3 ms·

That’s actually incorrect. Someone was kind enough to cite in another reply to me. I’m honestly a bit disturbed how much confidence software engineers have in

That’s actually incorrect. Someone was kind enough to cite in another reply to me. I’m honestly a bit disturbed how much confidence software engineers have in their consumption of virology research. My good friend has worked in it for 10+ years not including a doctorate and worked on an mRNA vaccine. I trust his takes more than any media and certainly more than some of these folks replying doubting the state of the science. Vaccines are the safest and best protection against COVID one can get. Not specifically replying to you with that, just the general tone of these threads. Folks are out of their depth.

anonuser123456 5y ago
Hi Pot, meet Kettle? My statement literally starts with "I'm not sure...". You begin yours with "That's actually incorrect." Which expresses more confidence? My opinion is based on a conversation with a Ph.D immunologist that happens to be a friend as well. And if that's not enough here is a paper from a totally separate lab that has similar conclusions, with actual data https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.29.454333v1 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.29.454333v1 mRNA vaccines are obviously much better at generating antibodies for the RBD. That's an empirical fact, no one is disputing that. But natural immunity presents antibody targets beyond the RBD.
- slumpt_ 5y ago
  If you finished the post, I mentioned I wasn’t referring to you. With respect to the incorrect part, I was replying to: “…it has been shown that natural immunity produces a much broader set of antibodies that may allow the immune system to cope with variants better.” Which is indeed wrong. Hope that helps
- criticaltinker 5y ago
  Just wanted to say thanks for the citation here, and FWIW all the literature I'm aware of supports the statements you've made in these comments.
  - slumpt_ 5y ago
    You’re not aware of all of the literature, then. Vaccination results in fewer reinfections, less severe reinfections, and of course doesn’t require you risk a course of the virus upfront to get said protection. Maybe reach out to an immunologist. There is a lot of literature and you shouldn’t trust my or anyone’s take, but expecting you’ll have a better take than several actual career immunologists based on some google scholar research is ill-founded.

anonuser123456 5y ago

Hi Pot, meet Kettle? My statement literally starts with "I'm not sure...". You begin yours with "That's actually incorrect." Which expresses more confidence? My opinion is based on a conversation with a Ph.D immunologist that happens to be a friend as well. And if that's not enough here is a paper from a totally separate lab that has similar conclusions, with actual data https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.29.454333v1 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.29.454333v1 mRNA vaccines are obviously much better at generating antibodies for the RBD. That's an empirical fact, no one is disputing that. But natural immunity presents antibody targets beyond the RBD.

slumpt_ 5y ago
If you finished the post, I mentioned I wasn’t referring to you. With respect to the incorrect part, I was replying to: “…it has been shown that natural immunity produces a much broader set of antibodies that may allow the immune system to cope with variants better.” Which is indeed wrong. Hope that helps
criticaltinker 5y ago
Just wanted to say thanks for the citation here, and FWIW all the literature I'm aware of supports the statements you've made in these comments.
- slumpt_ 5y ago
  You’re not aware of all of the literature, then. Vaccination results in fewer reinfections, less severe reinfections, and of course doesn’t require you risk a course of the virus upfront to get said protection. Maybe reach out to an immunologist. There is a lot of literature and you shouldn’t trust my or anyone’s take, but expecting you’ll have a better take than several actual career immunologists based on some google scholar research is ill-founded.