3 ms·

> From where I stand, given the evidence, the people who say something like "vaccination has no impact on R" are not far from people claiming the earth is flat.

> From where I stand, given the evidence, the people who say something like "vaccination has no impact on R" are not far from people claiming the earth is flat. I mean maybe the earth is flat. Even the guy who responded to me saying I was wrong then changes his mind on that Judging from the statistics of high vaccination rate countries like Israel vs Sweden,[1] there are a few important questions to respond with such as: Which vaccine, formulated against which variant? Vaccinated When? Against which infectious variant? At what point was herd immunity hit? Overall, it appears as though Sweden's approach was better as they are not having a 3rd wave, they hit herd immunity, because natural immunity > vaccination, they have more durable results against future variants, etc. I'm not disputing whether we should vaccinate some that are old, or have comordibidities, or want to get it. But, pushing a leaky vaccine across a large population is a license to get mutations and cause new variants in a large population. In effect, adapting the virus to target the vaccinated. [1] https://ianmsc.substack.com/p/why-does-no-one-ever-talk-about-sweden https://ianmsc.substack.com/p/why-does-no-one-ever-talk-abou...

YZF 5y ago
I agree all these factors matter. But you're not really commenting on the question at hand. But since you dragged me into a different debate, Sweden has 66% of the population vaccinated. So if they did so great on herd immunity why are they vaccinating? Is 66% of their population old and/or with co-morbidity? So clearly the Swedish disagree with the idea that you should only vaccinate the old or those with comorbidity? Are there any good examples of countries that are open, not vaccinating, and are doing well? I honestly lost track of what Sweden has been doing exactly but I think even early on the portrayal that they're just acting normally was wrong, they relied on recommendation rather than enforcement... and I think they did worse than their peers.
jl6 5y ago
> But, pushing a leaky vaccine across a large population is a license to get mutations and cause new variants in a large population. Fact check: vaccines do not cause variants. Citation: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-021-00544-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-021-00544-9 Sense check: most variants of concern emerged in countries prior to mass vaccination. Short version: why would vaccine-induced immunity provide materially different selection pressure to naturally-acquired-via-infection immunity? Neither are 100% effective, and will therefore allow immune-escape mutations through.
- OrvalWintermute 5y ago
  Fact check your fact check: > "Not all vaccines prevent infection. Some, known as leaky vaccines, prolong host survival or reduce disease symptoms without preventing viral replication and transmission. Although leaky vaccines provide anti-disease benefits to vaccinated individuals, new research by CIDD’s Andrew Read, David Kennedy and colleagues at the Avian Oncogenic Virus Group in the United Kingdom, and The University of New England in Australia, has demonstrated that leaky vaccines can make the situation for unvaccinated individuals worse. Leaky vaccines work by enhancing host immunity to a particular pathogen, without necessarily blocking or slowing viral replication. The result is that infected but vaccinated individuals have extended survival, allowing highly virulent pathogen that would normally reach an evolutionary dead-end in a dead host, can transmit. The evolutionary consequences of high virulence are thus reduced and these pathogens can be selectively favored as a result of leaky vaccination." [1] > "Could some vaccines drive the evolution of more virulent pathogens? Conventional wisdom is that natural selection will remove highly lethal pathogens if host death greatly reduces transmission. Vaccines that keep hosts alive but still allow transmission could thus allow very virulent strains to circulate in a population. Here we show experimentally that immunization of chickens against Marek's disease virus enhances the fitness of more virulent strains, making it possible for hyperpathogenic strains to transmit. Immunity elicited by direct vaccination or by maternal vaccination prolongs host survival but does not prevent infection, viral replication or transmission, thus extending the infectious periods of strains otherwise too lethal to persist. Our data show that anti-disease vaccines that do not prevent transmission can create conditions that promote the emergence of pathogen strains that cause more severe disease