3 ms·

None of what you stated indicates any increased likelihood of ADE. In fact, there are concerns that natural immunity may be more susceptible to antigenic sin, p

None of what you stated indicates any increased likelihood of ADE. In fact, there are concerns that natural immunity may be more susceptible to antigenic sin, precisely because the immunity is more generic and not focused to the spike protein. This would increase the odds of individuals with just natural immunity of developing a malformed immune response to future variants. > Hensley worries, though, that people whose immunity to the virus comes from infection, not vaccination, might have more difficulty handling variant viruses because of imprinting effects. > David Topham, an immunologist at the University of Rochester Medical Center and director of the New York Influenza Center of Excellence, also envisages that possibility. > He noted that, in the earliest stages of SARS-2 infection, the immune system mounts a response to a portion of the spike protein called S2. Later, the immune system focuses its attention on other parts of the spike, notably the part of the protein that attaches the virus to cells it invades, known as the receptor binding domain. > It’s not yet known if the early focus on S2 — which doesn’t change much from virus to virus — will blind the immune system to the changes elsewhere in the spike protein, the changes updated vaccines would be trying to teach the immune system to respond to, Topham said. > Topham doesn’t think this will be a problem in vaccinated people, because of the way the vaccines in use have been designed. The spike proteins they trigger production of appear to hide the S2 region, he said. The immune system can’t fixate on something it doesn’t see. [0] There’s also doubt as to if COVID even could cause ADE, both because it has yet to be seen across millions of cases, but also because the known mechanisms of ADE don’t apply to Covid [1][2]. Also recent studies have shown that the rate of mutation in a country is inversely correlated with vaccine coverage for Covid. [3] [0] https://www.statnews.com/2021/04/16/next-generation-covid-19-vaccines-are-supposed-to-be-better-some-experts-worry-they-could-be-worse/ https://www.statnews.com/2021/04/16/next-generation-covid-19... [1] https://mobile.twitter.com/macroliter/status/1421578879609851916 https://mobile.twitter.com/macroliter/status/142157887960985... [2] https://mobile.twitter.com/macroliter/status/1421578879609851916 https://mobile.twitter.com/macroliter/status/142157887960985... [3] https://mobile.twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/1425449905829601288 https://mobile.twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/14254499058...

carthusian 5y ago
It does though. None of what these people stated makes any sense. It appears to be some sort of propaganda for popular science media. In any case, the logics of the different individuals quoted are completely contradictory, so the only conclusion is a lack of consensus, which I don't deny. No one knows what the next strains will be, but it is most likely that the generic natural immunity is more robust than the vaccinal immunity that targets only one rapidly mutating part of the spike protein. This is what makes the vaccinal immunity, and NOT the natural immunity, susceptible to antigenic original sin. Also, Topham's whole argument seems to assume the existence of perpetual "updated" vaccines, which is entirely hypothetical, and which I do not wish to depend on.
carthusian 5y ago
>Also recent studies have shown that the rate of mutation in a country is inversely correlated with vaccine coverage for Covid. [3] This is nothing. A single arbitrary estimator, applied to a few dozen countries (no explanation why they were chosen), shows a statistically insignificant correlation without controlling for any of the thousands of confounding variables. Normally I would bring up the look-elsewhere effect here too, but it seems hardly dignified to discuss this tweet/paper at that level. The authors' affiliation is a 5-employee startup addressed at an office-sharing facility.

carthusian 5y ago

It does though. None of what these people stated makes any sense. It appears to be some sort of propaganda for popular science media. In any case, the logics of the different individuals quoted are completely contradictory, so the only conclusion is a lack of consensus, which I don't deny. No one knows what the next strains will be, but it is most likely that the generic natural immunity is more robust than the vaccinal immunity that targets only one rapidly mutating part of the spike protein. This is what makes the vaccinal immunity, and NOT the natural immunity, susceptible to antigenic original sin. Also, Topham's whole argument seems to assume the existence of perpetual "updated" vaccines, which is entirely hypothetical, and which I do not wish to depend on.

carthusian 5y ago

>Also recent studies have shown that the rate of mutation in a country is inversely correlated with vaccine coverage for Covid. [3] This is nothing. A single arbitrary estimator, applied to a few dozen countries (no explanation why they were chosen), shows a statistically insignificant correlation without controlling for any of the thousands of confounding variables. Normally I would bring up the look-elsewhere effect here too, but it seems hardly dignified to discuss this tweet/paper at that level. The authors' affiliation is a 5-employee startup addressed at an office-sharing facility.