4 ms·

> imperfect vaccines can cause selective pressure which enhances the fitness of highly virulent pathogens The number of ways in which we undertaking a natural

> imperfect vaccines can cause selective pressure which enhances the fitness of highly virulent pathogens The number of ways in which we undertaking a natural experiment in viral evolution has been top-of-mind for me as well. But the greater issue in my view is not that the vaccines are imperfect. All vaccines are somewhat imperfect. On its own, I the mRNA vaccines were probably entirely adequate. The problem is that the human population, as a result of policy decisions, will continue to have an immediately-adjacent reservoir of infection [0] with whom we are constantly in contact. I speak, of course, of the large numbers of unvaccinated among us. With vaccinated-to-vaccinated chains of transmission, there's a greater chance that a chain of vaccine-resistant variant will die out because the vaccine both reduces the risk of becoming infected [1] and the risk of transmitting infection [2]. But in a heterogeneous population, with large numbers of unvaccinated individuals, those chains of transmission can go on indefinitely, hopping back-and-forth between the two populations. That's a far greater risk here than the issue of a "leaky" vaccine. A vaccine might "leak" a little bit, yet the probabilities of infection and subsequent infection remain so low that all chains of transmission quickly terminate. Instead, we have a situation where the virus can slip into a separate (reservoir) population where it continues unchecked. That, in my view, is the real risk to furthering infection. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_reservoir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_reservoir [1] https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0607-mrna-reduce-risks.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0607-mrna-reduce-ri... [2] https://sporevidencealliance.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Transmissibility-of-COVID-19-Among-Vaccinated-Individuals_Plain-Language-Summary.pdf https://sporevidencealliance.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/T...

marton78 5y ago
In addition, the vaccines currently in use -- at least in the West -- are either mRNA or vector vaccines containing only parts of the virus (as far as I know only the spike protein from the virus's surface). I would expect them to result in a more specific immunity which is easier for the virus to circumvent, my mutating only its spike protein. Conventional vaccines however, which are more prevalent in the developing world, as well as having gone through COVID, should provide a broader immunity - at least in my half-educated view.
- Pyramus 5y ago
  > I would expect them to result in a more specific immunity which is easier for the virus to circumvent, my mutating only its spike protein. This is not clear at all - actually the opposite might be the case. Natural immunity focuses on a number of 'markers' that are more likely to change than the spike protein. As far as I know we don't know yet. Here is a comparison with other vaccines [1]. [1] https://twitter.com/ENirenberg/status/1412865782862725125 https://twitter.com/ENirenberg/status/1412865782862725125
- becuzThrowaway 5y ago
  My guess is that nobody really knows the answer to that question. It's also entirely plausible that the only way to have true sterilizing immunity to COVID is to have antibodies to the spike protein. shrugs
native_samples 5y ago
The mRNA vaccines are not "adequate": they are being treated by governments as if they aren't working whilst also being significantly more dangerous than every other vaccine programme out there by a long way, even according to the CDC's own rather unreliable VAERS data. Look at the graph here and repeat that these vaccines are adequate: https://swprs.org/us-vaccine-deaths-increasing-rapidly/ https://swprs.org/us-vaccine-deaths-increasing-rapidly/ "the human population, as a result of policy decisions, will continue to have ... large numbers of unvaccinated among us" You need to rethink this for several reasons: 1. It's logistically impossible for everyone to be vaccinated simultaneously. This is not the result of policy decisions, it's a simple matter of distribution and manufacturing. There will therefore always be large numbers of unvaccinated living alongside the vaccinated for any vaccine. If they don't work given that fact then they are useless and should be abandoned. 2. Prior vaccination campaigns have worked or even wiped out whole diseases, even when there are lots of people who weren't vaccinated. If the new "vaccines" cannot do this then they aren't actually vaccines at all. 3. The idea that vaccines only work if everyone has taken them is entirely unsupported by any evidence or sound biological theory, quite clearly would not meet the definition of a vaccine, and leads inevitably to evil totalitarianism in which people are forced to take an endless parade of injections regardless of whether they're at risk, regardless of the severity of the disease which is being treated and regardless of how many safety protocols were skipped.
- AstralStorm 5y ago
  Re 2. Which programs? Not even polio vaccinations worked to eradicate the virus completely, and these came the closest. Much less BCG or variola (pox). Viruses like flu and coronaviruses, nigh impossible to eradicate. 1 and 3, sure. And mRNA vaccine is not particularly more dangerous than any other type. The cost-benefit is strongly on the side of vaccination there.
  - native_samples 5y ago
    Why do you think smallpox wasn't eliminated by vaccines? mRNA vaccine is not particularly more dangerous than any other type I don't understand how that is consistent with the data from the various vaccine surveillance systems which show clearly that it's drastically more dangerous. It's also inconsistent with anecdotes that I've been hearing from people around me, of whom a disturbingly large number say that the vaccines made them very sick (i.e. they describe symptoms similar to that of COVID itself).
scotty79 5y ago
Becoming infected also doesn't completely protect you from becoming infected again, 1% of patients who had severe covid get infected again in just 3.5 months. [0] So even if vaccines don't prevent the transmission or protect from infection worse than being severely infected then you might treat them just as a way of making you survive your first infection so that first infection can protect you better from further infections. If we didn't have or use vaccines we'd eventually end up in the same place with nearly all people eventually contracting covid at least once, just with a little more damage. Research on covid is not done. We need therapies for acute covid. We need a way to treat and prevent long covid. [0] https://www.pharmacytimes.com/view/study-covid-19-reinfection-rate-less-than-1-for-those-who-had-severe-illness https://www.pharmacytimes.com/view/study-covid-19-reinfectio...
- pigeonhole123 5y ago
  I find it curious that the rate of reinfection from that study coincides exactly with the false positive rate of the test
  - scotty79 5y ago
    Some of the reinfected people died. You don't die from false positive result on two tests. It's not stated in the article buy you can safely assume that some of the reinfected had symptoms other than death as well.
    - pigeonhole123 5y ago
      They presumably didn’t die from their first detected infection which may be a false positive. And I guess by “some” you mean a small subset. Other sources are saying around 30 confirmed reinfections worldwide. Which is correct?
      - scotty79 5y ago
        Definitely not the ones with number 30 in the whole world. Brazillian variant of vovid reinfects one in 6 people previously infected with earlier variant: https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1353 https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1353

