12 ms·

and a fourth booster... and a fifth... sixth, seventh, etc.

officialjunk 5y ago
with the current formulas this is true. https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2021/03/25/modeling-study-predicts-immune-protection-may-vary-for-different-covid-19-vaccines/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2021/03/25/mod... seeing almost half the efficacy after 250 days.
aledalgrande 5y ago
Which is going to be the future. The CEO of Moderna was talking about it. An annual shot that includes COVID, flu, cold and other vaccines. We'll get to a point in which we will look back at having a cold like you look at a Nokia 3310 now. Edit: podcast link for who's curious https://ark-invest.com/podcast/understanding-mrna-conversations-with-moderna-and-arcturus-therapeutics/ https://ark-invest.com/podcast/understanding-mrna-conversati...
- osenthuortuh 5y ago
  I want to say something sarcastic, but I am in genuine disbelief that this could be anyone's vision for the future of humanity. What an abhorrent nightmare.
  - TchoBeer 5y ago
    I don't see why eliminating disease is an abhorrent nightmare to you. Is the fact that no one gets polio anymore also an abhorrent nightmare?
    - at-fates-hands 5y ago
      Polio was never eliminated. It still persists in poor countries and among abject poverty stricken communities. Wild poliovirus has been eradicated in all continents except Asia, and as of 2020, Afghanistan and Pakistan are the only two countries where the disease is still classified as endemic.[5][6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_eradication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_eradication
      - robbrown451 5y ago
        Eliminated and eradicated are not the same thing. Polio certainly has been eliminated from the United States. The point is, polio is no longer a significant problem here.
      - TchoBeer 5y ago
        Sorry, maybe I should've specified _In the United States_
  - hderms 5y ago
    I genuinely have no idea why that would be abhorrent, except to anti-vaxxers. Can you explain?
    - osenthuortuh 5y ago
      Pugs cannot give birth naturally. The continued existence of pugs is completely dependent on medical intervention. In other words, pugs are not real. They exist only to the degree that a painting or building exists. They require constant upkeep by an advanced society, which has never existed beyond a few thousand years at a time. Why would anyone's vision for the future of humanity be an animal that can only exist in the context of an advanced civilization? Why would anyone's vision of humanity be an animal that is dependent for survival on <product> from <company> as though they were cattle? To reduce a human being to a dependent component of a pharmaceutical production chain is an abhorrent moral hazard. Smallpox was made extinct, and other diseases may be made greatly reduced because they are unique to humanity. But the many coronaviruses are shared between mammals, and are an eternal component of the environment. We have a moral obligation to evolve to suit the environment. That is what it means to be a successful animal.
      - majormajor 5y ago
        > We have a moral obligation to evolve to suit the environment. That is what it means to be a successful animal. So tools as a whole are just... sins? How far down this line do you want us to go? No plastics? No computers? No structures? No roads? No clothes?
      - rebuilder 5y ago
        >Why would anyone's vision for the future of humanity be an animal that can only exist in the context of an advanced civilization? That is a textbook description of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, IMO. We are not very impressive without an advanced civilization.
        saalweachter 5y ago
        Niches changing is pretty boringly normal. Dolphins are evolutionarily unfit to occupy the niche they had back on land. The bacteria that precipitated the oxygen crisis were very successful until they weren't. There are many reasons to care about environmental destruction, pollution, and the loss of biodiversity, but at the same time it's neither particularly rational nor natural to obsess about preserving exactly the niches which existed at a particular point in time, nor our fitness for them.
  - gnulinux 5y ago
    Why? I honestly don't see what you're suggesting? We're already half-human half-chemical half-cyborgs. We drink coffee which includes caffeine, we use alcohol and THC regularly to "socialize", we take ibuprofen et al when feel pain, we eat sugar because we're fucking addicted. We use internet almost all the time except when sleeping and taking a shower. We check reddit, twitter, HN, facebook, instagram as if our lives depend on it. We're on track to build virtual reality googles that'll entertain us in an entire different simulated reality that we can only experience via our eyes. Not to mention most people look at monitors most of their lives anyway. We regularly vaccinate against tetanus, HPV, chicken pox, flu etc. Do you not get the flu shot every year? I vaccinate my cat against rabies and distemper every year. I take antidepressants (anxiety) and antihistemics (allergy) every day, because I kinda need them to live normally. My girlfriend has to take pain medicine once a month due to her basic biology. And the problem is we'll add COVID and cold to our annual flu shots, and that somehow makes our world any more dystopic. Makes absolutely no fucking sense. There are trillions of shit to be outraged about, this ain't one of those. Just chill.