in unvaccinated hosts." [2] > "Over the past fifty years, Marek’s disease—an illness of fowl—has become fouler. Marek’s is caused by a highly contagious virus, related to those that cause herpes in humans. It spreads through the dust of contaminated chicken coops, and caused both paralysis and cancer. In the 1970s, new vaccines brought the disease the under control. But Marek’s didn’t go gently into that good night. Within ten years, it started evolving into more virulent strains, which now trigger more severe cancers and afflict chickens at earlier ages. Andrew Read from Pennsylvania State University thinks that the vaccines were responsible. The Marek’s vaccine is “imperfect” or “leaky.” That is, it protects chickens from developing disease, but doesn’t stop them from becoming infected or from spreading the virus. Inadvertently, this made it easier for the most virulent strains to survive. Such strains would normally kill their hosts so quickly that they’d die out. But in an immunised flock, they can persist because their lethal nature has been neutered. That’s not a problem for vaccinated individuals. But unvaccinated birds are now in serious trouble. This problem, where vaccination fosters the evolution of more virulent disease, does not apply to most human vaccines. Those against mumps, measles, rubella, and smallpox are “perfect:” They protect against disease and stop people from transmitting the respective viruses. “You don’t get onward evolution,” says Read. “These vaccines are very successful, highly effective, and very safe. They have been a tremendous success story and will continue to be so.”" [3] > "Vaccination elicits immune responses capable of potently neutralizing SARS-CoV-2. However, ongoing sur- veillance has revealed the emergence of variants harboring mutations in spike, the main target of neutralizing antibodies. To understand the impact of these variants, we evaluated the neutralization potency of 99 indi- viduals that received one or two doses of either BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccines against pseudoviruses representing 10 globally circulating strains of SARS-CoV-2. Five of the 10 pseudoviruses, harboring receptor- binding domain mutations, including K417N/T, E484K, and N501Y, were highly resistant to neutralization. Cross-neutralization of B.1.351 variants was comparable to SARS-CoV and bat-derived WIV1-CoV, suggest- ing that a relatively small number of mutations can mediate potent escape from vaccine responses. While the clinical impact of neutralization resistance remains uncertain, these results highlight the potential for variants to escape from neutralizing humoral immunity and emphasize the need to develop broadly protective inter- ventions against the evolving pandemic." [4] > "HIV patient had COVID for over 7 months, infection mutated over 30 times....It is noted that patients who have HIV are not more susceptible to contracting a coronavirus infection than those without, nor does it worsen the medical implications of the infection. Additionally, the fact that the disease stays present within the body of immunosuppressed patients for longer periods of time compared to healthier individuals could mean that HIV patients could be an incessant source of transmission and mutations of the coronavirus - almost like a factory of variants." [5] If you have high viral transmission against a less effective variant, of course you will have natural selection of a virus for greater transmissibility within that specific environment. If the environment is now a conventional spike antibody human environment, this will promote changes to the spike, and, changes to the overall virus. Furthermore, when you have a leaky vaccine distributed to a large population where viral spread is still occuring, you promote genetic transfer between viruses that are mutually infecting patients, as well This is science 101, unless you disbelieve in adaptation? [1] http://epidemics.psu.edu/articles/view/leaky-vaccines-promote-the-transmission-of-more-virulent-virus http://epidemics.psu.edu/articles/view/leaky-vaccines-promot... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4516275/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4516275/ [3] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/leaky-vaccines-enhance-spread-of-deadlier-chicken-viruses https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/leaky-vac... [4] https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0092-8674%2821%2900298-1 https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0092-8674%2821%2900... [5] https://www.jpost.com/health-science/hiv-patient-had-covid-for-over-7-months-infection-mutated-over-30-times-670398 https://www.jpost.com/health-science/hiv-patient-had-covid-f...

