5 ms·

One thing left out of the article is whether we should be vaccinating people to discourage spread simply to keep the risk of a much worse variant from randomly

One thing left out of the article is whether we should be vaccinating people to discourage spread simply to keep the risk of a much worse variant from randomly occurring low.

benf76 5y ago
There is a risk of creating variants by mass vaccination. If everyone has a uniform defense generated by a vaccine, this creates selection pressures for a variant that is able to maneuver around the vaccine induced immunity.
- IAmEveryone 5y ago
  There are reasons to believe, and some experience to point to, that this effect doesn’t work with vaccines as much as it does with antibiotics. It’s a long story, but part of the reason is that bacteria evolve resistance in the presence of the antibiotic, while here, the virus would need to randomly evolve it in the unvaccinated, then sustain useless adaption for a while until it gets the opportunity to infect a vaccinated person.
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    Vaccinated people are already regularly getting infected, so it isn't quite that simple. With Covid, many of the vaccines target a highly functional portion of the virus for the induced immunity. This means that mutations that make the vaccine induced antibodies less effective are at least somewhat likely to alter the function of the virus. My understanding is that we aren't really able to analytically determine the possibility space.
  - leereeves 5y ago
    > the virus would need to randomly evolve [resistance] in the unvaccinated That's only true if the vaccine stops almost all infections, which the COVID vaccines do not. There's another comment in this thread from someone who's been vaccinated and sick for 9 days. That's a great environment for the virus to evolve immunity to the vaccine. And it's not an uncommon situation.
    - gambiting 5y ago
      >>That's a great environment for the virus to evolve immunity to the vaccine Again, like the person above you said, it's not that simple. Bacteria can develop resistance to antibiotics because they can either avoid or start to digest the chemical that would normally be harmful to them. Here it's not the vaccine that's killing the virus - it's your own immune system, and every single one is different. So yeah, maybe in this person's body the immune system didn't learn to recognize the virus and kill it - it means literally nothing for how another person's immune system will behave when they encounter it.
      - leereeves 5y ago
        > it means literally nothing for how another person's immune system will behave when they encounter it. Vaccinations teach everyone's immune system to target the same part of the virus. Since everyone has immunity to the same spike protein, a change in that protein means something to all vaccinated people.
- bobthechef 5y ago
  Yes, I have read this also. Big pharma also has an interest in promoting booster shots. It would be a steady flow of revenue. If it causes selective pressures that create new variants, that just means a perpetual market for booster shots.
  - gambiting 5y ago
    >>If it causes selective pressures that create new variants Except that it literally doesn't, there is no data to suggest that it would, and I have no idea why this particular idea is repeated so much. Like I said in the comment above, none of the vaccines that we use have ever caused super variants to emerge. Zero. We don't have a super variant of Polio, or any other diseases that people get vaccinated against.
    - karol 5y ago
      Polio is not a coronavirus. SARS has different mutation rate, so this needs to taken into account. Additionally cats, dogs and other animals can be infected and produce unique mutations, unlike polio.
- jeromegv 5y ago
  All the worst variants right now have developed in unvaccinated population. So either you sacrifice 1-2% of the population and let variants continue while not vaccinating anyone. Or you get vaccinated and reduce your risks of going to the hospital by a ratio of 30:1.
  - jrs235 5y ago
    Curious, how did/does one conclude or determine that the worst variants developed in unvaccinated populations?
- gambiting 5y ago
  Absolute nonsense though, as proven by looking at literally any of the diseases we have been vaccinating people for decades. Polio vaccine hasn't caused super polio to emerge, just like vaccines haven't caused super variants of hepatitis B, tetanus or whooping cough - all things that children are vaccinated against. Even the flu vaccine doesn't cause new variants, and that has a spotty coverage at best. Like, what you said sounds scienc-y enough that a lot of people seem to believe it, but it's literally not true and has never been true.
  - elvatoloco55 5y ago
    Its not nonsense. Its possible and it has happened but in this case unlikely. Though there is still concern due to the focus of these vaccines on the spike protein
  - peytn 5y ago
    > it's literally not true and has never been true. It’s widely regarded to be true for Marek’s disease.
  - benf76 5y ago
    You are comparing apples and oranges. It is this reason there has never been a successful corona virus vaccine despite decades and billions of dollars of research. Look up “leaky vaccines”