    - Mediterraneo10 5y ago
      Who knows what motivated the grandparent post to say that [EDIT: OK, now he explained and I definitely don’t endorse that, geez], but I can see some grounds for unease at aledalgrande's vision of a specifically annual vaccination mentioned above. The COVID epidemic has been accompanied by border closures, followed now by a slow and chaotic reopening of them as different countries recognize different vaccines and different certificates proving vaccination. A future where everyone must get an annual jab to prevent even the common cold, and then have to prove recent vaccination to cross borders, would only continue indefinitely what many people hoped was just a one-off thing in their lifetimes. Incidentally, only half of people or less even in affluent countries get the annual flu shot. It is frequently believed to be relevant only for the elderly and at-risk demographics.
      - gnulinux 5y ago
        > many people hoped was just a one-off thing. This was never the case. If you didn't understand that COVID is here to stay indefinitely, like flu, after April 2020 I'm sorry but you aren't paying attention. Not to mention, if we follow perfect vaccination around the world, we can eradicate COVID like we eradicated smallpox etc, although this will be a lot harder. So, I still don't see your point. Yes people need to take yearly vaccines not to die of horrible diseases. That has been the case for the last few hundred years.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    That would be amazing. A needle stick every year and significantly less (even mild) illnesses? Let's do it. (I say this as someone who fortunately almost never gets sick. People who are often sick would relish this even more.)
    - xwolfi 5y ago
      I get sick every year for some reason, often gastro, and the bi-yearly AC switch off/on giving me a long cold because I grew up in a country without AC. A year out of two I have a bad flu, a year out of 5, a bad otitis so painful I can't eat for a while... Well the ONLY year of my life (I'm 33) I wasn't sick was 2020-2021. I think... the mask helped a lot. I feel like I understand now all these people telling me getting so sick every year wasn't normal...
      - matwood 5y ago
        I didn’t get a cold for just over 14 months. It was glorious. Now that I’m vaccinated I’ve been out a bit more and have been dealing with a head cold all week. If there’s a shot to stop colds, sign me up.
  - robbrown451 5y ago
    I'm at a loss as to why reduction of suffering and death is abhorrent to you.
    - osenthuortuh 5y ago
      It's an artificial reduction in suffering and death. It's a genetic loan that will one day be repaid, with interest.
      - saalweachter 5y ago
        The best way to prepare for future evolutionary challenges is to stockpile genetic diversity. More genetic diversity means both less of a chance of the entire population being vulnerable in the same way to a new threat, and better chances to reach new local maximas that are two or three hops through rough terrain in the evolutionary search space. Continually applying harsh selection criteria just homogenizes a population to a local maxima and leaves them vulnerable to future change.
      - 0-_-0 5y ago
        How about... wearing clothes? Cooking food?
      - inglor_cz 5y ago
        Not really. This is a naive interpretation of Darwinism. If anything, humans have become more genetically fit by mixing various formerly isolated populations together. Which is very much a consequence of global civilization. By far the largest problem of any genetic pool (animals, plants, whatever) is not having enough genetic diversity in it. See: Cavendish bananas, the Tasmanian devil.
      - robbrown451 5y ago
        Ok, well if you want to do your part to contribute to the genetic excellence of the human race, don't use medicine. If you get an infection, instead of using antibiotics, just let it kill you. Don't get glasses, just let your bad vision get you killed. How far do you want to take this? I'm sure you can increase the immunities of future humans by drinking out of puddles like dogs do. It doesn't seem to make dogs sick, presumably because all the dogs in the past with weaker immune systems died, probably with a lot of suffering. I doubt you do any of these things, because you aren't willing to accept the low chance of survival-to-adulthood that typical wild animals have. It may keep their genetics in tip top shape, but is that really what you want?
  - rsynnott 5y ago
    You’re aware that most people already have a bunch of vaccines, right?
  - antonvs 5y ago
    You've already benefited, either directly or indirectly, from the polio vaccine, the smallpox vaccine, antibiotics, etc. You might not even be alive if it weren't for those, because some of your direct ancestors would have been likely to die or be severely disabled. So what is suddenly giving you pause here? Just the idea that these shots may be needed more regularly, rather than a few times during childhood? Do you think we should return to a life in which we forage naked for berries in the forest? Assuming the answer is no, where do you draw the line as to what technologies you're willing to accept, and which you aren't?
- odiroot 5y ago
  I liked my Nokia 3310. I never liked the cold.
  - aledalgrande 5y ago
