. I've tried to figure out how to write about what kinds of best practices I would like to see, but that never really gelled in part because I became very concerned it would make me a target for the fear and anger of a lot of people during a global crisis. I didn't want some sort of lynch mob to descend upon me while much of the world applauded their depravity because, hey, scapegoats rather than solutions seems to be a very popular pursuit in the world generally, even during "normal" times and folks seem to double down on that during crises. Maybe I will still find a way to write about it and have some kind of influence on moving the needle gently but firmly in the right direction. And maybe not. I don't have much of an audience and like Rodney Dangerfield "I get no respect" and yadda.
de6u99er 6y ago
A globally coordinated approach, similar to NZ's approach could have ended the oandemic already a year ago. Thanks to COVID-19 fatigue amongst the population, such an effort very close to impossible.
- kikokikokiko 6y ago
  Comparing an island nation of 5 million people, that can effectively close it's borders and "avoid" new focuses of infection, to countries of 100+ million of people, where the difficulties of border closing are effectively unsurmountable, is extremely disingenuous. The whole approach governments took in facing this pandemic needs to be studied in the next decades. It's an eye opening thing to see how viruses spread pretty much the way they do, and there is almost nothing we can do to stop it. It's really humbling to see that if you keep everything open (i.e. Florida) you get the same results as if you make your population effectively stop to live for one year (i.e. California).
  - dragontamer 6y ago
    Its likely illegal for California to close its borders to Florida. But that probably would have slowed the spread significantly, at least in the 3rd wave where the Mid-Western / anti-mask states led the 3rd wave. This country was in this together. For better or for worse. Closing the borders of states was never an option.
    - viraptor 6y ago
      > Its likely illegal for California to close its borders to Florida. I wonder if that's really the case. A year ago I'd say the same for Australia. Yet most Australian states closed their borders at some point as a response to local cases spiking. (I agree it's less practical in the US, but I do wonder about the legality)
      - jedberg 6y ago
        Whatever the answer I feel like it would take the courts a few weeks at least to figure it out. California (or more realistically Hawaii) could have had a full three week border closure before anyone settled the case law.
laraph 6y ago
The major variants of this virus very one of them has been confirmed to be affected by the vaccines. Even in the cases where a vaccine is less effective against a variant, the prevention of serious illness/hospitalization is always near 100%.
axaxs 6y ago
Perhaps unpopular opinion, but the US vaccination system is about the worst when it comes to preventing spread. Instead, it seems to be attempting to prevent death. I've always argued that preventing spread would as a byproduct prevent death, but I'm obviously not studied in the field. Put shortly, I would have vaccinated college kids and working age folks first. They are not likely to die from it, but are far more likely to spread it than elderly and severely diseased folks.
- fakedang 6y ago
  In that case, the vaccination system worldwide is the worst. No country I know of has prioritized those groups over elderlies.
  - axaxs 6y ago
    Fair, but no other country(admittedly) save perhaps Brazil or Italy has had anywhere near the spread of the disease, either. In places the disease isn't rampant, I think the approach makes more sense.
  - apendleton 6y ago
    China has been doing essentially this (prioritizing young people over the elderly): https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/voa-news-china/china-gives-vaccines-other-countries-not-its-elderly-chinese-over https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/voa-news-china/chi... . You're right that it's definitely not the prevailing strategy though. (Also, sorry for the vaguely propagandist source -- I originally heard about this on a podcast and am having trouble determining which, and this doesn't seem to be getting much coverage in English-language print media.)
    - xbmcuser 6y ago
      Countries that have stopped or at least controlled the spread can prioritise vaccinating younger population as that is unlikely to result in more deaths. Singapore has vaccinated its medical personnel (anyone working in a hospital or clinic) then 70 years old and above. Now it is moving to 60 year and above and all the front line workers like teachers, bank tellers, shop attendants, taxi/private drivers etc. They are not facing thousands of deaths so can prioritise protecting the most vulnerable as well as cut off the most likely high spread events.
boldpandabear 6y ago
It’s never been proven that a particle causes illness. It’s never been proven that illness is transmissible via particle. The vaccine may prevent symptoms from appearing (which is nothing new — steroids also do same thing) but social distancing and masking continue to be an unnecessary drain on quality of life.
ineedasername 6y ago
Unfortunately, at least in the US, the massively increased buy-in to conspiracy theories got together with the anti-vaxxer movement and had a three-way with folks who still believe COVID is a liberal attack on Trump, and their newborn baby is significant resistance to getting vaccinated by a large portion of the population.
nikolay 6y ago
Famous last words. I wish things were that simple. Evolution is a bitch - it made us, but it can also wipe us out.
- tim333 6y ago
  Viruses evolve but so do the vaccines. I think we have about 200 more in development. I'm kind of optimistic on that front - as tech improves we'll outpace nature.
  - nikolay 6y ago
    Yeah, but viruses evolve faster and branch out. Again, you make all your conclusions based on our experience with DNA viruses - this is an RNA viruses, things are different. Imagine the flu as we know it only more contagious and more lethal. How can we be optimistic when even the flu kids enough and damages the economy already and vaccines have spotty success against it.
mbar84 6y ago
"experts" is not a word we should be using anymore.

