3 ms·
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 targetin
by 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 agoThe 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.