4 ms·

These new variants were to be expected as the vaccines seem to be accelerating these mutations. My understanding is that the COVID vaccines train the body to r

by pier25 5y ago

These new variants were to be expected as the vaccines seem to be accelerating these mutations. My understanding is that the COVID vaccines train the body to recognize the outer protein layer of the virus. In consequence when that changes (because of mutations and natural selection) the body becomes less effective at recognizing the virus. Geert Vanden Bossche[1] has been warning about this for months now. He says it's possible at some point a new variant will come out that makes current vaccines completely ineffective. [1] https://twitter.com/GVDBossche https://twitter.com/GVDBossche

neogodless 5y ago
https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-what-do-we-know-about-the-coronavirus-delta-variant/a-57949754 https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-what-do-we-know-about-the-c... > The earliest documented COVID-19 case caused by the delta variant (B.1.617.2) was found in the Indian state of Maharashtra back in October 2020 It doesn't seem that blaming this variant on vaccines makes much sense.
bvaldivielso 5y ago
As far as I understand (I don't have any background in biology), mutations will happen regardless of whether people are vaccinated or not. There might be mutations that make the virus circumvent some vaccine protections, but those mutations would take place even if we weren't vaccinating people. Nothing about the vaccines "guides" the virus towards specific mutations. Mutations are random. If this is correct, why would not vaccinating people be better than vaccinating them? (In fact, the fewer people that get infected, the less room for the virus to mutate). Is my understanding correct? Can anybody point out where I'm wrong?
- teataster 5y ago
  As far as I understand, and I don't understand much. Also I am not endorsing vanden Bossche because I don't understand much. Furthermore, just as everyone else, he is just trying to sell his vaccine over others'. The issue is selective pressure. Yes, the virus will mutate. But under an mRNA vaccine, only the spike protein needs to mutate for the vaccine to be render useless. In other words: mutating the spike protein will give the virus access to very broad unimmunized population. Up to that it makes perfect sense to me and my limited evolutionary knowledge. I can't tell wether is right or wrong. But it makes sense. He goes further saying that antibodies from vaccines are more affine to the virus, even with mutated spike protein, this compromises the natural immune system, given it will try to fight off infection with useless vaccine-learnt antibodies rather than with natural antibodies. This will make the virus more deadly. This seems off to me. I can't see the logic, but I will be happy to be corrected. How can something be ignored by the virus and be more affine to it? Again, he says that all these issues are solved with his vaccine, once he finishes it.
  - bart_spoon 5y ago
    > The issue is selective pressure. Yes, the virus will mutate. But under an mRNA vaccine, only the spike protein needs to mutate for the vaccine to be render useless. In other words: mutating the spike protein will give the virus access to very broad unimmunized population. > Up to that it makes perfect sense to me and my limited evolutionary knowledge. I can't tell wether is right or wrong. But it makes sense. The issue with this is that the spike protein has to mutate enough for vaccine induced immunity to fail to recognize it, but the spike protein is critical for the virus actually entering and infecting cells, and therefore there isn't a whole lot of mutating it can do while remaining functional. On the other hand, there is some evidence that vaccines targeting more than just the spike protein (as well as natural immunity) may potentially be more at risk for the "antigenic sin" trap, in which the immune system fails to respond to mutated versions of a virus as well as it does to the original version it encountered.
- throwaway954823 5y ago
  It depends if the vaccine is sterilizing (destroys the virus) or leaky (symptoms are prevented but virus is not destroyed). Leaky vaccines do change evolutionary pressure and increase the likelihood of escape variants. For a case study in the worst case outcomes of leaky vaccines, see Marek's disease [1]. It seems like the mRNA vaccines are at least partially leaky, so there have been concerns raised and alarms sounded by researchers. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek%27s_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek%27s_disease
  - bvaldivielso 5y ago
    If the argument is "we shouldn't use vaccines because of escape variants" then I don't see why we should fear escape variants more than we do any other kind of variants. If the argument is "we should build up a big inventory of vaccines and infrastructure to deploy them to the population in a very short timespan" then I see some logic to that but it's not at all obvious that the math works out.
- derbOac 5y ago
