5 ms·

So the issue is following: The longer the rest of the world population takes to achieve herd immunity the more surface we give to the virus to evolve with pote

So the issue is following: The longer the rest of the world population takes to achieve herd immunity the more surface we give to the virus to evolve with potentially disastrous consequences. The vaccine may be effective against currently known strains but nothing says it is going to be effective against future ones.

ceejayoz 6y ago
My understanding is that they cleverly targeted the vaccine at a protein the virus needs to get into cells. Change it too much and the vaccine doesn’t work, but neither does the virus.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  We don't really know yet how far the virus can mutate and stay highly infectious. We could get lucky and be able to use the current vaccines for a long time, or we might need to rework them pretty soon (it's already being done or course, but we don't know how necessarily it will be to deploy the modified vaccines).
- lmilcin 6y ago
  That assumes that the virus can't mutate a different way to get into the cell. Which is false assumption because there exists no single way to exist a cell. If this was true a single drug would be effective against all viruses. What is preventing DNA of multiple viruses to mix together and exchange some parts? You could argue that this is rather rare occurrence, but that is exactly the point. It happens sometimes and the more chances we give to the virus the more likely this happens in reality.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    It's a mistake to discount "this works well" because it doesn't necessarily work perfectly. Targeting the vaccine in a way that lessens the likelihood of mutations making it ineffective is a sensible approach. Thus far, data seems to show the mRNA vaccines being pretty resilient to the mutations out there. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/03/24/science.abg9175 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/03/24/scie...
  - jjk166 6y ago
    If the virus mutates enough that it develops a completely different method of entering cells, it's essentially a different virus. This would change its rate of transmission, it's incubation period, its infectivity, even symptoms. It's no more likely that covid-19 mutates into the next pandemic virus than any of the other coronaviruses already in circulation do. Yes it's good to get people vaccinated quickly, there's certainly no good that will come from unnecessarily prolonging the current pandemic, but it will end.
deepstack 6y ago
>The vaccine may be effective against currently known strains but nothing says it is going to be effective against future ones. It is true. Wonder if vaccine is the only way against COVID?
Vinnl 6y ago
I'm also a bit reluctant about my country moving on to vaccinating low-risk groups (like myself) before assisting other countries with at-risk high-risk groups and overflowing hospitals. I understand why, and of course I would like to be vaccinated, but it feels wrong.
- contravariant 6y ago
  Vaccinating at-risk groups first is a good tactic but isn't enough to stop the outbreak. At this point it's probably the correct choice to stop the epidemic locally first. Though obviously the earlier we can eradicate the virus globally the better.
  - Vinnl 6y ago
    Yeah my motivation here wasn't to stop the outbreak, it was to ensure that hospitals are able to cope and fewer people die.
oliv__ 6y ago
Yes, let's all stay home afraid for the rest of our lives

ceejayoz 6y ago

My understanding is that they cleverly targeted the vaccine at a protein the virus needs to get into cells. Change it too much and the vaccine doesn’t work, but neither does the virus.

maxerickson 6y ago
We don't really know yet how far the virus can mutate and stay highly infectious. We could get lucky and be able to use the current vaccines for a long time, or we might need to rework them pretty soon (it's already being done or course, but we don't know how necessarily it will be to deploy the modified vaccines).
lmilcin 6y ago
That assumes that the virus can't mutate a different way to get into the cell. Which is false assumption because there exists no single way to exist a cell. If this was true a single drug would be effective against all viruses. What is preventing DNA of multiple viruses to mix together and exchange some parts? You could argue that this is rather rare occurrence, but that is exactly the point. It happens sometimes and the more chances we give to the virus the more likely this happens in reality.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  It's a mistake to discount "this works well" because it doesn't necessarily work perfectly. Targeting the vaccine in a way that lessens the likelihood of mutations making it ineffective is a sensible approach. Thus far, data seems to show the mRNA vaccines being pretty resilient to the mutations out there. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/03/24/science.abg9175 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/03/24/scie...
- jjk166 6y ago
  If the virus mutates enough that it develops a completely different method of entering cells, it's essentially a different virus. This would change its rate of transmission, it's incubation period, its infectivity, even symptoms. It's no more likely that covid-19 mutates into the next pandemic virus than any of the other coronaviruses already in circulation do. Yes it's good to get people vaccinated quickly, there's certainly no good that will come from unnecessarily prolonging the current pandemic, but it will end.

deepstack 6y ago

>The vaccine may be effective against currently known strains but nothing says it is going to be effective against future ones. It is true. Wonder if vaccine is the only way against COVID?

Vinnl 6y ago

I'm also a bit reluctant about my country moving on to vaccinating low-risk groups (like myself) before assisting other countries with at-risk high-risk groups and overflowing hospitals. I understand why, and of course I would like to be vaccinated, but it feels wrong.

contravariant 6y ago
Vaccinating at-risk groups first is a good tactic but isn't enough to stop the outbreak. At this point it's probably the correct choice to stop the epidemic locally first. Though obviously the earlier we can eradicate the virus globally the better.
- Vinnl 6y ago
  Yeah my motivation here wasn't to stop the outbreak, it was to ensure that hospitals are able to cope and fewer people die.

oliv__ 6y ago

Yes, let's all stay home afraid for the rest of our lives