3 ms·

Vaccines are very different from antibiotics. Antibiotics are single molecules that bind a very specific target. A single mutation of a single protein can rend

Vaccines are very different from antibiotics. Antibiotics are single molecules that bind a very specific target. A single mutation of a single protein can render an antibiotic useless. Vaccines induce the immune system to generate a repertoire of antibodies, each of which binds in a different way and each of which is then selected and "evolved" (hypermutation) for increased efficacy. And each individual person creates a different starting and ending repertoire of antibodies. A single mutation, or even a large group of mutations, does not so easily side step all this diversity of antibody types/binding modes. Moreover, we have evidence that the idea that vaccines increase the likelihood of variants is just wrong. We do not see that effect for mumps, polio, smallpox, or any other virus. Moreover, delta appears to have arisen in India, which at the time had vaccination rates very close to zero. Again, providing strong evidence that vaccines are not applying selective pressure for more virulent strains.

graderjs 5y ago
That's interesting. it's a good argument. Maybe vaccines are the answer. But I don't think we can rule it out and say it's 'just wrong' tho right? The delta and lambda variants emerged, and they were both more transmissible, and more vaccine resistant, is that right? I mean, why do you need to evolve vaccine resistance and transmissibility at the same time? Seems weird, and given the 'shotgun' quality of antibodies across individual and population, particularly so. Which lets me feel that we are applying some selective pressure with vaccines. Compared to the other virus mentioned, what's different is the scale and rate of vaccine roll out here is unprecedentedly greater. Maybe in the previous cases our immune system had already evolved stronger defenses by the time the vaccines were given, 'patching more holes in the dam' so to speak.
valarauko 5y ago
> Moreover, delta appears to have arisen in India, which at the time had vaccination rates very close to zero. For the sake of clarity, the first viral genome of B.1.617 (eventually named Delta) was identified by India's variant tracking program on October 5, 2020, long before any vaccines were approved. India's case load was also quite low at this point, and the initial lockdown was being slowly rolled back.

graderjs 5y ago

That's interesting. it's a good argument. Maybe vaccines are the answer. But I don't think we can rule it out and say it's 'just wrong' tho right? The delta and lambda variants emerged, and they were both more transmissible, and more vaccine resistant, is that right? I mean, why do you need to evolve vaccine resistance and transmissibility at the same time? Seems weird, and given the 'shotgun' quality of antibodies across individual and population, particularly so. Which lets me feel that we are applying some selective pressure with vaccines. Compared to the other virus mentioned, what's different is the scale and rate of vaccine roll out here is unprecedentedly greater. Maybe in the previous cases our immune system had already evolved stronger defenses by the time the vaccines were given, 'patching more holes in the dam' so to speak.

valarauko 5y ago

> Moreover, delta appears to have arisen in India, which at the time had vaccination rates very close to zero. For the sake of clarity, the first viral genome of B.1.617 (eventually named Delta) was identified by India's variant tracking program on October 5, 2020, long before any vaccines were approved. India's case load was also quite low at this point, and the initial lockdown was being slowly rolled back.