shireboy 5y ago
They sort of mention that in the breadth section. The idea is that natural immunity may target more than just the spike proteins the vaccine focuses on so may actually target more variants. One can imagine a scenario where continued (not initial) vaccination actually contributes to a longer spread with weaker immunity so more chance for variants to develop. Not saying this is 100% the case, but interesting article I’d like to see more data on.
- bluGill 5y ago
  But the spike is what is important, targeting the rest just makes the immune system make antibodies that don't do anything.
  - loopz 5y ago
    Are you a medical professional researcher? You are wrong though.
    - bluGill 5y ago
      Just repeating what decades of SARS research has discovered. Maybe I'm wrong, but highly unlikely that something else would work when it hasn't in the past.
      - loopz 5y ago
        We are likely both wrong in some way, what a novel concept! ;) Having parts of the spike protein targeted helps with existing variants, but not with new variants that might escape those markers. Delta is weakening the effects of vaccines already. Sure, booster shots might include new markers, but it's still a narrow moving target. However, natural infection will provide broader immune response and antibodies. So if one could be sure to remain in good health, infection is much less terrible after two vaccine shots. That might provide additional protection that vaccines may not. It's more random though, but researchers are not foreign to the idea. Nobody is able to predict future outcomes of it, but at some point society will need to accept widely spread of infections and deal with those outcomes. Hopefully, vaccine shots is enough to deal with the initial shock so the body can do the rest. It's not just about avoiding killing old people, but also avoiding degrading public health too much.
blueflow 5y ago
Cross-reference it to https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/leaky-vaccines-enhance-spread-of-deadlier-chicken-viruses https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/leaky-vac... I suspect we have the deadlier variants not despite, but because we are vaccinating and the vaccination is not effective in preventing spread.
- quicklime 5y ago
  Why do you think that? The Alpha and Delta variants were both first detected in late 2020 - before the vaccines were widely available.
  - blueflow 5y ago
    How can i make a statement weaker and more open ended than with "i suspect"? "Could it be"? I didn't even wanted to back it up, it was more intended as an open thought, but its seems it didn't get across in the heat of the thread.
- PartiallyTyped 5y ago
  That assumption is based on the belief that an infection prevents reinfection, i.e. an infection is just as good at protecting a (recovered) patient as a vaccine is at protecting an uninfected person. But we have seen that Delta reinfects previously infected patients, ergo, an infection is at a best a leaky vaccine (ie as good as current vaccines, though there are indications that it is not [1]), and at worse, a catalyst to worse outcomes considering the danger done during previous infection, b) a vaccine is not offered to the previously infected, c) the effects of long term covid. [1] https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/22/how-immunity-generated-from-covid-19-vaccines-differs-from-an-infection/ https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/22/how-immunity-genera...
  - Aerroon 5y ago
    But people that have been vaccinated have also been infected. Why would you call it a leaky vaccine when the vaccine leaks too? Or am I mistaken here?
ekianjo 5y ago
> we should be vaccinating people to discourage spread Vaccinations with current vaccines don't stop infections/spread at all - it's very obvious now with the Delta variant in countries that are already massively vaccinated like Israel and Island. In fact, vaccinated people can apparently carry just as high of a viral load as unvaccinated people (while vaccinated people will likely experience less symptoms). So the virus will happily keep infecting as many people as it can regardless of the vaccines.
- cactus2093 5y ago
  Reported your comment for misinformation, this is untrue.
  - grandpoobah 5y ago
    Perhaps you could specify which parts are not true, and provide a retort? What OP said seems to be consistent with what we're seeing, but I am by no means an expert on the subject, so I'd like to hear your counterpoints.
    - gambiting 5y ago
      >>So the virus will happily keep infecting as many people as it can regardless of the vaccines. This part very specifically and provably isn't true. Vaccines reduce the actual transmission rate by about 90%. What you said about vaccinated people who have managed to get infected still carrying the same viral load is actually true - but your comment makes it sound as if the virus will keep spreading at the same pace regardless of whether you are vaccinated or not - which is simply not true.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - ekianjo 5y ago
        > Vaccines reduce the actual transmission rate by about 90%. Based on what data? If that were the case, then R would have fallen way below 1 in Israel or Iceland.

