4 ms·
That is nonsensical. For that argument to be sound, you'd have to assume simultaneously: (a) that not all COVID variants have spike proteins so they don't all i
by torstenvl 5y ago
That is nonsensical. For that argument to be sound, you'd have to assume simultaneously: (a) that not all COVID variants have spike proteins so they don't all induce antibodies to it; and (b) that all COVID variants have spike proteins so the antibodies from the mRNA vaccines are widely applicable.
- bluGill 5y agoNo, you only have to assume there are other proteins for the immune system to attack other than the spike. Which we already know is true, though it isn't clear if attacking them works, we know there is more than the spike protein in the virus.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- torstenvl 5y agoFalse. That logic does not hold unless you also assume that the presence of protein B means no antibodies to protein A will be developed. There is zero evidence of such a phenomenon. Indeed, that's why many high-specificity antibody tests require an immunoassay — the infection causes antibodies to each of the envelope proteins. If antibody development were an either-or proposition as is required by your argument, immunoassays would not — could not — work.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago> the infection causes antibodies to each of the envelope proteins. That's interesting, I was not aware of that there was always antibodies to all envelope proteins. Do you have links to more information on the topic? How does this work when some of the envelope proteins are common, ones that occur in other non-viral sources?
- torstenvl 5y agoThere aren't always antibodies to all envelope proteins. That's too strong of a claim. Sometimes antibodies to early stage precursors fade before antibodies to others are developed. I'd recommend reading about the HIV virion as an example with multiple proteins and needing multiple detected antibodies for a positive diagnosis. It's a good virus to read about due to the immense amount of research put into it.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y agoDoesn't that contradict your statement above - "There is zero evidence of such a phenomenon" ?
- torstenvl 5y agoNo...? No rational person could draw that conclusion. Where exactly are you seeing evidence that the presence of protein A means antibodies to protein B will not be developed?
- bluGill 5y agoI did not assume no other proteins.