346 points by mrfusion 6y ago

So also the digitalizzation and 4th industrial revolution will end... Let's hope to don't see the army on the street before 2026

weakfish 6y ago
Why the FUD?

superkuh 6y ago

This is a hopeful but possible take. But the 501Y.V2 (B.1.351) and 501Y.V3 (P1) lineages have the mutation within the conserved region for coronaviruses near the spike protein cleavage site. These show massively (1000x) decreased monoclonal antibody binding for original genetic sequence designs. It's better for the mRNA vaccine produced human-body-made antibodies which show only 5-10x reduction in binding. But antibody binding isn't the full story and there may be T-cell stuff helping too. The data seems to indicate updated spike protein designs will be needed but if there's other stuff going on we don't know about old spike vaccines could still work. I can't say it will definitely help because the vaccine rollout is so slow and air travel is so fast that this negative pressure will probably provoke more variants as long as host numbers remain high. ref: "Antibody Resistance of SARS-CoV-2 Variants B.1.351 and B.1.1.7" [pdf] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03398-2_reference.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03398-2_reference... https://i.imgur.com/8co1IoL.jpg https://i.imgur.com/8co1IoL.jpg "SARS-CoV-2 VoC B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 neutralization evasion" table. https://covariants.org/variants/S.501Y.V2 https://covariants.org/variants/S.501Y.V2 https://covariants.org/variants/S.501Y.V3 https://covariants.org/variants/S.501Y.V3

Pyramus 6y ago
Thank you for the references!
randomsearch 6y ago
How does a 5x reduction in binding actually impact infection?
- mlyle 6y ago
  The vaccines create a much more potent antibody response than the titers we see in convalescent plasma. 5-10x less binding probably translates to somewhat reduced efficacy (no one really knows, but 75% vs. 95% might be a reasonable guess). Of course, this is a really complicated thing, because it's not just the immediate antibody response, but also the T-cell response, and also how quickly on a subsequent infection the set of antibodies develops and broadens even more. We do know that e.g. in Israel where there's very high amounts of vaccine deployed and nasty variants, that case control studies show a large effect still.
hanklazard 6y ago
The monoclonal data is less concerning since the human antibody response is polyclonal. It’s not surprising that this virus can escape from a single targeted antibody and if I were in pharm, this is why I wouldn’t spend billions on a mAb drug. I agree that the decreased convalescent plasma effectiveness is not ideal but I doubt this virus will be able to fully escape the mRNA vaccines on a population level. Polyclonal antibodies against spike + t-cells + herd immunity should be enough to quell this pandemic. At least I hope so.
- abacadaba 6y ago
  The new one is supposed to be targeting a conserved site on the protein, where any change would make it non functional https://www.investorideas.com/news/2021/biotech/03122Vir-COVID-19-Trial.asp https://www.investorideas.com/news/2021/biotech/03122Vir-COV... "The company commented that compared with other monoclonal antibodies, "VIR-7831 binds to a highly conserved epitope of the spike protein, which may make it more difficult for resistance to develop." Vir Biotechnology's CEO George Scangos, Ph.D., commented, "These exciting data with a single antibody against a conserved epitope bring us one step closer to delivering an effective new solution to patients around the globe."
  - hanklazard 6y ago
    I guess I'm just skeptical that anyone can be truly sure of which exposed epitopes are conserved (I haven't seen data on this residue or drug, these are just my thoughts). Given that we're talking about a three dimensional structure, you really need a number of conserved residues in physical proximity to have an inescapable monoclonal antibody. It seems quite possible that there aren't any targets like this and that only a polyclonal immune response, or maybe a cocktail of monoclonals, can be effective in the long-term.