    This was funny! I should have found a better comparison...
- standardUser 5y ago
  It is not yet known if boosters will be necessary for COVID-19, let alone annual shots. There is however evidence that natural immunity lasts longer than 1 year.
  - fullstackchris 5y ago
    yes but natural immunity =/= vaccine immunity (and please don't say bUt vAcCinE aNTIBoDiEs aRe bEtTeR tHaN ThoSe pRodUCed bY nATuRaL aNtIbODiEs)
- johnisgood 5y ago
  Okay, but you did not need a vaccine cert for having received the flu shot. I personally do not get those seasonal flu shots, and I had no issues for years. It was entirely voluntary, and no one gave a shit if you got it or not (it was not the first question that left people when they met you either), it was up to you entirely. We treat the COVID-19 shot very differently, I mean, after all, there actually is a vaccine cert you receive, and without it, you are pretty much doomed these days (it varies between countries, but here many employers made it a prerequisite). What about those who cannot receive the vaccine for health reasons? Many people here got the vaccine only to get the vaccine cert, because that meant that they could go back to work (as it was a prerequisite). This artificial limitation or restriction goes to extremes somewhere. Here they talk about not being able to receive basic health care without it! Can you believe that? But of course you have to continue paying for social insurance (that covers it). --- If I may, I would like to have those down-votes explained as I did not say anything that is false, and I did not express my opinion regarding the vaccine either. What exactly could have been down-voted? I believe everything I said is true. If it is not, can you point it out, please?
  - shard 5y ago
    I caught the flu two years in a row, about 15 year ago. Just unlucky, I guess. Never had the flu before that. Each of those two times laid me out for two weeks straight, just completely miserable, couldn't even sleep lying down because it made me cough. After that I religiously got my flu shot every year.
    - johnisgood 5y ago
      Yeah of course, my mom does the same. I stopped a few years ago and I was still alright, and I generally do not catch the common cold either, it has been years. In any case, I do not mind anyone getting the flu shot, of course. I still have diseases, just other kinds. No vaccine or treatment for them.
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      There is lots of luck involved with the flu shot as well. They range from 1/3 to 2/3 effective, it depends on the year. In 2019, the vaccines were 37% effective against Influenza A and 50% against Influenza B, but the B variant was more prevalent that year so the overall effectiveness was 45%. (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6907a1.htm?s_cid=mm6907a1_w https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6907a1.htm?s_cid=mm...) We are still trying to figure out how to make effective flu vaccines.
- Loveaway 5y ago
  Well I'd urge you to not be so hastily. This could very well go very badly. There are a lot of unproven, hypothetical, assumptions being made, and a lot of people are completely ignoring any counter argument. Often valid issues simply get deleted, people just don't want to hear it, they don't want to see it, and it scares me to be honest. It's also getting completely impossible to argue against the commitment bias of vaccinated people. You really don't even considered once that injecting spike protein on a regular basis might not be the best thing for you body? This is a harmful protein after all. I don't know, maybe its all fine and good, but if you ask me, I think a lot of people are way too excited to be part of this study. Especially since the risk/reward doesn't seems to be that great in the first place.
  - carlmr 5y ago
    >You really don't even considered once that injecting spike protein on a regular basis might not be the best thing for you body? This is a harmful protein after all. We're talking about small amounts here, that aren't replicating. If you have the virus coursing around you get a lot of contact with the real spike protein, which can replicate inside your body. The body is used to fighting off a lot of viruses and bacteria at the same time. Why would this spike protein, without the attached virus, be different? After all we can't compare the vaccine to a world without the virus, since we won't get that back. Instead we need to compare the vaccine to the world with the virus.
    - Loveaway 5y ago
      It's a good point. But delivery mechanism should probably be considered too. The virus has to go through the respiratory system, which is a first line of defense. Then it takes time to infect you, multiply, and get around. It also can only dock at ACE2 I think. The shot seems to be instant full body intracellular delivery. Maybe it does not matter much, but the immune reaction can indeed be very strong. Just don't be completely naive when in comes to regular booster shots, there might be a fine line between benefits and negatives. Also other types of vaccines are on the way I heard, so we'll see, maybe that will open up alternative ways to combat the virus.
  - 5y ago
- rubyist5eva 5y ago
  Of course Big Pharma wants you locked-in on annual boosters. I'll take my chances with the virus with less than 1% mortality rate for people under 60. Are we even remotely close to having a suitable vaccine for a common cold? What is the point of having a vaccine for a simple cold anyway...?