One thing left out of the article is whether we should be vaccinating people to discourage spread simply to keep the risk of a much worse variant from randomly occurring low.

benf76 5y ago

There is a risk of creating variants by mass vaccination. If everyone has a uniform defense generated by a vaccine, this creates selection pressures for a variant that is able to maneuver around the vaccine induced immunity.

IAmEveryone 5y ago
There are reasons to believe, and some experience to point to, that this effect doesn’t work with vaccines as much as it does with antibiotics. It’s a long story, but part of the reason is that bacteria evolve resistance in the presence of the antibiotic, while here, the virus would need to randomly evolve it in the unvaccinated, then sustain useless adaption for a while until it gets the opportunity to infect a vaccinated person.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  Vaccinated people are already regularly getting infected, so it isn't quite that simple. With Covid, many of the vaccines target a highly functional portion of the virus for the induced immunity. This means that mutations that make the vaccine induced antibodies less effective are at least somewhat likely to alter the function of the virus. My understanding is that we aren't really able to analytically determine the possibility space.
- leereeves 5y ago
  > the virus would need to randomly evolve [resistance] in the unvaccinated That's only true if the vaccine stops almost all infections, which the COVID vaccines do not. There's another comment in this thread from someone who's been vaccinated and sick for 9 days. That's a great environment for the virus to evolve immunity to the vaccine. And it's not an uncommon situation.
  - gambiting 5y ago
    >>That's a great environment for the virus to evolve immunity to the vaccine Again, like the person above you said, it's not that simple. Bacteria can develop resistance to antibiotics because they can either avoid or start to digest the chemical that would normally be harmful to them. Here it's not the vaccine that's killing the virus - it's your own immune system, and every single one is different. So yeah, maybe in this person's body the immune system didn't learn to recognize the virus and kill it - it means literally nothing for how another person's immune system will behave when they encounter it.
    - leereeves 5y ago
      > it means literally nothing for how another person's immune system will behave when they encounter it. Vaccinations teach everyone's immune system to target the same part of the virus. Since everyone has immunity to the same spike protein, a change in that protein means something to all vaccinated people.
bobthechef 5y ago
Yes, I have read this also. Big pharma also has an interest in promoting booster shots. It would be a steady flow of revenue. If it causes selective pressures that create new variants, that just means a perpetual market for booster shots.
- gambiting 5y ago
  >>If it causes selective pressures that create new variants Except that it literally doesn't, there is no data to suggest that it would, and I have no idea why this particular idea is repeated so much. Like I said in the comment above, none of the vaccines that we use have ever caused super variants to emerge. Zero. We don't have a super variant of Polio, or any other diseases that people get vaccinated against.
  - karol 5y ago
    Polio is not a coronavirus. SARS has different mutation rate, so this needs to taken into account. Additionally cats, dogs and other animals can be infected and produce unique mutations, unlike polio.
jeromegv 5y ago
All the worst variants right now have developed in unvaccinated population. So either you sacrifice 1-2% of the population and let variants continue while not vaccinating anyone. Or you get vaccinated and reduce your risks of going to the hospital by a ratio of 30:1.
- jrs235 5y ago
  Curious, how did/does one conclude or determine that the worst variants developed in unvaccinated populations?
gambiting 5y ago
Absolute nonsense though, as proven by looking at literally any of the diseases we have been vaccinating people for decades. Polio vaccine hasn't caused super polio to emerge, just like vaccines haven't caused super variants of hepatitis B, tetanus or whooping cough - all things that children are vaccinated against. Even the flu vaccine doesn't cause new variants, and that has a spotty coverage at best. Like, what you said sounds scienc-y enough that a lot of people seem to believe it, but it's literally not true and has never been true.
- elvatoloco55 5y ago
  Its not nonsense. Its possible and it has happened but in this case unlikely. Though there is still concern due to the focus of these vaccines on the spike protein
- peytn 5y ago
  > it's literally not true and has never been true. It’s widely regarded to be true for Marek’s disease.
- benf76 5y ago
  You are comparing apples and oranges. It is this reason there has never been a successful corona virus vaccine despite decades and billions of dollars of research. Look up “leaky vaccines”

shireboy 5y ago

They sort of mention that in the breadth section. The idea is that natural immunity may target more than just the spike proteins the vaccine focuses on so may actually target more variants. One can imagine a scenario where continued (not initial) vaccination actually contributes to a longer spread with weaker immunity so more chance for variants to develop. Not saying this is 100% the case, but interesting article I’d like to see more data on.

