3 ms·

That's a fair critique. I feel like I've heard concerns about the potential for the virus to mutate because of the high level of vaccinations, but like you, I d

by jdhn 5y ago

That's a fair critique. I feel like I've heard concerns about the potential for the virus to mutate because of the high level of vaccinations, but like you, I don't know how significant of an issue that is.

tunesmith 5y ago
I think the parent was talking about the lack of vaccinations yielding more time to mutate, not the vaccinations themselves. Viruses aren't like bacteria; they don't mutate in direct response to vaccines.
- anyfoo 5y ago
  That is correct. My premise was that the more virus exists in absolute numbers (if the vaccine is weaker for the Delta variant), the more virus has the opportunity to mutate.
listless 5y ago
I also have this concern. I haven’t seen it addressed anywhere and I am but a mere layperson.
smt88 5y ago
What you've heard is misinformation. Vaccines reduce potential for mutation, which is both intuitive and borne out by data.
- AndrewBissell 5y ago
  That's neither intuitive nor true in all cases. https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-vaccines-can-drive-pathogens-to-evolve-20180510/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-vaccines-can-drive-pathog...
addicted 5y ago
The virus will not mutate because of the high level of vaccinations. The virus will mutate because of the high level of unvaccinated people. The risk is when the high level of unvaccinated are in the same population with a high level of vaccinated, of the many mutations in the unvaccinated there is a greater chance that a mutation that randomly has greater tolerance to the vaccines will be naturally selected and flourish. Vaccination does not lead to more mutations, but in the absence of vaccination, resistance to vaccines does not give a mutation any advantage, so whether it flourishes or not is based entirely on other attributes. It’s only when you do have a significant population of vaccinated does the mutations created in the unvax population benefit from resistance to vaccines.
- velcii 5y ago
  >mutations created in the unvax population benefit from resistance to vaccines. I cannot see how this is correct. Because it should be the mutations created in the vaccinated that will help the virus to survive in similar vaccinated hosts..because first of all, the mutated virus need to survive in the vaccinated host, and become the dominant one in that host and thus giving it a better chance to jump to another host... So this mutations must be happening in Vaccinated hosts. In unvaccinated as you said, any mutations that gives the virus immune escape capability does not give it an advantage over the other mutations in the same host, simply because there is no vaccine generated antibodies to kill the other mutations, for it to gain dominance.
- tunesmith 5y ago
  I haven't been able to get a straight answer to this even from scientists on science threads... Given the following: 1. Virus mutations do not directly react to the vaccine. These are simply random mutations. 2. If a mutation occurs that has a higher probability of escaping an existing vaccine, then in one unvaccinated person, that mutation has an identical chance of occurring whether that person is part of a 0% vaccinated community, a 50% vaccinated community, or a 99% vaccinated community. 3. Natural selection just means its ability to reproduce. Let's say that the mutation can escape the vaccine at 100% probability. Then: Can that virus spread equally regardless of whether it's a 0% vaccinated community, a 50% vaccinated community, or a 99% vaccinated community? Because it sure sounds like people are saying that in that scenario, the mutation spreads less in a 0% community, and more in a 50% community. Are they saying that in a "mostly unvaccinated" community, the other variants (that the vaccine protects against) that are more prevalent somehow serve to "crowd out" the mutation? Because I don't know if that's true - at least, I've seen reports that suggest that people can catch more than one variant at one time.
anyfoo 5y ago
Just to clarify: That is not my concern.

by jdhn 5y ago

tunesmith 5y ago

I think the parent was talking about the lack of vaccinations yielding more time to mutate, not the vaccinations themselves. Viruses aren't like bacteria; they don't mutate in direct response to vaccines.

anyfoo 5y ago
That is correct. My premise was that the more virus exists in absolute numbers (if the vaccine is weaker for the Delta variant), the more virus has the opportunity to mutate.

listless 5y ago

I also have this concern. I haven’t seen it addressed anywhere and I am but a mere layperson.

smt88 5y ago

What you've heard is misinformation. Vaccines reduce potential for mutation, which is both intuitive and borne out by data.

AndrewBissell 5y ago
That's neither intuitive nor true in all cases. https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-vaccines-can-drive-pathogens-to-evolve-20180510/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-vaccines-can-drive-pathog...

addicted 5y ago

The virus will not mutate because of the high level of vaccinations. The virus will mutate because of the high level of unvaccinated people. The risk is when the high level of unvaccinated are in the same population with a high level of vaccinated, of the many mutations in the unvaccinated there is a greater chance that a mutation that randomly has greater tolerance to the vaccines will be naturally selected and flourish. Vaccination does not lead to more mutations, but in the absence of vaccination, resistance to vaccines does not give a mutation any advantage, so whether it flourishes or not is based entirely on other attributes. It’s only when you do have a significant population of vaccinated does the mutations created in the unvax population benefit from resistance to vaccines.

velcii 5y ago
>mutations created in the unvax population benefit from resistance to vaccines. I cannot see how this is correct. Because it should be the mutations created in the vaccinated that will help the virus to survive in similar vaccinated hosts..because first of all, the mutated virus need to survive in the vaccinated host, and become the dominant one in that host and thus giving it a better chance to jump to another host... So this mutations must be happening in Vaccinated hosts. In unvaccinated as you said, any mutations that gives the virus immune escape capability does not give it an advantage over the other mutations in the same host, simply because there is no vaccine generated antibodies to kill the other mutations, for it to gain dominance.
tunesmith 5y ago
I haven't been able to get a straight answer to this even from scientists on science threads... Given the following: 1. Virus mutations do not directly react to the vaccine. These are simply random mutations. 2. If a mutation occurs that has a higher probability of escaping an existing vaccine, then in one unvaccinated person, that mutation has an identical chance of occurring whether that person is part of a 0% vaccinated community, a 50% vaccinated community, or a 99% vaccinated community. 3. Natural selection just means its ability to reproduce. Let's say that the mutation can escape the vaccine at 100% probability. Then: Can that virus spread equally regardless of whether it's a 0% vaccinated community, a 50% vaccinated community, or a 99% vaccinated community? Because it sure sounds like people are saying that in that scenario, the mutation spreads less in a 0% community, and more in a 50% community. Are they saying that in a "mostly unvaccinated" community, the other variants (that the vaccine protects against) that are more prevalent somehow serve to "crowd out" the mutation? Because I don't know if that's true - at least, I've seen reports that suggest that people can catch more than one variant at one time.

anyfoo 5y ago

Just to clarify: That is not my concern.