thepangolino 6y ago

These kind of pandemic tend to end themselves after about 20-30 months. We’re about half way there anyway.

loloquwowndueo 6y ago
Citation needed.
- 2-tpg 6y ago
  Maybe China can help with a cite. They did have a 5-6 month head start and first encountered: brain-blood barrier pass, blood cloths and brain/lung aneurisms, reinfection, patient 0, airborne COVID, effect of mask wearing, pets getting infected, and more. Too bad they don't allow the WHO full access to investigate, nor share critical information with the rest of the world, now suffering thousands of deaths. Most likely is a lab leak accident (Israel, UK, and US all said as much!). But unfortunately, the "China Virus" has become a political issue, and you won't find cites in the popular media anymore. Just articles about xenophobic conspiracy theories, and to listen to health experts when they tell you masks are not protective, go eat at China Town to show your support, don't worry about losing weight, and that vitamin D deficiency is a hoax.
  - loloquwowndueo 6y ago
    Well no, sorry - all your allegations here have zero to do with the initial “it’ll Peter out in 20-30 months” claim.
hannob 6y ago
Which other pandemic do you think is even remotely comparable to Covid-19? (All pandemics with a comparable transmission rate happened in times that simply aren't comparable to the modern world in terms of mobility, which obviously affects the way this goes.)
- ArkanExplorer 6y ago

cybert00th 6y ago

>Galit Alter, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and the Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT, and Harvard, said the fast-spreading U.K. variant seems able to evade some vaccine protection, and the South African variant appears able to skirt even more. Despite that, she said, none have completely escaped the body’s post-vaccination immune responses. Weak on facts and strong on persuasive language: >seems able to evade Either they can evade or they can't, there's no seeming to about it! >appears able to skirt even more Either it can skirt around or it can't, there's no appearing about it! And anyway, herd immunity to these kinds of viruses comes from full-blown exposure - not hiding behind a vaccine. After all is said and done, this is all about money and power - a great pile of public money and the opportunity to concentrate the power to run countries in the hands of a few for as long as possible. And then too, the opportunity for academicians to puff their CVs and to ensure their place in the sun of scholarly tenure and advancement. I rest my m'lud.

throwaway72h9a 6y ago
Yeah I make it a point to never trust the opinion of "experts" on such matters which can potentially create panic in society. It's just far easier to sound assuring than tell the naked truth as it is. Most of these experts earlier said that the UK variant was nothing to worry about. Now we know it not only spreads faster but is also much deadlier. Same thing might happen here.
- h3cate 6y ago
  Here in the UK we've already been warned that the new Brazilian variant is unlikely to be stopped by vaccines. It's surprising to see this story pop up all of a sudden.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - sterlind 6y ago
    Pfizer seems to be effective against the Brazilian variant in-vitro: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/03/09/coronavirus-covid-live-updates-us/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/03/09/coronavirus... J&J vaccine seems to have less trouble with Brazil than the other variants: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/single-dose-johnson-johnson-vaccine-effective-variants-data/story?id=76084549 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/single-dose-johnson-johnson-...

bsaul 6y ago

i'm very surprised to see remdesivir mentionned in this article at all... Isn't this drug officialy not working at all against covid-19 , and as such should be banned because of perfusion side-effects ? (in addition to the fact that it seems to be known to increase the amount of virus genetic mutations in people treated with it)

Robotbeat 6y ago
I’m as skeptical of your last parenthetical as you should be about remdesivir’s overall effectiveness. In any case, the effects are too small to matter.
inglor_cz 6y ago
Here in the Czech Republic, doctors in Brno are trying a combination of remdesivir and convalescent plasma in oncological Covid patients. They say that the combo has, so far, worked much better than either of the components in isolation. Out of the small cohort, they lost no one so far. Source in Czech: https://ct24.ceskatelevize.cz/jihomoravskykraj/3278822-brnenskym-lekarum-se-osvedcila-u-onkologickych-pacientu-s-covidem-kombinace https://ct24.ceskatelevize.cz/jihomoravskykraj/3278822-brnen...
- mfkp 6y ago
  That's the treatment that I got back in September in the US. I think they stopped using Remdesivir since then because it didn't correlate with any positive outcome. It also was destroying my liver, so they had to cut off the treatment halfway through. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2021/01/31/remdesivir-covid-coronavirus/?sh=621db3066c27 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2021/01/31/remdesivir...
  - inglor_cz 6y ago
    Maybe the total balance of results is better for immunosuppressed oncologic patients. Or maybe it is just a form of medical nationalism, given that the leader of the Remdesivir scientific team, Tomáš Cihlář, is a Czech scientist. We had some critical patients improve and heal on remdesivir, though. I wonder how big of a role genetic diversity plays. There are many uncertain suspicions that Covid hits some people harder than others based not just on lifestyle, but things such as blood groups. Research into that will be a good PhD material for years to come.

