3 ms·

> Compulsory mass vaccination using the current vaccines poses a serious public health risk [1][2][3] None of your references say this or anything remotely imp

> Compulsory mass vaccination using the current vaccines poses a serious public health risk [1][2][3] None of your references say this or anything remotely implying this. Backing up a provocative claim with a snowblind of irrelevant references is a shameful misinformation tactic and you should stop doing it immediately. Doing it in a public health context is particularly dangerous and frankly disgusting.

aplummer 5y ago
Thanks for adding this. Compulsory mass vaccination is one of the greatest medical miracles in human history, possibly the actual single greatest. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_lung#/media/File:Poumon_artificiel.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_lung#/media/File:Poumon_a...
- newacct583 5y ago
  Second greatest. Antibiotics take the crown.
  - aplummer 5y ago
    I think you got me there, but it's at least up there as a big winner.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- breck 5y ago
  According to a 2012 NEJM survey, #1 is anesthesia. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1016/j.sjpain.2013.07.027/html https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1016/j.sjpain.2013... IIRC it then went X-Rays and Antibiotics, but can't find source ATM.
criticaltinker 5y ago
My emphasis is on compulsory, but perhaps I should've been more clear. Obviously I've triggered some people here. Vaccines are powerful tools that help save lives and we should use them. But if they are used indiscriminately they can actually further endanger public health. You might be familiar with antibiotic resistance - vaccines are subject to the same potential for unexpected consequences. All of the sources I cited support this fact - it is not misinformation. Did you read any of them? Here are some excerpts for you: Excerpts from [1]: > "The spike protein receptor-binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2 is the molecular target for many vaccines and antibody-based prophylactics aimed at bringing COVID-19 under control." > "Such a narrow molecular focus raises the specter of viral immune evasion as a potential failure mode for these biomedical interventions. With the emergence of new strains of SARS-CoV-2 with altered transmissibility and immune evasion potential, a critical question is this: how easily can the virus escape neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) targeting the spike RBD?" > "Our modeling suggests that SARS-CoV-2 mutants with one or two mildly deleterious mutations are expected to exist in high numbers due to neutral genetic variation, and consequently resistance to vaccines or other prophylactics that rely on one or two antibodies for protection can develop quickly -and repeatedly- under positive selection." > "The speed at which nAb resistance develops in the population increases substantially as the number of infected individuals increases, suggesting that complementary strategies to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission that exert specific pressure on other proteins (e.g., antiviral prophylactics) or that do not exert a specific selective pressure on the virus (e.g., high-efficiency air filtration, masking, ultraviolet air purification) are key to reducing the risk of immune escape" > "Strategies for viral elimination should therefore be diversified across molecular targets and therapeutic modalities" Excerpts from [2]: > As vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 are deployed across populations, it is possible to create a selection pressure for variants that can escape the vaccine-acquired immune response. Over the past few months, several variants have emerged which show a reduced susceptibility to vaccine-acquired immunity, though none appears to escape entirely. These variants largely emerged before vaccination was widespread, thus selection pressure from vaccines is unlikely to have made a significant contribution to their emergence. However, as vaccines become more widespread, the transmission advantage gained by a virus that can evade vaccine-acquired immunity will increase. > There is no historic precedent for the mass administration of antiviral medication in the community as prophylaxis, apart from the use of anti influenza Neuraminidase Inhibitors, which were used to a limited extent in this way in the early phases of Influenza Pandemic of 2009 in the UK. The safety and efficacy profile must be extremely well established for a mass administration strategy to work and poor compliance will likely rapidly lead to the selection of drug resistant variants, rendering such a strategy short lived. I could go on, but that fact is your comment is not a charitable or informed response to the statements I made. [1] Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (April 2021) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ [2] Can we predict the limits of SARS-CoV-2 variants and their phenotypic consequences? https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/long-term-evolution-of-sars-cov-2-26-july-2021 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/long-term-evoluti...
- civilized 5y ago
  I stand by my post. None of this says anything remotely implying what you claimed, that the mass vaccination programs pose a serious public health risk. That is purely your speculation, vaguely inspired by the content of the papers. Your contention that it matters whether the campaign is compulsory or not only takes you further from your supposed evidence base. It's not even in the same universe as what the papers are talking about, and is purely your own invention. I understand that you're worried about vaccine escape, but to go from that to "compulsory mass vaccination is a serious public health risk" is a completely unwarranted leap. Your authors advocate for diversifying our defenses, not eliminating the only one we currently have.