- scythe 5y ago
  The CEO of Moderna has a rather obvious conflict of interest. If he overestimates future vaccine need, he can't be blamed for being 'cautious', but enjoys a potential stock boost anyway.
- marvin 5y ago
  This is a beautiful idea, basically eliminating the threat and inconvenience that most viruses cause. But it's a bit early to conclude that this is certainly the future. Covid is by far the worst and deadliest pandemic since 1914, which both justifies and facilitates very fast testing and use of new vaccines. But we haven't had the time to look for long-term effects yet. This is not an antivaxxer stance - it's basic epistemology. mRNA vaccines allow us to trigger and target the immune system to point it in arbitrary directions to a degree we haven't before. The immune system is a sensitive thing that can cause lots of damage if it gets confused. I'd want a lot of high-quality data on long-term effects in terms of risk of autoimmune disease, Alzheimers, ME and so on a world where we deliberately provoke strong immune responses versus things that are mostly minor inconveniences - the common cold, the flu, herpes, etc. I certainly hope this is the future, but I won't be the first in line to test it out.
  - lampington 5y ago
    You mean 1918, I think?
  - aledalgrande 5y ago
    Just want to clarify that that is the "future", not the present. And just because cold and flu are minor inconveniences to you, doesn't mean that they aren't very dangerous for people with weak immune systems. And on top of that mRNA is very targeted, it's not something that carpet bombs your body like radiotherapy.
rebuilder 5y ago
Well, yes. What else? Getting rid of the novel coronavirus doesn't seem likely at this point. So, either we control it by vaccination or we go back to how it was before any vaccines. Hopefully, eventually the virus evolves into a less deadly form and maybe our immune systems develop some more resistance. I don't know if the latter is actually reasonable to expect.
- bluGill 5y ago
  > eventually the virus evolves into a less deadly form and maybe our immune systems develop some more resistance. I don't know if the latter is actually reasonable to expect. The more people who die, the more likely it is we evolve protection
  - ironmagma 5y ago
    The same can be said of driving. Should we remove airbags tomorrow?
    - bluGill 5y ago
      If we do, over the next 10,000 years it will make a difference in human reaction times. Assuming of course that nothing else destroys us all first, or makes cars obsolete. Since I don't have 10,000 years I prefer to make cars obsolete.
      - ironmagma 5y ago
        It has nothing to do with how long you personally have; this is about the species, remember? You could very well die from lack of airbags, and not because you had a slow reaction time but because your skull isn't optimized for surviving collisions. Further, there are a lot of stand-up people you currently like who would die. There are many reasons to protect the weak, even from an evolutionary standpoint.
        angry_octet 5y ago
marcodiego 5y ago
Yes. Like yearly vaccination campaigns.
- SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
  Like the flu. Or even Tetanus requires boosters. I don't know why that makes it a dealbreaker.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
fullstackchris 5y ago
Not sure why you are being downvoted. You are correct, and this is LITERALLY the case with existing virus boosters like Tetanus (actually the combined Tetanus / Polio / Diptheria / Pertusis). Many booster vaccines are recommended at regular intervals (some 5 years, some 10 years, some somewhere within that range). You wouldn't see people downvoting advice to get your Tetanus booster every 10 years! Yet they'll downvote such a suggestion about COVID boosters? I just don't understand. Its biology folks. Actually this _really_ pisses me off that you were downvoted. Everyone is treating this vaccine plan (and I mean speaking from the US point of view vaccine plan) like it is the end of the pandemic permanantly. I can assure everybody that it is NOT. Indeed, there has been talk of these universal flu & cold vaccines for decades, but they have yet to be produced - just look how long the COVID vaccines took to be released worldwide when the first one was produced in January of 2020 (not a typo). Meanwhile, multiple countries in Africa, as well as all of India are still being ravaged by this virus - where is thier vaccine help? There is such a western centric twist on HackerNews that it really makes me question just how intelligent our "best programmers in the world" really are. From my initial view point, it seems everyone here understands the entire situtation no better than any other anectdotal theory from the average lurker on 4chan or reddit.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  There is a problem with programmers thinking/acting/talking like they know quite a lot more than they do. Any thread on HN not about programming is sure to be full of confident ignorance (and honestly the programming threads too). People don’t have very broad knowledge or education, a few do, but it can be hard to pick out.
- presidente20 5y ago
  >It's biology folks? Read up about philosophy of science. Science has to be subjected to scrutiny and stand the test of time before we can be confident. Covid jab needs more time.