williesleg 6y ago

Biden ended the pandemic. And the good news is Facebook has pictures of all of us in masks and without masks.

credit_guy 6y ago

What I don't understand is this: with tens of millions of people already vaccinated, why aren't we seeing a huge drive to collect plasma from vaccinated people with high level of antibodies? In the early days of the pandemic (about 1 year ago), I remember China sent a large amount of plasma to Italy. Why can't the US do the same now? The US is sitting on millions of AstraZeneca vaccines (that are not even approvad by the FDA), and doesn't want to share. How about sending plasma?

sm4rk0 6y ago
Maybe because it's not profitable?
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  Here the billboards are advertising $700 for plasma donation.
xadhominemx 6y ago
Because it’s a lot easier to manufacture and distribute the vaccines
- gizmo686 6y ago
  Vaccines and plasma serve 2 different purposes. A vaccine will provide long term protection, but do nothing to help a patient who is sick now [0]. In contrast, plasma will help a patient who is infected now, but provide no long term protection. [0] Or, at least, the Covid vaccine has not been proven to do anything to help a patient who is sick now. There are cases (such as rabies) where getting vaccinated after being infected is still beneficial.
  - xadhominemx 6y ago
    At any point there are millions or tens of millions of people with COVID. Can’t really make much of a dent with plasma.
6y ago

walterbell 6y ago

> the immune system has an array of other defenses... including antibodies that attack other parts of the virus, and, importantly, T-cells that attack the infected cells the virus hijacks in order to replicate. “What we’re seeing is that these variants don’t seem to affect T-cell immunity all that much and they [the T-cells] seem to be as effective in recognizing these variants as they do the original virus” People with healthy immune systems, who have been exposed to SARS1 and other coronaviruses, have active T-cell defenses which recognize SARS-Cov-2 even without a vaccine. > SARS-CoV-2 induces robust memory T cell responses in antibody-seronegative and antibody-seropositive individuals with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.29.174888v1.full.pdf https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.29.174888v1.... (June 2020) > ..some people who have not been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 have preexisting reactivity to SARS-CoV-2 sequences ..previous exposure to widely circulating common cold coronaviruses might be involved .. preexisting reactivity against SARS-CoV-2 comes from memory T cells and that cross-reactive T cells can specifically recognize a SARS-CoV-2 epitope as well as the homologous epitope from a common cold coronavirus, https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6512/89 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6512/89 (Oct 2020) Prior HN discussion on T-cells: https://hn.algolia.com/?prefix=true&query=t-cell https://hn.algolia.com/?prefix=true&query=t-cell

graeme 6y ago
Don’t remember the study but pretty sure that cross reactivity thesis to common cold eventually didn’t pan out. Believe Derek Lowe wrote about it.
- walterbell 6y ago
  Lowe's Feb 2021 article was about antibodies, not T-cells, https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/02/10/does-prior-exposure-to-coronaviruses-protect-you https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/02/10/do... > Now, you can still make an argument that the T cell component of immunity might provide some protection after a previous coronavirus infection. The current study didn’t address this directly Lowe's July 2020 article on T-cells, https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/07/15/new-data-on-t-cells-and-the-coronavirus https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/07/15/ne... > there are, in fact, people who have both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells that recognize protein antigens from the new coronavirus even though they have never been exposed to SARS, MERS, or the new virus. The paper speculated that this might be due to cross-reactivity with proteins from the “common cold” coronaviruses”, and raised the possibility that there might be a part of the population that has at least some existing protection against the current pandemic. and > patients who had caught SARS back in 2003 and recovered ... still have (17 years later!) a robust T-cell response to the original SARS coronavirus’s N protein ..This new work finds that these cross-react with the new SARS CoV-2 N protein as well There is an open question in the Nature study, about prior, unknown animal coronaviruses which may have previously infected humans and conferred T-cell protection against SARS-CoV-2.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