  - criticaltinker 5y ago
    > "the vaccines are a serious public health risk" That is not my claim. My claim is that compulsory mass vaccination using the current vaccines are a serious public health risk. You are the one making an unjustified leap, in what appears to be closed minded defensiveness of your ideology. We are in agreement that vaccines serve a useful purpose and can help save lives. Not sure how I can be any more clear. > It's not even in the same universe as what the papers are talking about, and is purely your own invention It's obvious that you haven't read any of the cited references. Vaccine induced immune escape is a well known risk to experts in the field, and has plenty of historical precedent. To suggest otherwise is completely disingenuous of you, and only speaks to your lack of knowledge on the subject matter.
  - afarviral 5y ago
    Great retort BTW. I will be using the "... not eliminating the only one we currently have" line in future. Im worried that any concerns people have result in them being lumped in with conspiracy theorists/misinformants (?) but it seems irrational and dangerous to deter people from receiving some protection if the risks are more effectiveness and longevity rather than side-effects. My most lingering concern is simply that such a large number of people receiving the same few new vaccines seems like a gamble that we will all be forced to participate in. That's life though..freedom isn't always a given.
afarviral 5y ago
Definitely a stretch but the linked studies are worth a read anyway. I've only (cursorily) read [1] but it suggests combining different approaches for targeting immune response rather than the same approach across the populous. The risk would be assuming high levels of protection given how likely the virus is of escaping a single target through evolution. I guess that does pose a risk if people treat the current vaccines as a means to return to normal. My guess is variations on "the vaccines aren't very effective" are the biggest and most credible concerns people have though not a good reason to not receive them.
- civilized 5y ago
  The cited papers are definitely legitimate and interesting, even though they do not support the point the commenter wished to make. It's too bad that HN flagging means the OC can't be seen at all. Most content which deserves harsh criticism does not necessarily deserve full censorship, which can easily backfire. We do need diversified defenses, but we shouldn't forget that our natural immunity is ultimately the line of defense that actually fights the virus. Vaccines just help it develop some particular tools against the spike protein. As of yet, I don't know any reason to believe that this prevents the immune system from forming more comprehensive and diverse defenses. On the contrary, the immune response is so complex and multifaceted that the vaccine-induced antibodies can only play a small role, albeit critical in the early stages of infection.
  - criticaltinker 5y ago
    > even though they do not support the point the commenter wished to make They do support the general point - if you think otherwise, please articulate how they do not.
OrvalWintermute 5y ago
I didn't read it as a stretch because first generation vaccines used in the campaigns all have shared targeting, and medical treatment is being discounted. > Such a narrow molecular focus raises the specter of viral immune evasion as a potential failure mode for these biomedical interventions This was from [1] > Backing up a provocative claim with a snowblind of irrelevant references is a shameful misinformation tactic and you should stop doing it immediately. Doing it in a public health context is particularly dangerous and frankly disgusting. Please, be kind. The references were applicable but not written for the everyday consumer.
- civilized 5y ago
  It's not valid to go from "vaccine escape may occur" to "mass vaccination is a public health risk". You can't claim B, which doesn't follow from A, and follow B up with a bunch of citations that only support A. That's misinformation about a high-stakes public issue, it's irresponsible, and it warrants harsh criticism.
  - criticaltinker 5y ago
    > "vaccine escape may occur" You're disregarding the nuances and evidence put forth in the cited literature - either intentionally or out of ignorance. A much more fair representation is: "vaccine escape is exceedingly likely to occur under the conditions of mass vaccination combined with a vaccine that does not necessarily prevent infection and transmission, and which induces an immune response highly targeted toward the spike protein RBD" In that case B absolutely follows from A. To argue otherwise is a non-sequiter.
    - civilized 5y ago
      Even if vaccine escape eventually occurs, it doesn't follow that mass vaccination itself is a bad policy. You have to weigh the consequences of the escape against the consequences of not mass vaccinating. The consequences of not mass vaccinating are "a lot of people die that wouldn't have with the vaccine", so the consequences of escape need to be pretty dire to outweigh that. Does escape make the virus significantly more dangerous than it would have been if the vaccine were not used on such a large scale? It's unclear. To answer that, one critical question would be whether the vaccine somehow hinders the immune system from developing a more complex and robust response to the virus. I have not seen anything that speaks to that question yet. Antibiotic resistance don't make us regret the use of antibiotics. We just avoid using them without evidence that they are needed, and we use them in combination with other measures. Mass vaccination and a more targeted campaign are both consistent with both of those principles, and nuanced evidence and reasoning would be needed to favor one over the other.