  It's not so much that vaccination is iatrogenic, it's that when you have a sizable percent vaccinated, but a sizable percent not, you're kind of in this worst of all possible worlds from an evolutionary standpoint. If worldwide vaccination rates were very high, it would drive viral transmission down to negligible levels and effectively slow the rate of evolution by decreasing the viral population size to something very small. If there were no vaccine, we'd be back where we were, but there would be no vaccine to evolve against as a selection pressure. When you have, say, 50% vaccination, you have a sizable population to evolve in, and the vaccine as a pressure selecting random mutations. If the vaccine is very effective in preventing asymptomatic transmission as well as symptomatic infection, it might not be such an issue. This might be why the delta variant seems to not be doing much in vaccinated individuals. But it seems vaccinated individuals do still transmit the virus asymptomatically at some nonnegligble rate, and then you have a sizable nonvaccinated population. What I'm worried about now isn't so much the current state of the delta variant, it's where things are headed. Specifically, how this evolves in (1) the unvaccinated populations, and (2) what the future might hold for vaccine resistance in the future. It's one reason I'm sort of angry with the FDA for playing this power game about approving a booster vaccine. It's not their job to evaluate the need for the booster, it's their job to evaluate the safety and efficacy of it. By the time they change their minds about need, it might be too late.
  - bart_spoon 5y ago
    > It's not so much that vaccination is iatrogenic, it's that when you have a sizable percent vaccinated, but a sizable percent not, you're kind of in this worst of all possible worlds from an evolutionary standpoint. How is this any different from natural immunity? The immunity conferred by vaccines won't put any more selective pressure for escape mutations than natural immunity would. And the only alternative here is for no one to get vaccinated, and therefore letting the virus run rampant through the population indefinitely. You aren't wrong about a sizeable portion of the population not being immunized quick enough may possibly result in escape mutations. But the only possible alternative fixes none of those issues, while also leaving the entirety of the public at risk.
    - 5y ago
- bart_spoon 5y ago
  You are correct. Mutations are random. The only even remotely valid point made by those fearing vaccination effects is that vaccines may cause selective pressure where the random mutatations that escape vaccine-induced immunity become more dominant. But even that point doesn't mean vaccines shouldn't be employed because 1. The same selective pressure exists for natural immunity 2. The implication is that we shouldn't get vaccines, because we may get variants that get around our vaccines. This is like asking the fire department not to put our a raging house fire because it might cause water damage to the home. Its also worth noting that none of the major variants observed so far came about after vaccines began being used on the population at large, and the above point about selective pressure at vaccine immunity is only an issue when large swaths of people aren't getting vaccinated, allowing the virus a large number of "shots on goal" to mutate in a way that eventually provides escape capabilities. There is absolutely no logic to these arguments about vaccines causing mutations.
- babypuncher 5y ago
  Mutations are random, but the factors that result in a mutation leading to improved reproductive success are not. An organisms environment helps select for beneficial mutations.
  - bvaldivielso 5y ago
    I get that. I just don't see why an environment where half the people are vaccinated would lead to worse outcomes, even if mutations take place that can bypass the vaccine's protections.
    - pier25 5y ago
      derbOac explains it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27822773 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27822773
sgt101 5y ago
I don't understand VDBossche's assertions - he seems to say that there isn't a single case of population level benefit from vaccination campaigns. But we have seen massive benefit from mass vaccination against Polio, Smallpox, Measles, Mumps, Diptheria and many more. This is on a par with arguing that gravity doesn't make things fall down. It's worth noting that Delta appears to have emerged in India when and where there was very little vaccination - on the other hand there were a truck load of infections. This is how mutations happen; many cases occur... a mutation may appear and if we are unlucky it may spread. The key part for me is the "many cases occur" part - if the pandemic is brought undercontrol in the sense of few cases happening then there will be less mutations.
- pier25 5y ago
  Honestly I have no idea, but a new variant called Lambda originated in Peru which is a relatively small country with only 32M.
  - sgt101 5y ago
    Lambda was detected in August 2020, vaccination in Peru started in Feb 2021.
    - pier25 5y ago
      Yes, but I was commenting on your point about "many cases" not so much about the vaccination.
      - sgt101 5y ago
        Ahh understood - I would say that there are many "smaller" countries with covid outbreaks and if you add them all together then it's reasonable to expect some mutations from that group. Peru and other places in latin america had very high percapita infection rates.

