3 ms·

"and reduces the risk new mutations" likely the opposite is true. It is called evolutionary pressure. I will get vaccinated next year since I move back to Chin

"and reduces the risk new mutations" likely the opposite is true. It is called evolutionary pressure. I will get vaccinated next year since I move back to China then. They insist and I am okay with it since I get something in return.

monksy 5y ago
> "and reduces the risk new mutations" likely the opposite is true. It is called evolutionary pressure. Chicken and egg problem: You can't have evolutionary pressure without an environment to operate in. Vaccines reduce the space in which they can attempt to successfully mutate.
- SailingSperm 5y ago
  That environment of evolutionary pressure is exactly what is being created. An environment where strains with higher fitness for immune escape are more able to spread, in a compounding manner. Particularly with leaky vaccines as we're using for c19 that do not prevent contraction with high efficacy. Please read this - even just the 'Prevention' section for a real world example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek%27s_disease#Prevention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek%27s_disease#Prevention or read how antibiotic resistance comes about, which seems to be less contentious / politicly affected... But the same evolutionary mechanism is at work.
tunesmith 5y ago
That's not how evolutionary pressure works. If fewer people are infected, the virus has fewer opportunities to mutate. Among those people, any surviving mutation has (by definition) a greater ability to escape the vaccine, but that's not the same thing as saying that the vaccine increases the chance of a new mutation.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- XorNot 5y ago
  There's a missing part to this by the way: you need a reservoir for new mutations to replicate in, and they have to be mutations which become dominant in the reservoir. Since the vaccines reduced R(eff), generally below 1 (so far observed), any chain of infection through vaccinated people tends to terminate - not continue. Which means however vaccine evading that virus is, all of it dies. This all changes if you have a large group of unvaccinated people presenting no challenge to it. Freely spreading for a whole lot of cycles through that population means more vaccine-resistant copies are now out there, with more opportunity to challenge vaccine resistant individuals they come into contact with (since R(eff) in the unvaccinated is ~8).
  - tunesmith 5y ago
    I have trouble visualizing that, but if that's true it's just more reason to do whatever we can to get local Rt < 1. Vaccines get us partway there, other mitigation efforts like mask use, distancing (and natural immunity) get us partway there as well. I'm personally vaccinated and not very worried about getting the disease if I have to be out and about. I feel my personal risk is low. But in terms of societal/community risk to others, that's why I have a personal policy of limiting myself socially so I don't contribute to spread. The local metrics I personally follow are: 1) Is Rt above 1? 2) Are cases/100k above 10? 3) Is test positivity above 5%? 4) Is ICU usage above 85% If any of those are on the wrong side, I'm limiting my social gatherings.
  - nradov 5y ago
    This is incorrect. I encourage everyone to get vaccinated if they can, but there is no reliable evidence that this reduces R(eff) below 1. https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immunity-not-possible-astrazeneca-developer-2021-8?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immu...
    - tunesmith 5y ago
      "no reliable evidence" - of course vaccination helps bring R(eff) lower. That's just the way the math works. If R(eff) is already low enough due to other mitigation, then additional vaccination helps bring it below 1. We see that all over the nation now, R(eff) rates dipping below 1 as vaccination rates increase.
lasc4r 5y ago
So you're not getting vaccinated and you've convinced yourself it's for pro-social reasons. Misinformation truly is something to behold.
- monksy 5y ago
  The poster is confirming that vaccine mandates work as well.

monksy 5y ago

> "and reduces the risk new mutations" likely the opposite is true. It is called evolutionary pressure. Chicken and egg problem: You can't have evolutionary pressure without an environment to operate in. Vaccines reduce the space in which they can attempt to successfully mutate.

SailingSperm 5y ago
That environment of evolutionary pressure is exactly what is being created. An environment where strains with higher fitness for immune escape are more able to spread, in a compounding manner. Particularly with leaky vaccines as we're using for c19 that do not prevent contraction with high efficacy. Please read this - even just the 'Prevention' section for a real world example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek%27s_disease#Prevention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek%27s_disease#Prevention or read how antibiotic resistance comes about, which seems to be less contentious / politicly affected... But the same evolutionary mechanism is at work.

tunesmith 5y ago

That's not how evolutionary pressure works. If fewer people are infected, the virus has fewer opportunities to mutate. Among those people, any surviving mutation has (by definition) a greater ability to escape the vaccine, but that's not the same thing as saying that the vaccine increases the chance of a new mutation.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
XorNot 5y ago
There's a missing part to this by the way: you need a reservoir for new mutations to replicate in, and they have to be mutations which become dominant in the reservoir. Since the vaccines reduced R(eff), generally below 1 (so far observed), any chain of infection through vaccinated people tends to terminate - not continue. Which means however vaccine evading that virus is, all of it dies. This all changes if you have a large group of unvaccinated people presenting no challenge to it. Freely spreading for a whole lot of cycles through that population means more vaccine-resistant copies are now out there, with more opportunity to challenge vaccine resistant individuals they come into contact with (since R(eff) in the unvaccinated is ~8).
- tunesmith 5y ago
  I have trouble visualizing that, but if that's true it's just more reason to do whatever we can to get local Rt < 1. Vaccines get us partway there, other mitigation efforts like mask use, distancing (and natural immunity) get us partway there as well. I'm personally vaccinated and not very worried about getting the disease if I have to be out and about. I feel my personal risk is low. But in terms of societal/community risk to others, that's why I have a personal policy of limiting myself socially so I don't contribute to spread. The local metrics I personally follow are: 1) Is Rt above 1? 2) Are cases/100k above 10? 3) Is test positivity above 5%? 4) Is ICU usage above 85% If any of those are on the wrong side, I'm limiting my social gatherings.
- nradov 5y ago
  This is incorrect. I encourage everyone to get vaccinated if they can, but there is no reliable evidence that this reduces R(eff) below 1. https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immunity-not-possible-astrazeneca-developer-2021-8?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immu...
  - tunesmith 5y ago
    "no reliable evidence" - of course vaccination helps bring R(eff) lower. That's just the way the math works. If R(eff) is already low enough due to other mitigation, then additional vaccination helps bring it below 1. We see that all over the nation now, R(eff) rates dipping below 1 as vaccination rates increase.

lasc4r 5y ago

So you're not getting vaccinated and you've convinced yourself it's for pro-social reasons. Misinformation truly is something to behold.

monksy 5y ago
The poster is confirming that vaccine mandates work as well.