tubularhells 6y ago

What nobody wants to talk about is that it might take several more years for things to go back to somewhat normal. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00424-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... >In developing its COVID-19 Scenarios Project, the ISC has consulted with WHO and the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. The ISC has established in February, 2021, a multidisciplinary Oversight Panel made up of globally representative world experts in relevant disciplines to work with a technical team to produce the scenario map. The Oversight Panel will report within 6–8 months to the global community on the possible COVID-19 scenarios that lie ahead over the next 3–5 years, and on the choices that could be made by governments, agencies, and citizens to provide a pathway to an optimistic outcome for the world.

beervirus 6y ago
The fact that they’re planning for years in the future doesn’t mean it’ll take that long for things to get back to normal.
- tialaramex 6y ago
  That also depends what "normal" means to you. If normal just means you get to hug your grandmother who lives an hour away it might be safe right now (in a bunch of countries) or permitted but perhaps unwise (in a lot more countries) and it's likely that for most HN readers it will become a reasonable thing to do around mid-2021. If it means snogging random strangers at a crowded nightclub after a night of drinking that is safe in a very few places (only a handful of countries with elimination or close enough have "crowded nightclubs" in the first place, those aren't a thing on tiny Pacific islands many of which are COVID free) and legal but unwise in some parts of the world right now but it might not be a reasonable thing to do until late 2021 or after for most of us. If it means spending a week on safari in some poor country to see exotic wildlife, that likely will not be a reasonable thing to do until at least 2022 and maybe later, it may be technically safe for you earlier, but it probably needlessly exposes the locals to a virus they have yet to receive immunisation for so you shouldn't do it.

thrwayv2311 6y ago

Right, but are all vaccines equal ? Take the chinese Sinovac one for instance, which several countries have been using for their mass vaccination program. Preliminary data in Brazil showed an efficacy of about 50% in preventing asymptomatic infection[1]. Are we sure that it will be able to "end the pandemic" in these countries as well as the mRNA ones? I remain a bit skeptical. In a CDC simulation[0] back in June 2020, the conclusion was that: > This study found that the vaccine has to have an efficacy of at least 70% to prevent an epidemic and of at least 80% to largely extinguish an epidemic without any other measures (e.g., social distancing). Could someone more educated than me in the matter chime in? [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7361120/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7361120/ [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-55642648 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-55642648

lamontcg 6y ago
There isn't one efficacy number for Sinovac: “As of December 16, 2020, there were 12,396 health workers over 18 years old enrolled. A total of 253 positive cases were collected during the observation period. After 14 days following vaccination with 2 doses of vaccine following a 0, 14 day schedule, the efficacy rate against diseases caused by COVID-19 was 50.65% for all cases, 83.70% for cases requiring medical treatment, and 100.00% for hospitalized, severe, and fatal cases.” The near 100% efficacy against hospitalization and severe disease is still sufficient to end the disease burden of the pandemic. The virus may become endemic to the human race, but if the disease burden is somewhere in between the common cold and seasonal influenza then the _pandemic_ is over. The achievable goal is probably not eradication.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

rubyist5eva 6y ago

Not if power grabbing politicians and beaurocrats have anything to say about it.

gregwebs 6y ago

These articles are missing an important aspect of the vaccine: the immunity gained is non-sterilizing. [1] The vaccine stops the infection from becoming severe and spreading throughout the body, but it doesn't actually stop infection (and transmission) in the upper respiratory tract. So we don't have any evidence showing we can achieve herd immunity even with a 100% vaccination rate (this article is wrong). The only thing we know for sure is we can dramatically reduce the severity of infection. Beause vaccine efficacy is never 100%, some experts predict that we will see more deaths this year as we attempt to resume normal societal activities while SARS-COV-2 continues to circulate. [2] Although I think if we develop very good antibody tests and vaccines against the latest variants there should be a path towards minimizing deaths and severe complications and effectively turning this virus into a cold and effectively ending the pandemic. [1] https://drhyman.com/blog/2021/01/27/podcast-ep155/ https://drhyman.com/blog/2021/01/27/podcast-ep155/ [2] https://dalewharrison.substack.com/p/covid-year-1 https://dalewharrison.substack.com/p/covid-year-1

rimliu 6y ago
Transmission is greatly reduced.
- gregwebs 6y ago
  I hope this is true. Do you have any studies to back this up? I see statements by government officials to this effect, but never any studies or data to back it up.
pbourke 6y ago
> some experts predict that we will see more deaths this year as we attempt to resume normal societal activities while SARS-COV-2 continues to circulate. Some 35 million Americans - heavily weighted towards the most vulnerable - are fully vaccinated. Unless something wild happens with variants, I think these experts are being overly negative.