bluGill 5y ago
But the spike is what is important, targeting the rest just makes the immune system make antibodies that don't do anything.
- loopz 5y ago
  Are you a medical professional researcher? You are wrong though.
  - bluGill 5y ago
    Just repeating what decades of SARS research has discovered. Maybe I'm wrong, but highly unlikely that something else would work when it hasn't in the past.
    - loopz 5y ago
      We are likely both wrong in some way, what a novel concept! ;) Having parts of the spike protein targeted helps with existing variants, but not with new variants that might escape those markers. Delta is weakening the effects of vaccines already. Sure, booster shots might include new markers, but it's still a narrow moving target. However, natural infection will provide broader immune response and antibodies. So if one could be sure to remain in good health, infection is much less terrible after two vaccine shots. That might provide additional protection that vaccines may not. It's more random though, but researchers are not foreign to the idea. Nobody is able to predict future outcomes of it, but at some point society will need to accept widely spread of infections and deal with those outcomes. Hopefully, vaccine shots is enough to deal with the initial shock so the body can do the rest. It's not just about avoiding killing old people, but also avoiding degrading public health too much.

blueflow 5y ago

Cross-reference it to https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/leaky-vaccines-enhance-spread-of-deadlier-chicken-viruses https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/leaky-vac... I suspect we have the deadlier variants not despite, but because we are vaccinating and the vaccination is not effective in preventing spread.

quicklime 5y ago
Why do you think that? The Alpha and Delta variants were both first detected in late 2020 - before the vaccines were widely available.
- blueflow 5y ago
  How can i make a statement weaker and more open ended than with "i suspect"? "Could it be"? I didn't even wanted to back it up, it was more intended as an open thought, but its seems it didn't get across in the heat of the thread.
PartiallyTyped 5y ago
That assumption is based on the belief that an infection prevents reinfection, i.e. an infection is just as good at protecting a (recovered) patient as a vaccine is at protecting an uninfected person. But we have seen that Delta reinfects previously infected patients, ergo, an infection is at a best a leaky vaccine (ie as good as current vaccines, though there are indications that it is not [1]), and at worse, a catalyst to worse outcomes considering the danger done during previous infection, b) a vaccine is not offered to the previously infected, c) the effects of long term covid. [1] https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/22/how-immunity-generated-from-covid-19-vaccines-differs-from-an-infection/ https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/22/how-immunity-genera...
- Aerroon 5y ago
  But people that have been vaccinated have also been infected. Why would you call it a leaky vaccine when the vaccine leaks too? Or am I mistaken here?

ekianjo 5y ago

> we should be vaccinating people to discourage spread Vaccinations with current vaccines don't stop infections/spread at all - it's very obvious now with the Delta variant in countries that are already massively vaccinated like Israel and Island. In fact, vaccinated people can apparently carry just as high of a viral load as unvaccinated people (while vaccinated people will likely experience less symptoms). So the virus will happily keep infecting as many people as it can regardless of the vaccines.

cactus2093 5y ago
Reported your comment for misinformation, this is untrue.
- grandpoobah 5y ago
  Perhaps you could specify which parts are not true, and provide a retort? What OP said seems to be consistent with what we're seeing, but I am by no means an expert on the subject, so I'd like to hear your counterpoints.
  - gambiting 5y ago
    >>So the virus will happily keep infecting as many people as it can regardless of the vaccines. This part very specifically and provably isn't true. Vaccines reduce the actual transmission rate by about 90%. What you said about vaccinated people who have managed to get infected still carrying the same viral load is actually true - but your comment makes it sound as if the virus will keep spreading at the same pace regardless of whether you are vaccinated or not - which is simply not true.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - ekianjo 5y ago
      > Vaccines reduce the actual transmission rate by about 90%. Based on what data? If that were the case, then R would have fallen way below 1 in Israel or Iceland.