aplummer 5y ago

Thanks for adding this. Compulsory mass vaccination is one of the greatest medical miracles in human history, possibly the actual single greatest. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_lung#/media/File:Poumon_artificiel.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_lung#/media/File:Poumon_a...

newacct583 5y ago
Second greatest. Antibiotics take the crown.
- aplummer 5y ago
  I think you got me there, but it's at least up there as a big winner.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
breck 5y ago
According to a 2012 NEJM survey, #1 is anesthesia. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1016/j.sjpain.2013.07.027/html https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1016/j.sjpain.2013... IIRC it then went X-Rays and Antibiotics, but can't find source ATM.

criticaltinker 5y ago

My emphasis is on compulsory, but perhaps I should've been more clear. Obviously I've triggered some people here. Vaccines are powerful tools that help save lives and we should use them. But if they are used indiscriminately they can actually further endanger public health. You might be familiar with antibiotic resistance - vaccines are subject to the same potential for unexpected consequences. All of the sources I cited support this fact - it is not misinformation. Did you read any of them? Here are some excerpts for you: Excerpts from [1]: > "The spike protein receptor-binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2 is the molecular target for many vaccines and antibody-based prophylactics aimed at bringing COVID-19 under control." > "Such a narrow molecular focus raises the specter of viral immune evasion as a potential failure mode for these biomedical interventions. With the emergence of new strains of SARS-CoV-2 with altered transmissibility and immune evasion potential, a critical question is this: how easily can the virus escape neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) targeting the spike RBD?" > "Our modeling suggests that SARS-CoV-2 mutants with one or two mildly deleterious mutations are expected to exist in high numbers due to neutral genetic variation, and consequently resistance to vaccines or other prophylactics that rely on one or two antibodies for protection can develop quickly -and repeatedly- under positive selection." > "The speed at which nAb resistance develops in the population increases substantially as the number of infected individuals increases, suggesting that complementary strategies to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission that exert specific pressure on other proteins (e.g., antiviral prophylactics) or that do not exert a specific selective pressure on the virus (e.g., high-efficiency air filtration, masking, ultraviolet air purification) are key to reducing the risk of immune escape" > "Strategies for viral elimination should therefore be diversified across molecular targets and therapeutic modalities" Excerpts from [2]: > As vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 are deployed across populations, it is possible to create a selection pressure for variants that can escape the vaccine-acquired immune response. Over the past few months, several variants have emerged which show a reduced susceptibility to vaccine-acquired immunity, though none appears to escape entirely. These variants largely emerged before vaccination was widespread, thus selection pressure from vaccines is unlikely to have made a significant contribution to their emergence. However, as vaccines become more widespread, the transmission advantage gained by a virus that can evade vaccine-acquired immunity will increase. > There is no historic precedent for the mass administration of antiviral medication in the community as prophylaxis, apart from the use of anti influenza Neuraminidase Inhibitors, which were used to a limited extent in this way in the early phases of Influenza Pandemic of 2009 in the UK. The safety and efficacy profile must be extremely well established for a mass administration strategy to work and poor compliance will likely rapidly lead to the selection of drug resistant variants, rendering such a strategy short lived. I could go on, but that fact is your comment is not a charitable or informed response to the statements I made. [1] Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (April 2021) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ [2] Can we predict the limits of SARS-CoV-2 variants and their phenotypic consequences? https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/long-term-evolution-of-sars-cov-2-26-july-2021 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/long-term-evoluti...