v9ewY51pMwWq 6y ago

FYI, Galit Alter has conflict of interest with Bill and Melinda Gates foundation: https://seromyx.com https://seromyx.com

scarface74 6y ago
How do you have a conflict of interest with a non profit?
- xeromal 6y ago
  I'm not sure what the person you're replying to is talking about but it sounds pretty easy to have a conflict of interest. If a non profit is doing something for free that a company is charging for, anything they say about the non-profit should be observed with caution.

fhunt 6y ago

OT: Imagine "experts" from our industry explain the mainstream our world: e.g. what's the right programming language, or database technology, why types matter, or not? Why do we trust "experts" from other industries?

rfrey 6y ago
Because software development is a skilled trade, not a science. The consortium discussed in the article is made up of actual scientists who do actual science. "I am surrounded by bullshitters therefore all fields are equally deep in it" is not a correct view.
- fhunt 6y ago
  Then take data science or deep learning which is a science as sophisticated, same there. We trust experts from other industries so much that we do not tolerate any other view without having a clue what is going on ourselves. The reason is simple, we have our views, they are political and we refer to "experts" to make our views scientific. Just my opinion and I bet that a huge number will disagree again with this comment. But—could I be right? Why not admit that I might be right? Because it's a political topic and your opinion is set.
  - barbazoo 6y ago
    I think parent is talking about professions where the scientific method is followed. It's not about how "sophisticated" something is.
    - fhunt 6y ago
      Do you anything about data science or deep learning? If this is not about scientific methods then what else? And even if not? Why not question existing methodology, people just follow some news outlets believing one and only thing.
  - rimliu 6y ago
    Data science is a science in a name only.

DoreenMichele 6y ago

I hope they are correct. I also hope we will continue to be more careful about germ control from here on out in myriad ways. I hope we do not blithely go back to "business as usual" in a way that fosters future pandemics as if we learned absolutely nothing here.

Covzire 6y ago
I worry also about an overreaction. At some level people who can survive a virus with little to no symptoms are better off contracting it than not, if only to form the antibodies to be ready for future mutants they might come in contact with. The behavior changes we make because of COVID could be dooming a lot of people to one day encounter much worse mutant viruses they could have been ready for.
- DoreenMichele 6y ago
  I really hate this kind of logic. I get where it comes from but I still hate it. I have a genetic disorder that causes a compromised immune system, so germ control is my life. My life got better in some important ways with the entire rest of the world being less germy and disgusting. About one of out every five people is officially labeled "handicapped" and at least one study suggests that up to three out of every five people may have more minor impairments that they mostly cover up and don't want to label as a "handicap" because it's stigmatizing. A great many people with various handicaps are immunocompromised or otherwise vulnerable. A lot of handicapped people saw some things improve for themselves while the entire world temporarily felt that germ control was super important. As one of those people, I am very concerned that "business as usual" will be a terrible thing for me. I've tried to figure out how to write about what kinds of best practices I would like to see, but that never really gelled in part because I became very concerned it would make me a target for the fear and anger of a lot of people during a global crisis. I didn't want some sort of lynch mob to descend upon me while much of the world applauded their depravity because, hey, scapegoats rather than solutions seems to be a very popular pursuit in the world generally, even during "normal" times and folks seem to double down on that during crises. Maybe I will still find a way to write about it and have some kind of influence on moving the needle gently but firmly in the right direction. And maybe not. I don't have much of an audience and like Rodney Dangerfield "I get no respect" and yadda.

de6u99er 6y ago

A globally coordinated approach, similar to NZ's approach could have ended the oandemic already a year ago. Thanks to COVID-19 fatigue amongst the population, such an effort very close to impossible.

