5 ms·

The person you are responding to is not *most people". They had the virus and they recovered. The vaccine is intended to create immunity in people who don't a

by JPKab 5y ago

The person you are responding to is not *most people". They had the virus and they recovered. The vaccine is intended to create immunity in people who don't already have it because they haven't already caught the virus. This really isn't complicated.

zamalek 5y ago
The vaccines are effective against the spike protein, which is what makes SARS-CoV-2 so virulent. In reality, there are many ways skin that cat, and there's no guarantee that the body chose the spike protein. From the article: > most of these participants still had memory B cells that recognize SARS-CoV-2 No matter how you slice it, you are playing 'Rona Roulette if you don't get vaccinated. The CDC also recommends getting vaccinated despite any prior infection, and there has been anecdotes of post-acute COVID-19 syndrome being alleviated with a vaccination. The root comment is special pleading.
- beagle3 5y ago
  If the body cleared the virus, then what it chose is effective whether that’s the spike or the nucleocapsid. It is actually more likely to be robust than vaccine induced immunity. The claims about superiority of vaccine induced immunity that I’ve seen all rely on antibody counts, and in the very short term that may very well be true - but the importance of T-cells is not sufficiently well characterized to say it with certainty.
  - xref 5y ago
    > If the body cleared the virus, then what it chose is effective whether that’s the spike or the nucleocapsid. It is actually more likely to be robust than vaccine induced immunity. Where’s the research showing there is more effective immunity possible than the spike protein method of the vaccine?
  - zamalek 5y ago
    ... which hinges completely on the virus not evolving at all, which is outside of the realm of reality. Evolving a new spike is extremely disadvantageous for the virus. Widespread natural immunity is not enough to prevent a repeat of this this or next year, especially when we have evolutionary hotbeds in countries which could not (or would not) do anything to prevent the spread.
    - unanswered 5y ago
      > Evolving a new spike is extremely disadvantageous for the virus. ... Right up until almost everyone has an immune response to the spike and not to any other feature, at which point a virus which changes the spike and potentially keeps its other features is a winner. We are creating an immune monoculture.
    - beagle3 5y ago
      > ... which hinges completely on the virus not evolving at all, which is outside of the realm of reality. This makes no sense. If you only only target the spike, you assume the spike doesn't change sufficiently. If you target the entire virus, you assume the entire virus doesn't change sufficiently. As far as I know, mutations are generally assumed to be random. You're effectively matching against a shorter string (spike only), so you're less likely to recognize a mutated virus, than if you match against a longer string (the entire virus) which is what natural immunity targets. Mutations in the spike (that still keep it effective - and we actually have quite a few of these already) are much more likely to evade the vaccine-induced immunity than they are likely to evade natural immunity. Mutations only in the nucleocapsid are more likely to evade natural immunity than vaccine-induced immunity, but to a lesser degree - because natural immunity also targets the spike.

by JPKab 5y ago

zamalek 5y ago

The vaccines are effective against the spike protein, which is what makes SARS-CoV-2 so virulent. In reality, there are many ways skin that cat, and there's no guarantee that the body chose the spike protein. From the article: > most of these participants still had memory B cells that recognize SARS-CoV-2 No matter how you slice it, you are playing 'Rona Roulette if you don't get vaccinated. The CDC also recommends getting vaccinated despite any prior infection, and there has been anecdotes of post-acute COVID-19 syndrome being alleviated with a vaccination. The root comment is special pleading.

beagle3 5y ago
If the body cleared the virus, then what it chose is effective whether that’s the spike or the nucleocapsid. It is actually more likely to be robust than vaccine induced immunity. The claims about superiority of vaccine induced immunity that I’ve seen all rely on antibody counts, and in the very short term that may very well be true - but the importance of T-cells is not sufficiently well characterized to say it with certainty.
- xref 5y ago
  > If the body cleared the virus, then what it chose is effective whether that’s the spike or the nucleocapsid. It is actually more likely to be robust than vaccine induced immunity. Where’s the research showing there is more effective immunity possible than the spike protein method of the vaccine?
- zamalek 5y ago
  ... which hinges completely on the virus not evolving at all, which is outside of the realm of reality. Evolving a new spike is extremely disadvantageous for the virus. Widespread natural immunity is not enough to prevent a repeat of this this or next year, especially when we have evolutionary hotbeds in countries which could not (or would not) do anything to prevent the spread.
  - unanswered 5y ago
    > Evolving a new spike is extremely disadvantageous for the virus. ... Right up until almost everyone has an immune response to the spike and not to any other feature, at which point a virus which changes the spike and potentially keeps its other features is a winner. We are creating an immune monoculture.
  - beagle3 5y ago
    > ... which hinges completely on the virus not evolving at all, which is outside of the realm of reality. This makes no sense. If you only only target the spike, you assume the spike doesn't change sufficiently. If you target the entire virus, you assume the entire virus doesn't change sufficiently. As far as I know, mutations are generally assumed to be random. You're effectively matching against a shorter string (spike only), so you're less likely to recognize a mutated virus, than if you match against a longer string (the entire virus) which is what natural immunity targets. Mutations in the spike (that still keep it effective - and we actually have quite a few of these already) are much more likely to evade the vaccine-induced immunity than they are likely to evade natural immunity. Mutations only in the nucleocapsid are more likely to evade natural immunity than vaccine-induced immunity, but to a lesser degree - because natural immunity also targets the spike.