by pier25 5y ago

neogodless 5y ago

https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-what-do-we-know-about-the-coronavirus-delta-variant/a-57949754 https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-what-do-we-know-about-the-c... > The earliest documented COVID-19 case caused by the delta variant (B.1.617.2) was found in the Indian state of Maharashtra back in October 2020 It doesn't seem that blaming this variant on vaccines makes much sense.

bvaldivielso 5y ago

As far as I understand (I don't have any background in biology), mutations will happen regardless of whether people are vaccinated or not. There might be mutations that make the virus circumvent some vaccine protections, but those mutations would take place even if we weren't vaccinating people. Nothing about the vaccines "guides" the virus towards specific mutations. Mutations are random. If this is correct, why would not vaccinating people be better than vaccinating them? (In fact, the fewer people that get infected, the less room for the virus to mutate). Is my understanding correct? Can anybody point out where I'm wrong?

teataster 5y ago
As far as I understand, and I don't understand much. Also I am not endorsing vanden Bossche because I don't understand much. Furthermore, just as everyone else, he is just trying to sell his vaccine over others'. The issue is selective pressure. Yes, the virus will mutate. But under an mRNA vaccine, only the spike protein needs to mutate for the vaccine to be render useless. In other words: mutating the spike protein will give the virus access to very broad unimmunized population. Up to that it makes perfect sense to me and my limited evolutionary knowledge. I can't tell wether is right or wrong. But it makes sense. He goes further saying that antibodies from vaccines are more affine to the virus, even with mutated spike protein, this compromises the natural immune system, given it will try to fight off infection with useless vaccine-learnt antibodies rather than with natural antibodies. This will make the virus more deadly. This seems off to me. I can't see the logic, but I will be happy to be corrected. How can something be ignored by the virus and be more affine to it? Again, he says that all these issues are solved with his vaccine, once he finishes it.
- bart_spoon 5y ago
  > The issue is selective pressure. Yes, the virus will mutate. But under an mRNA vaccine, only the spike protein needs to mutate for the vaccine to be render useless. In other words: mutating the spike protein will give the virus access to very broad unimmunized population. > Up to that it makes perfect sense to me and my limited evolutionary knowledge. I can't tell wether is right or wrong. But it makes sense. The issue with this is that the spike protein has to mutate enough for vaccine induced immunity to fail to recognize it, but the spike protein is critical for the virus actually entering and infecting cells, and therefore there isn't a whole lot of mutating it can do while remaining functional. On the other hand, there is some evidence that vaccines targeting more than just the spike protein (as well as natural immunity) may potentially be more at risk for the "antigenic sin" trap, in which the immune system fails to respond to mutated versions of a virus as well as it does to the original version it encountered.
throwaway954823 5y ago
It depends if the vaccine is sterilizing (destroys the virus) or leaky (symptoms are prevented but virus is not destroyed). Leaky vaccines do change evolutionary pressure and increase the likelihood of escape variants. For a case study in the worst case outcomes of leaky vaccines, see Marek's disease [1]. It seems like the mRNA vaccines are at least partially leaky, so there have been concerns raised and alarms sounded by researchers. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek%27s_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek%27s_disease
- bvaldivielso 5y ago
  If the argument is "we shouldn't use vaccines because of escape variants" then I don't see why we should fear escape variants more than we do any other kind of variants. If the argument is "we should build up a big inventory of vaccines and infrastructure to deploy them to the population in a very short timespan" then I see some logic to that but it's not at all obvious that the math works out.
derbOac 5y ago