kikokikokiko 6y ago
Comparing an island nation of 5 million people, that can effectively close it's borders and "avoid" new focuses of infection, to countries of 100+ million of people, where the difficulties of border closing are effectively unsurmountable, is extremely disingenuous. The whole approach governments took in facing this pandemic needs to be studied in the next decades. It's an eye opening thing to see how viruses spread pretty much the way they do, and there is almost nothing we can do to stop it. It's really humbling to see that if you keep everything open (i.e. Florida) you get the same results as if you make your population effectively stop to live for one year (i.e. California).
- dragontamer 6y ago
  Its likely illegal for California to close its borders to Florida. But that probably would have slowed the spread significantly, at least in the 3rd wave where the Mid-Western / anti-mask states led the 3rd wave. This country was in this together. For better or for worse. Closing the borders of states was never an option.
  - viraptor 6y ago
    > Its likely illegal for California to close its borders to Florida. I wonder if that's really the case. A year ago I'd say the same for Australia. Yet most Australian states closed their borders at some point as a response to local cases spiking. (I agree it's less practical in the US, but I do wonder about the legality)
    - jedberg 6y ago
      Whatever the answer I feel like it would take the courts a few weeks at least to figure it out. California (or more realistically Hawaii) could have had a full three week border closure before anyone settled the case law.

laraph 6y ago

The major variants of this virus very one of them has been confirmed to be affected by the vaccines. Even in the cases where a vaccine is less effective against a variant, the prevention of serious illness/hospitalization is always near 100%.

axaxs 6y ago

Perhaps unpopular opinion, but the US vaccination system is about the worst when it comes to preventing spread. Instead, it seems to be attempting to prevent death. I've always argued that preventing spread would as a byproduct prevent death, but I'm obviously not studied in the field. Put shortly, I would have vaccinated college kids and working age folks first. They are not likely to die from it, but are far more likely to spread it than elderly and severely diseased folks.

fakedang 6y ago
In that case, the vaccination system worldwide is the worst. No country I know of has prioritized those groups over elderlies.
- axaxs 6y ago
  Fair, but no other country(admittedly) save perhaps Brazil or Italy has had anywhere near the spread of the disease, either. In places the disease isn't rampant, I think the approach makes more sense.
- apendleton 6y ago
  China has been doing essentially this (prioritizing young people over the elderly): https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/voa-news-china/china-gives-vaccines-other-countries-not-its-elderly-chinese-over https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/voa-news-china/chi... . You're right that it's definitely not the prevailing strategy though. (Also, sorry for the vaguely propagandist source -- I originally heard about this on a podcast and am having trouble determining which, and this doesn't seem to be getting much coverage in English-language print media.)
  - xbmcuser 6y ago
    Countries that have stopped or at least controlled the spread can prioritise vaccinating younger population as that is unlikely to result in more deaths. Singapore has vaccinated its medical personnel (anyone working in a hospital or clinic) then 70 years old and above. Now it is moving to 60 year and above and all the front line workers like teachers, bank tellers, shop attendants, taxi/private drivers etc. They are not facing thousands of deaths so can prioritise protecting the most vulnerable as well as cut off the most likely high spread events.

boldpandabear 6y ago

It’s never been proven that a particle causes illness. It’s never been proven that illness is transmissible via particle. The vaccine may prevent symptoms from appearing (which is nothing new — steroids also do same thing) but social distancing and masking continue to be an unnecessary drain on quality of life.

ineedasername 6y ago

Unfortunately, at least in the US, the massively increased buy-in to conspiracy theories got together with the anti-vaxxer movement and had a three-way with folks who still believe COVID is a liberal attack on Trump, and their newborn baby is significant resistance to getting vaccinated by a large portion of the population.

nikolay 6y ago

Famous last words. I wish things were that simple. Evolution is a bitch - it made us, but it can also wipe us out.

tim333 6y ago
Viruses evolve but so do the vaccines. I think we have about 200 more in development. I'm kind of optimistic on that front - as tech improves we'll outpace nature.
- nikolay 6y ago
  Yeah, but viruses evolve faster and branch out. Again, you make all your conclusions based on our experience with DNA viruses - this is an RNA viruses, things are different. Imagine the flu as we know it only more contagious and more lethal. How can we be optimistic when even the flu kids enough and damages the economy already and vaccines have spotty success against it.

mbar84 6y ago

"experts" is not a word we should be using anymore.