with the current formulas this is true. https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2021/03/25/modeling-study-predicts-immune-protection-may-vary-for-different-covid-19-vaccines/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2021/03/25/mod... seeing almost half the efficacy after 250 days.

aledalgrande 5y ago

Which is going to be the future. The CEO of Moderna was talking about it. An annual shot that includes COVID, flu, cold and other vaccines. We'll get to a point in which we will look back at having a cold like you look at a Nokia 3310 now. Edit: podcast link for who's curious https://ark-invest.com/podcast/understanding-mrna-conversations-with-moderna-and-arcturus-therapeutics/ https://ark-invest.com/podcast/understanding-mrna-conversati...

osenthuortuh 5y ago
I want to say something sarcastic, but I am in genuine disbelief that this could be anyone's vision for the future of humanity. What an abhorrent nightmare.
- TchoBeer 5y ago
  I don't see why eliminating disease is an abhorrent nightmare to you. Is the fact that no one gets polio anymore also an abhorrent nightmare?
  - at-fates-hands 5y ago
    Polio was never eliminated. It still persists in poor countries and among abject poverty stricken communities. Wild poliovirus has been eradicated in all continents except Asia, and as of 2020, Afghanistan and Pakistan are the only two countries where the disease is still classified as endemic.[5][6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_eradication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_eradication
    - robbrown451 5y ago
      Eliminated and eradicated are not the same thing. Polio certainly has been eliminated from the United States. The point is, polio is no longer a significant problem here.
    - TchoBeer 5y ago
      Sorry, maybe I should've specified _In the United States_
- hderms 5y ago
  I genuinely have no idea why that would be abhorrent, except to anti-vaxxers. Can you explain?
  - osenthuortuh 5y ago
    Pugs cannot give birth naturally. The continued existence of pugs is completely dependent on medical intervention. In other words, pugs are not real. They exist only to the degree that a painting or building exists. They require constant upkeep by an advanced society, which has never existed beyond a few thousand years at a time. Why would anyone's vision for the future of humanity be an animal that can only exist in the context of an advanced civilization? Why would anyone's vision of humanity be an animal that is dependent for survival on <product> from <company> as though they were cattle? To reduce a human being to a dependent component of a pharmaceutical production chain is an abhorrent moral hazard. Smallpox was made extinct, and other diseases may be made greatly reduced because they are unique to humanity. But the many coronaviruses are shared between mammals, and are an eternal component of the environment. We have a moral obligation to evolve to suit the environment. That is what it means to be a successful animal.
    - majormajor 5y ago
      > We have a moral obligation to evolve to suit the environment. That is what it means to be a successful animal. So tools as a whole are just... sins? How far down this line do you want us to go? No plastics? No computers? No structures? No roads? No clothes?
    - rebuilder 5y ago
      >Why would anyone's vision for the future of humanity be an animal that can only exist in the context of an advanced civilization? That is a textbook description of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, IMO. We are not very impressive without an advanced civilization.
      - saalweachter 5y ago
        Niches changing is pretty boringly normal. Dolphins are evolutionarily unfit to occupy the niche they had back on land. The bacteria that precipitated the oxygen crisis were very successful until they weren't. There are many reasons to care about environmental destruction, pollution, and the loss of biodiversity, but at the same time it's neither particularly rational nor natural to obsess about preserving exactly the niches which existed at a particular point in time, nor our fitness for them.
- gnulinux 5y ago
  Why? I honestly don't see what you're suggesting? We're already half-human half-chemical half-cyborgs. We drink coffee which includes caffeine, we use alcohol and THC regularly to "socialize", we take ibuprofen et al when feel pain, we eat sugar because we're fucking addicted. We use internet almost all the time except when sleeping and taking a shower. We check reddit, twitter, HN, facebook, instagram as if our lives depend on it. We're on track to build virtual reality googles that'll entertain us in an entire different simulated reality that we can only experience via our eyes. Not to mention most people look at monitors most of their lives anyway. We regularly vaccinate against tetanus, HPV, chicken pox, flu etc. Do you not get the flu shot every year? I vaccinate my cat against rabies and distemper every year. I take antidepressants (anxiety) and antihistemics (allergy) every day, because I kinda need them to live normally. My girlfriend has to take pain medicine once a month due to her basic biology. And the problem is we'll add COVID and cold to our annual flu shots, and that somehow makes our world any more dystopic. Makes absolutely no fucking sense. There are trillions of shit to be outraged about, this ain't one of those. Just chill.
  - Mediterraneo10 5y ago
    Who knows what motivated the grandparent post to say that [EDIT: OK, now he explained and I definitely don’t endorse that, geez], but I can see some grounds for unease at aledalgrande's vision of a specifically annual vaccination mentioned above. The COVID epidemic has been accompanied by border closures, followed now by a slow and chaotic reopening of them as different countries recognize different vaccines and different certificates proving vaccination. A future where everyone must get an annual jab to prevent even the common cold, and then have to prove recent vaccination to cross borders, would only continue indefinitely what many people hoped was just a one-off thing in their lifetimes. Incidentally, only half of people or less even in affluent countries get the annual flu shot. It is frequently believed to be relevant only for the elderly and at-risk demographics.