civilized 5y ago
I stand by my post. None of this says anything remotely implying what you claimed, that the mass vaccination programs pose a serious public health risk. That is purely your speculation, vaguely inspired by the content of the papers. Your contention that it matters whether the campaign is compulsory or not only takes you further from your supposed evidence base. It's not even in the same universe as what the papers are talking about, and is purely your own invention. I understand that you're worried about vaccine escape, but to go from that to "compulsory mass vaccination is a serious public health risk" is a completely unwarranted leap. Your authors advocate for diversifying our defenses, not eliminating the only one we currently have.
- criticaltinker 5y ago
  > "the vaccines are a serious public health risk" That is not my claim. My claim is that compulsory mass vaccination using the current vaccines are a serious public health risk. You are the one making an unjustified leap, in what appears to be closed minded defensiveness of your ideology. We are in agreement that vaccines serve a useful purpose and can help save lives. Not sure how I can be any more clear. > It's not even in the same universe as what the papers are talking about, and is purely your own invention It's obvious that you haven't read any of the cited references. Vaccine induced immune escape is a well known risk to experts in the field, and has plenty of historical precedent. To suggest otherwise is completely disingenuous of you, and only speaks to your lack of knowledge on the subject matter.
- afarviral 5y ago
  Great retort BTW. I will be using the "... not eliminating the only one we currently have" line in future. Im worried that any concerns people have result in them being lumped in with conspiracy theorists/misinformants (?) but it seems irrational and dangerous to deter people from receiving some protection if the risks are more effectiveness and longevity rather than side-effects. My most lingering concern is simply that such a large number of people receiving the same few new vaccines seems like a gamble that we will all be forced to participate in. That's life though..freedom isn't always a given.

afarviral 5y ago

Definitely a stretch but the linked studies are worth a read anyway. I've only (cursorily) read [1] but it suggests combining different approaches for targeting immune response rather than the same approach across the populous. The risk would be assuming high levels of protection given how likely the virus is of escaping a single target through evolution. I guess that does pose a risk if people treat the current vaccines as a means to return to normal. My guess is variations on "the vaccines aren't very effective" are the biggest and most credible concerns people have though not a good reason to not receive them.

civilized 5y ago
The cited papers are definitely legitimate and interesting, even though they do not support the point the commenter wished to make. It's too bad that HN flagging means the OC can't be seen at all. Most content which deserves harsh criticism does not necessarily deserve full censorship, which can easily backfire. We do need diversified defenses, but we shouldn't forget that our natural immunity is ultimately the line of defense that actually fights the virus. Vaccines just help it develop some particular tools against the spike protein. As of yet, I don't know any reason to believe that this prevents the immune system from forming more comprehensive and diverse defenses. On the contrary, the immune response is so complex and multifaceted that the vaccine-induced antibodies can only play a small role, albeit critical in the early stages of infection.
- criticaltinker 5y ago
  > even though they do not support the point the commenter wished to make They do support the general point - if you think otherwise, please articulate how they do not.

OrvalWintermute 5y ago

I didn't read it as a stretch because first generation vaccines used in the campaigns all have shared targeting, and medical treatment is being discounted. > Such a narrow molecular focus raises the specter of viral immune evasion as a potential failure mode for these biomedical interventions This was from [1] > Backing up a provocative claim with a snowblind of irrelevant references is a shameful misinformation tactic and you should stop doing it immediately. Doing it in a public health context is particularly dangerous and frankly disgusting. Please, be kind. The references were applicable but not written for the everyday consumer.

civilized 5y ago
It's not valid to go from "vaccine escape may occur" to "mass vaccination is a public health risk". You can't claim B, which doesn't follow from A, and follow B up with a bunch of citations that only support A. That's misinformation about a high-stakes public issue, it's irresponsible, and it warrants harsh criticism.
- criticaltinker 5y ago
  > "vaccine escape may occur" You're disregarding the nuances and evidence put forth in the cited literature - either intentionally or out of ignorance. A much more fair representation is: "vaccine escape is exceedingly likely to occur under the conditions of mass vaccination combined with a vaccine that does not necessarily prevent infection and transmission, and which induces an immune response highly targeted toward the spike protein RBD" In that case B absolutely follows from A. To argue otherwise is a non-sequiter.
  - civilized 5y ago
    Even if vaccine escape eventually occurs, it doesn't follow that mass vaccination itself is a bad policy. You have to weigh the consequences of the escape against the consequences of not mass vaccinating. The consequences of not mass vaccinating are "a lot of people die that wouldn't have with the vaccine", so the consequences of escape need to be pretty dire to outweigh that. Does escape make the virus significantly more dangerous than it would have been if the vaccine were not used on such a large scale? It's unclear. To answer that, one critical question would be whether the vaccine somehow hinders the immune system from developing a more complex and robust response to the virus. I have not seen anything that speaks to that question yet. Antibiotic resistance don't make us regret the use of antibiotics. We just avoid using them without evidence that they are needed, and we use them in combination with other measures. Mass vaccination and a more targeted campaign are both consistent with both of those principles, and nuanced evidence and reasoning would be needed to favor one over the other.