It's not so much that vaccination is iatrogenic, it's that when you have a sizable percent vaccinated, but a sizable percent not, you're kind of in this worst of all possible worlds from an evolutionary standpoint. If worldwide vaccination rates were very high, it would drive viral transmission down to negligible levels and effectively slow the rate of evolution by decreasing the viral population size to something very small. If there were no vaccine, we'd be back where we were, but there would be no vaccine to evolve against as a selection pressure. When you have, say, 50% vaccination, you have a sizable population to evolve in, and the vaccine as a pressure selecting random mutations. If the vaccine is very effective in preventing asymptomatic transmission as well as symptomatic infection, it might not be such an issue. This might be why the delta variant seems to not be doing much in vaccinated individuals. But it seems vaccinated individuals do still transmit the virus asymptomatically at some nonnegligble rate, and then you have a sizable nonvaccinated population. What I'm worried about now isn't so much the current state of the delta variant, it's where things are headed. Specifically, how this evolves in (1) the unvaccinated populations, and (2) what the future might hold for vaccine resistance in the future. It's one reason I'm sort of angry with the FDA for playing this power game about approving a booster vaccine. It's not their job to evaluate the need for the booster, it's their job to evaluate the safety and efficacy of it. By the time they change their minds about need, it might be too late.
- bart_spoon 5y ago
  > It's not so much that vaccination is iatrogenic, it's that when you have a sizable percent vaccinated, but a sizable percent not, you're kind of in this worst of all possible worlds from an evolutionary standpoint. How is this any different from natural immunity? The immunity conferred by vaccines won't put any more selective pressure for escape mutations than natural immunity would. And the only alternative here is for no one to get vaccinated, and therefore letting the virus run rampant through the population indefinitely. You aren't wrong about a sizeable portion of the population not being immunized quick enough may possibly result in escape mutations. But the only possible alternative fixes none of those issues, while also leaving the entirety of the public at risk.
  - 5y ago
bart_spoon 5y ago
You are correct. Mutations are random. The only even remotely valid point made by those fearing vaccination effects is that vaccines may cause selective pressure where the random mutatations that escape vaccine-induced immunity become more dominant. But even that point doesn't mean vaccines shouldn't be employed because 1. The same selective pressure exists for natural immunity 2. The implication is that we shouldn't get vaccines, because we may get variants that get around our vaccines. This is like asking the fire department not to put our a raging house fire because it might cause water damage to the home. Its also worth noting that none of the major variants observed so far came about after vaccines began being used on the population at large, and the above point about selective pressure at vaccine immunity is only an issue when large swaths of people aren't getting vaccinated, allowing the virus a large number of "shots on goal" to mutate in a way that eventually provides escape capabilities. There is absolutely no logic to these arguments about vaccines causing mutations.
babypuncher 5y ago
Mutations are random, but the factors that result in a mutation leading to improved reproductive success are not. An organisms environment helps select for beneficial mutations.
- bvaldivielso 5y ago
  I get that. I just don't see why an environment where half the people are vaccinated would lead to worse outcomes, even if mutations take place that can bypass the vaccine's protections.
  - pier25 5y ago
    derbOac explains it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27822773 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27822773

sgt101 5y ago

I don't understand VDBossche's assertions - he seems to say that there isn't a single case of population level benefit from vaccination campaigns. But we have seen massive benefit from mass vaccination against Polio, Smallpox, Measles, Mumps, Diptheria and many more. This is on a par with arguing that gravity doesn't make things fall down. It's worth noting that Delta appears to have emerged in India when and where there was very little vaccination - on the other hand there were a truck load of infections. This is how mutations happen; many cases occur... a mutation may appear and if we are unlucky it may spread. The key part for me is the "many cases occur" part - if the pandemic is brought undercontrol in the sense of few cases happening then there will be less mutations.

pier25 5y ago
Honestly I have no idea, but a new variant called Lambda originated in Peru which is a relatively small country with only 32M.
- sgt101 5y ago
  Lambda was detected in August 2020, vaccination in Peru started in Feb 2021.
  - pier25 5y ago
    Yes, but I was commenting on your point about "many cases" not so much about the vaccination.
    - sgt101 5y ago
      Ahh understood - I would say that there are many "smaller" countries with covid outbreaks and if you add them all together then it's reasonable to expect some mutations from that group. Peru and other places in latin america had very high percapita infection rates.