    - gnulinux 5y ago
      > many people hoped was just a one-off thing. This was never the case. If you didn't understand that COVID is here to stay indefinitely, like flu, after April 2020 I'm sorry but you aren't paying attention. Not to mention, if we follow perfect vaccination around the world, we can eradicate COVID like we eradicated smallpox etc, although this will be a lot harder. So, I still don't see your point. Yes people need to take yearly vaccines not to die of horrible diseases. That has been the case for the last few hundred years.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  That would be amazing. A needle stick every year and significantly less (even mild) illnesses? Let's do it. (I say this as someone who fortunately almost never gets sick. People who are often sick would relish this even more.)
  - xwolfi 5y ago
    I get sick every year for some reason, often gastro, and the bi-yearly AC switch off/on giving me a long cold because I grew up in a country without AC. A year out of two I have a bad flu, a year out of 5, a bad otitis so painful I can't eat for a while... Well the ONLY year of my life (I'm 33) I wasn't sick was 2020-2021. I think... the mask helped a lot. I feel like I understand now all these people telling me getting so sick every year wasn't normal...
    - matwood 5y ago
      I didn’t get a cold for just over 14 months. It was glorious. Now that I’m vaccinated I’ve been out a bit more and have been dealing with a head cold all week. If there’s a shot to stop colds, sign me up.
- robbrown451 5y ago
  I'm at a loss as to why reduction of suffering and death is abhorrent to you.
  - osenthuortuh 5y ago
    It's an artificial reduction in suffering and death. It's a genetic loan that will one day be repaid, with interest.
    - saalweachter 5y ago
      The best way to prepare for future evolutionary challenges is to stockpile genetic diversity. More genetic diversity means both less of a chance of the entire population being vulnerable in the same way to a new threat, and better chances to reach new local maximas that are two or three hops through rough terrain in the evolutionary search space. Continually applying harsh selection criteria just homogenizes a population to a local maxima and leaves them vulnerable to future change.
    - 0-_-0 5y ago
      How about... wearing clothes? Cooking food?
    - inglor_cz 5y ago
      Not really. This is a naive interpretation of Darwinism. If anything, humans have become more genetically fit by mixing various formerly isolated populations together. Which is very much a consequence of global civilization. By far the largest problem of any genetic pool (animals, plants, whatever) is not having enough genetic diversity in it. See: Cavendish bananas, the Tasmanian devil.
    - robbrown451 5y ago
      Ok, well if you want to do your part to contribute to the genetic excellence of the human race, don't use medicine. If you get an infection, instead of using antibiotics, just let it kill you. Don't get glasses, just let your bad vision get you killed. How far do you want to take this? I'm sure you can increase the immunities of future humans by drinking out of puddles like dogs do. It doesn't seem to make dogs sick, presumably because all the dogs in the past with weaker immune systems died, probably with a lot of suffering. I doubt you do any of these things, because you aren't willing to accept the low chance of survival-to-adulthood that typical wild animals have. It may keep their genetics in tip top shape, but is that really what you want?
- rsynnott 5y ago
  You’re aware that most people already have a bunch of vaccines, right?
- antonvs 5y ago
  You've already benefited, either directly or indirectly, from the polio vaccine, the smallpox vaccine, antibiotics, etc. You might not even be alive if it weren't for those, because some of your direct ancestors would have been likely to die or be severely disabled. So what is suddenly giving you pause here? Just the idea that these shots may be needed more regularly, rather than a few times during childhood? Do you think we should return to a life in which we forage naked for berries in the forest? Assuming the answer is no, where do you draw the line as to what technologies you're willing to accept, and which you aren't?
odiroot 5y ago
I liked my Nokia 3310. I never liked the cold.
- aledalgrande 5y ago
  This was funny! I should have found a better comparison...
standardUser 5y ago
It is not yet known if boosters will be necessary for COVID-19, let alone annual shots. There is however evidence that natural immunity lasts longer than 1 year.
- fullstackchris 5y ago
  yes but natural immunity =/= vaccine immunity (and please don't say bUt vAcCinE aNTIBoDiEs aRe bEtTeR tHaN ThoSe pRodUCed bY nATuRaL aNtIbODiEs)
johnisgood 5y ago
Okay, but you did not need a vaccine cert for having received the flu shot. I personally do not get those seasonal flu shots, and I had no issues for years. It was entirely voluntary, and no one gave a shit if you got it or not (it was not the first question that left people when they met you either), it was up to you entirely. We treat the COVID-19 shot very differently, I mean, after all, there actually is a vaccine cert you receive, and without it, you are pretty much doomed these days (it varies between countries, but here many employers made it a prerequisite). What about those who cannot receive the vaccine for health reasons? Many people here got the vaccine only to get the vaccine cert, because that meant that they could go back to work (as it was a prerequisite). This artificial limitation or restriction goes to extremes somewhere. Here they talk about not being able to receive basic health care without it! Can you believe that? But of course you have to continue paying for social insurance (that covers it). --- If I may, I would like to have those down-votes explained as I did not say anything that is false, and I did not express my opinion regarding the vaccine either. What exactly could have been down-voted? I believe everything I said is true. If it is not, can you point it out, please?