YZF 5y ago

I agree all these factors matter. But you're not really commenting on the question at hand. But since you dragged me into a different debate, Sweden has 66% of the population vaccinated. So if they did so great on herd immunity why are they vaccinating? Is 66% of their population old and/or with co-morbidity? So clearly the Swedish disagree with the idea that you should only vaccinate the old or those with comorbidity? Are there any good examples of countries that are open, not vaccinating, and are doing well? I honestly lost track of what Sweden has been doing exactly but I think even early on the portrayal that they're just acting normally was wrong, they relied on recommendation rather than enforcement... and I think they did worse than their peers.

jl6 5y ago

> But, pushing a leaky vaccine across a large population is a license to get mutations and cause new variants in a large population. Fact check: vaccines do not cause variants. Citation: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-021-00544-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-021-00544-9 Sense check: most variants of concern emerged in countries prior to mass vaccination. Short version: why would vaccine-induced immunity provide materially different selection pressure to naturally-acquired-via-infection immunity? Neither are 100% effective, and will therefore allow immune-escape mutations through.

OrvalWintermute 5y ago
Fact check your fact check: > "Not all vaccines prevent infection. Some, known as leaky vaccines, prolong host survival or reduce disease symptoms without preventing viral replication and transmission. Although leaky vaccines provide anti-disease benefits to vaccinated individuals, new research by CIDD’s Andrew Read, David Kennedy and colleagues at the Avian Oncogenic Virus Group in the United Kingdom, and The University of New England in Australia, has demonstrated that leaky vaccines can make the situation for unvaccinated individuals worse. Leaky vaccines work by enhancing host immunity to a particular pathogen, without necessarily blocking or slowing viral replication. The result is that infected but vaccinated individuals have extended survival, allowing highly virulent pathogen that would normally reach an evolutionary dead-end in a dead host, can transmit. The evolutionary consequences of high virulence are thus reduced and these pathogens can be selectively favored as a result of leaky vaccination." [1] > "Could some vaccines drive the evolution of more virulent pathogens? Conventional wisdom is that natural selection will remove highly lethal pathogens if host death greatly reduces transmission. Vaccines that keep hosts alive but still allow transmission could thus allow very virulent strains to circulate in a population. Here we show experimentally that immunization of chickens against Marek's disease virus enhances the fitness of more virulent strains, making it possible for hyperpathogenic strains to transmit. Immunity elicited by direct vaccination or by maternal vaccination prolongs host survival but does not prevent infection, viral replication or transmission, thus extending the infectious periods of strains otherwise too lethal to persist. Our data show that anti-disease vaccines that do not prevent transmission can create conditions that promote the emergence of pathogen strains that cause more severe disease in unvaccinated hosts." [2] > "Over the past fifty years, Marek’s disease—an illness of fowl—has become fouler. Marek’s is caused by a highly contagious virus, related to those that cause herpes in humans. It spreads through the dust of contaminated chicken coops, and caused both paralysis and cancer. In the 1970s, new vaccines brought the disease the under control. But Marek’s didn’t go gently into that good night. Within ten years, it started evolving into more virulent strains, which now trigger more severe cancers and afflict chickens at earlier ages. Andrew Read from Pennsylvania State University thinks that the vaccines were responsible. The Marek’s vaccine is “imperfect” or “leaky.” That is, it protects chickens from developing disease, but doesn’t stop them from becoming infected or from spreading the virus. Inadvertently, this made it easier for the most virulent strains to survive. Such strains would normally kill their hosts so quickly that they’d die out. But in an immunised flock, they can persist because their lethal nature has been neutered. That’s not a problem for vaccinated individuals. But unvaccinated birds are now in serious trouble. This problem, where vaccination fosters the evolution of more virulent disease, does not apply to most human vaccines. Those against mumps, measles, rubella, and smallpox are “perfect:” They protect against disease and stop people from transmitting the respective viruses. “You don’t get onward evolution,” says Read. “These vaccines are very successful, highly effective, and very safe. They have been a tremendous success story and will continue to be so.”" [3] > "Vaccination elicits immune responses capable of potently neutralizing SARS-CoV-2. However, ongoing sur- veillance has revealed the emergence of variants harboring mutations in spike, the main target of neutralizing antibodies. To understand the impact of these variants, we evaluated the neutralization potency of 99 indi- viduals that received one or two doses of either BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccines against pseudoviruses representing 10 globally circulating strains of SARS-CoV-2. Five of the 10 pseudoviruses, harboring receptor- binding domain mutations, including K417N/T, E484K, and N501Y, were highly resistant to neutralization. Cross-neutralization of B.1.351 variants was comparable to SARS-CoV and bat-derived WIV1-CoV, suggest- ing that a relatively small number of mutations can mediate potent escape from vaccine responses. While the clinical impact of neutralization resistance remains uncertain, these results highlight the potential for variants to escape from neutralizing humoral immunity and emphasize the need to develop broadly protective inter- ventions against the evolving pandemic." [4] > "HIV patient had COVID for over 7 months, infection mutated over 30 times....It is noted that patients who have HIV are not more susceptible to contracting a coronavirus infection than those without, nor does it worsen the medical implications of the infection. Additionally, the fact that the disease stays present within the body of immunosuppressed patients for longer periods of time compared to healthier individuals could mean that HIV patients could be an incessant source of transmission and mutations of the coronavirus - almost like a factory of variants." [5] If you have high viral transmission against a less effective variant, of course you will have natural selection of a virus for greater transmissibility within that specific environment. If the environment is now a conventional spike antibody human environment, this will promote changes to the spike, and, changes to the overall virus. Furthermore, when you have a leaky vaccine distributed to a large population where viral spread is still occuring, you promote genetic transfer between viruses that are mutually infecting patients, as well This is science 101, unless you disbelieve in adaptation? [1] http://epidemics.psu.edu/articles/view/leaky-vaccines-promote-the-transmission-of-more-virulent-virus http://epidemics.psu.edu/articles/view/leaky-vaccines-promot... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4516275/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4516275/ [3] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/leaky-vaccines-enhance-spread-of-deadlier-chicken-viruses https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/leaky-vac... [4] https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0092-8674%2821%2900298-1 https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0092-8674%2821%2900... [5] https://www.jpost.com/health-science/hiv-patient-had-covid-for-over-7-months-infection-mutated-over-30-times-670398 https://www.jpost.com/health-science/hiv-patient-had-covid-f...