marton78 5y ago

In addition, the vaccines currently in use -- at least in the West -- are either mRNA or vector vaccines containing only parts of the virus (as far as I know only the spike protein from the virus's surface). I would expect them to result in a more specific immunity which is easier for the virus to circumvent, my mutating only its spike protein. Conventional vaccines however, which are more prevalent in the developing world, as well as having gone through COVID, should provide a broader immunity - at least in my half-educated view.

Pyramus 5y ago
> I would expect them to result in a more specific immunity which is easier for the virus to circumvent, my mutating only its spike protein. This is not clear at all - actually the opposite might be the case. Natural immunity focuses on a number of 'markers' that are more likely to change than the spike protein. As far as I know we don't know yet. Here is a comparison with other vaccines [1]. [1] https://twitter.com/ENirenberg/status/1412865782862725125 https://twitter.com/ENirenberg/status/1412865782862725125
becuzThrowaway 5y ago
My guess is that nobody really knows the answer to that question. It's also entirely plausible that the only way to have true sterilizing immunity to COVID is to have antibodies to the spike protein. shrugs

native_samples 5y ago

The mRNA vaccines are not "adequate": they are being treated by governments as if they aren't working whilst also being significantly more dangerous than every other vaccine programme out there by a long way, even according to the CDC's own rather unreliable VAERS data. Look at the graph here and repeat that these vaccines are adequate: https://swprs.org/us-vaccine-deaths-increasing-rapidly/ https://swprs.org/us-vaccine-deaths-increasing-rapidly/ "the human population, as a result of policy decisions, will continue to have ... large numbers of unvaccinated among us" You need to rethink this for several reasons: 1. It's logistically impossible for everyone to be vaccinated simultaneously. This is not the result of policy decisions, it's a simple matter of distribution and manufacturing. There will therefore always be large numbers of unvaccinated living alongside the vaccinated for any vaccine. If they don't work given that fact then they are useless and should be abandoned. 2. Prior vaccination campaigns have worked or even wiped out whole diseases, even when there are lots of people who weren't vaccinated. If the new "vaccines" cannot do this then they aren't actually vaccines at all. 3. The idea that vaccines only work if everyone has taken them is entirely unsupported by any evidence or sound biological theory, quite clearly would not meet the definition of a vaccine, and leads inevitably to evil totalitarianism in which people are forced to take an endless parade of injections regardless of whether they're at risk, regardless of the severity of the disease which is being treated and regardless of how many safety protocols were skipped.

AstralStorm 5y ago
Re 2. Which programs? Not even polio vaccinations worked to eradicate the virus completely, and these came the closest. Much less BCG or variola (pox). Viruses like flu and coronaviruses, nigh impossible to eradicate. 1 and 3, sure. And mRNA vaccine is not particularly more dangerous than any other type. The cost-benefit is strongly on the side of vaccination there.
- native_samples 5y ago
  Why do you think smallpox wasn't eliminated by vaccines? mRNA vaccine is not particularly more dangerous than any other type I don't understand how that is consistent with the data from the various vaccine surveillance systems which show clearly that it's drastically more dangerous. It's also inconsistent with anecdotes that I've been hearing from people around me, of whom a disturbingly large number say that the vaccines made them very sick (i.e. they describe symptoms similar to that of COVID itself).

scotty79 5y ago

Becoming infected also doesn't completely protect you from becoming infected again, 1% of patients who had severe covid get infected again in just 3.5 months. [0] So even if vaccines don't prevent the transmission or protect from infection worse than being severely infected then you might treat them just as a way of making you survive your first infection so that first infection can protect you better from further infections. If we didn't have or use vaccines we'd eventually end up in the same place with nearly all people eventually contracting covid at least once, just with a little more damage. Research on covid is not done. We need therapies for acute covid. We need a way to treat and prevent long covid. [0] https://www.pharmacytimes.com/view/study-covid-19-reinfection-rate-less-than-1-for-those-who-had-severe-illness https://www.pharmacytimes.com/view/study-covid-19-reinfectio...

pigeonhole123 5y ago
I find it curious that the rate of reinfection from that study coincides exactly with the false positive rate of the test
- scotty79 5y ago
  Some of the reinfected people died. You don't die from false positive result on two tests. It's not stated in the article buy you can safely assume that some of the reinfected had symptoms other than death as well.
  - pigeonhole123 5y ago
    They presumably didn’t die from their first detected infection which may be a false positive. And I guess by “some” you mean a small subset. Other sources are saying around 30 confirmed reinfections worldwide. Which is correct?
    - scotty79 5y ago
      Definitely not the ones with number 30 in the whole world. Brazillian variant of vovid reinfects one in 6 people previously infected with earlier variant: https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1353 https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1353