- shard 5y ago
  I caught the flu two years in a row, about 15 year ago. Just unlucky, I guess. Never had the flu before that. Each of those two times laid me out for two weeks straight, just completely miserable, couldn't even sleep lying down because it made me cough. After that I religiously got my flu shot every year.
  - johnisgood 5y ago
    Yeah of course, my mom does the same. I stopped a few years ago and I was still alright, and I generally do not catch the common cold either, it has been years. In any case, I do not mind anyone getting the flu shot, of course. I still have diseases, just other kinds. No vaccine or treatment for them.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    There is lots of luck involved with the flu shot as well. They range from 1/3 to 2/3 effective, it depends on the year. In 2019, the vaccines were 37% effective against Influenza A and 50% against Influenza B, but the B variant was more prevalent that year so the overall effectiveness was 45%. (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6907a1.htm?s_cid=mm6907a1_w https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6907a1.htm?s_cid=mm...) We are still trying to figure out how to make effective flu vaccines.
Loveaway 5y ago
Well I'd urge you to not be so hastily. This could very well go very badly. There are a lot of unproven, hypothetical, assumptions being made, and a lot of people are completely ignoring any counter argument. Often valid issues simply get deleted, people just don't want to hear it, they don't want to see it, and it scares me to be honest. It's also getting completely impossible to argue against the commitment bias of vaccinated people. You really don't even considered once that injecting spike protein on a regular basis might not be the best thing for you body? This is a harmful protein after all. I don't know, maybe its all fine and good, but if you ask me, I think a lot of people are way too excited to be part of this study. Especially since the risk/reward doesn't seems to be that great in the first place.
- carlmr 5y ago
  >You really don't even considered once that injecting spike protein on a regular basis might not be the best thing for you body? This is a harmful protein after all. We're talking about small amounts here, that aren't replicating. If you have the virus coursing around you get a lot of contact with the real spike protein, which can replicate inside your body. The body is used to fighting off a lot of viruses and bacteria at the same time. Why would this spike protein, without the attached virus, be different? After all we can't compare the vaccine to a world without the virus, since we won't get that back. Instead we need to compare the vaccine to the world with the virus.
  - Loveaway 5y ago
    It's a good point. But delivery mechanism should probably be considered too. The virus has to go through the respiratory system, which is a first line of defense. Then it takes time to infect you, multiply, and get around. It also can only dock at ACE2 I think. The shot seems to be instant full body intracellular delivery. Maybe it does not matter much, but the immune reaction can indeed be very strong. Just don't be completely naive when in comes to regular booster shots, there might be a fine line between benefits and negatives. Also other types of vaccines are on the way I heard, so we'll see, maybe that will open up alternative ways to combat the virus.
- 5y ago
rubyist5eva 5y ago
Of course Big Pharma wants you locked-in on annual boosters. I'll take my chances with the virus with less than 1% mortality rate for people under 60. Are we even remotely close to having a suitable vaccine for a common cold? What is the point of having a vaccine for a simple cold anyway...?
scythe 5y ago
The CEO of Moderna has a rather obvious conflict of interest. If he overestimates future vaccine need, he can't be blamed for being 'cautious', but enjoys a potential stock boost anyway.
marvin 5y ago
This is a beautiful idea, basically eliminating the threat and inconvenience that most viruses cause. But it's a bit early to conclude that this is certainly the future. Covid is by far the worst and deadliest pandemic since 1914, which both justifies and facilitates very fast testing and use of new vaccines. But we haven't had the time to look for long-term effects yet. This is not an antivaxxer stance - it's basic epistemology. mRNA vaccines allow us to trigger and target the immune system to point it in arbitrary directions to a degree we haven't before. The immune system is a sensitive thing that can cause lots of damage if it gets confused. I'd want a lot of high-quality data on long-term effects in terms of risk of autoimmune disease, Alzheimers, ME and so on a world where we deliberately provoke strong immune responses versus things that are mostly minor inconveniences - the common cold, the flu, herpes, etc. I certainly hope this is the future, but I won't be the first in line to test it out.
- lampington 5y ago
  You mean 1918, I think?
- aledalgrande 5y ago
  Just want to clarify that that is the "future", not the present. And just because cold and flu are minor inconveniences to you, doesn't mean that they aren't very dangerous for people with weak immune systems. And on top of that mRNA is very targeted, it's not something that carpet bombs your body like radiotherapy.

rebuilder 5y ago

Well, yes. What else? Getting rid of the novel coronavirus doesn't seem likely at this point. So, either we control it by vaccination or we go back to how it was before any vaccines. Hopefully, eventually the virus evolves into a less deadly form and maybe our immune systems develop some more resistance. I don't know if the latter is actually reasonable to expect.

bluGill 5y ago
> eventually the virus evolves into a less deadly form and maybe our immune systems develop some more resistance. I don't know if the latter is actually reasonable to expect. The more people who die, the more likely it is we evolve protection
- ironmagma 5y ago
  The same can be said of driving. Should we remove airbags tomorrow?
  - bluGill 5y ago
    If we do, over the next 10,000 years it will make a difference in human reaction times. Assuming of course that nothing else destroys us all first, or makes cars obsolete. Since I don't have 10,000 years I prefer to make cars obsolete.
    - ironmagma 5y ago
      It has nothing to do with how long you personally have; this is about the species, remember? You could very well die from lack of airbags, and not because you had a slow reaction time but because your skull isn't optimized for surviving collisions. Further, there are a lot of stand-up people you currently like who would die. There are many reasons to protect the weak, even from an evolutionary standpoint.
      - angry_octet 5y ago

marcodiego 5y ago

Yes. Like yearly vaccination campaigns.

SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
Like the flu. Or even Tetanus requires boosters. I don't know why that makes it a dealbreaker.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

fullstackchris 5y ago

Not sure why you are being downvoted. You are correct, and this is LITERALLY the case with existing virus boosters like Tetanus (actually the combined Tetanus / Polio / Diptheria / Pertusis). Many booster vaccines are recommended at regular intervals (some 5 years, some 10 years, some somewhere within that range). You wouldn't see people downvoting advice to get your Tetanus booster every 10 years! Yet they'll downvote such a suggestion about COVID boosters? I just don't understand. Its biology folks. Actually this _really_ pisses me off that you were downvoted. Everyone is treating this vaccine plan (and I mean speaking from the US point of view vaccine plan) like it is the end of the pandemic permanantly. I can assure everybody that it is NOT. Indeed, there has been talk of these universal flu & cold vaccines for decades, but they have yet to be produced - just look how long the COVID vaccines took to be released worldwide when the first one was produced in January of 2020 (not a typo). Meanwhile, multiple countries in Africa, as well as all of India are still being ravaged by this virus - where is thier vaccine help? There is such a western centric twist on HackerNews that it really makes me question just how intelligent our "best programmers in the world" really are. From my initial view point, it seems everyone here understands the entire situtation no better than any other anectdotal theory from the average lurker on 4chan or reddit.

colechristensen 5y ago
There is a problem with programmers thinking/acting/talking like they know quite a lot more than they do. Any thread on HN not about programming is sure to be full of confident ignorance (and honestly the programming threads too). People don’t have very broad knowledge or education, a few do, but it can be hard to pick out.
presidente20 5y ago
>It's biology folks? Read up about philosophy of science. Science has to be subjected to scrutiny and stand the test of time before we can be confident. Covid jab needs more time.