10 ms·

I think these headlines, possibly purposefully, overlook the possibility that vaccine antibodies eased acquisition of infection induced antibodies to the point

I think these headlines, possibly purposefully, overlook the possibility that vaccine antibodies eased acquisition of infection induced antibodies to the point of being subclinical events. That is, a vaccinated person could be exposed to a variant for which they are partially protected, not notice clinical symptoms, while the person's immune system still remembers the details of the variant. As an iterative process, this is akin to software updates (for a running immune system). So to say that variant A.30 isn't covered by the mRNA induced spike protein antibodies is a very different statement than to say it's able to evade an immune system primed by mRNA antibodies which then re-entered daily life and thereby was able to continuously adapt to variants.

chicorea 5y ago
It depends if the person who got vaccinated was exposed to the virus before the vaccination. If not, it is very likely that these variants will escape the vaccine induced immunity due to original antigenic sin, especially considering that mRNA vaccines only stimulate the production of spike ABs and not other ABs such as nucleocapsid ABs which target proteins that do not mutate as much as spike.
christkv 5y ago
Antibodies is also just one part of the immune response, memory T cells are just as important. We know the vaccines are not sterilizing so you can still catch and spread it. They do reduce the likelihood of hospitalization and that seems to be about that.
- feanaro 5y ago
  Not sterilising, but they do reduce viral load and hence also the probability of spreading.
  - christkv 5y ago
    I don't think there is consensus about that unfortunately. I see plenty of pre-prints going both ways. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264262v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264262v... I think the only conclusion that can be supported truly at this point is that you seem to be less likely to get a severe disease progression. And before anyone jumps on the whole political thing. Yes I have taken two doses of the biogen vaccine.
- pc86 5y ago
  They do a lot more than that. A lot of the symptoms (coughing, sneezing, etc.) increase infectivity. The vaccines reduce not only the likelihood you'll get symptoms at all but if you do they reduce both the longevity and severity. Saying "well you're just less likely to go to the hospital" underplays their importance and gives unnecessary credence to the completely false notion that if you don't get vaccinated the only person you're potentially hurting is yourself.
  - drcross 5y ago
    So you're saying a vaccinated person is likely to unknowingly infect other people around them?
    - selcuka 5y ago
      There is a slight chance, but it is not different than an unvaccinated person having an asymptomatic case (which is also common). That being said, the possibility of infecting others is much less when you don't have symptoms.
      - nradov 5y ago
        That's not really correct. I encourage everyone to get vaccinated but it only has temporary and limited effect on reducing transmission. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y
        maxerickson 5y ago
        What interpretation are you expecting people to make? Because there's a huge impact from vaccination. The chances of having a breakthrough infection and passing it to someone else are quite a lot smaller than the chances of getting infected while being unvaccinated and passing it to someone else, just because breakthrough infections aren't that high (Even if they are higher than we'd like).
        selcuka 5y ago
- _djo_ 5y ago
  They’re partially sterilising, with studies showing up to six times lower infection rates amongst the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. That’s a huge difference, and not just reducing the likelihood of hospitalisation.
  - nradov 5y ago
    COVID-19 vaccines aren't sterilizing to any meaningful extent. They provide only limited and temporary protection against infection. The real benefit is in protection against severe symptoms. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y
- kcplate 5y ago
  > We know the vaccines are not sterilizing so you can still catch and spread it Unfortunately US media and government messaging at the beginning of this year touted the vaccines effectiveness as we historically understood vaccines to be, which was relatively sterilizing and a preventative. When Delta started infecting the fully vaccinated, it underscored the skepticism around these vaccines. Ironically, right now, I know more people in my social circle that have had breakthrough cases then people who had Covid prior to vaccine’s release.
mlyle 5y ago
It's also worth noting that the most people still had antibodies effective against A.30-- just not as effective. So the existing antibody response would be expected to slow infection and then the body is primed to broaden the variety and quantity of antibodies after infection. It's only a small portion of those receiving the AZ vaccine whose serum had no significant activity against A.30-- all of those with the mRNA vaccine did and most of those receiving AZ did.
- cronix 5y ago
  > It's only a small portion of those receiving the AZ vaccine whose serum had no significant activity against A.30-- all of those with the mRNA vaccine did and most of those receiving AZ did. How about those that received no vaccine, but have previously recovered from Covid? Is it an insignificant number because I rarely hear it discussed.
  - armagon 5y ago
    I think it is due to politics that you don't hear this discussed; seemingly, nuance makes it more difficult to convey a message. The number of people who are known to have been infected is not insignificant, and the number who have been infected but it isn't known is much higher. (I thought estimated were that at least 4x as many people have had Covid as show up in the published results). There is every reason to expect that natural immunity (derived from a previous infection) is better (than that conferred by a vaccine), simply because the immune system will recognize the entire virus and not just the spike cell. This pre-print paper (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...) concludes: "This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant." If having pre-delta covid made it more likely that your immune system could face delta, then I think it would stand true for other variants, too.
kazinator 5y ago
> this is akin to software updates That is blatant fear mongering. :)
- jjtheblunt 5y ago
  :)
jtc331 5y ago
Except that data from the UK shows that’s precisely what’s not happening. Those who were immunologically naive when receiving the vaccine continue to not have N protein antibodies after subsequent infection. That is they did not gain new immunity that would have been gained in the reverse order of events.
jtc331 5y ago
You might want to read up on “original antigenic sin” before you assume the immune system is iterative in the way software is. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_antigenic_sin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_antigenic_sin
- jjtheblunt 5y ago
  super cool ; thank you

chicorea 5y ago

It depends if the person who got vaccinated was exposed to the virus before the vaccination. If not, it is very likely that these variants will escape the vaccine induced immunity due to original antigenic sin, especially considering that mRNA vaccines only stimulate the production of spike ABs and not other ABs such as nucleocapsid ABs which target proteins that do not mutate as much as spike.

christkv 5y ago

Antibodies is also just one part of the immune response, memory T cells are just as important. We know the vaccines are not sterilizing so you can still catch and spread it. They do reduce the likelihood of hospitalization and that seems to be about that.

feanaro 5y ago
Not sterilising, but they do reduce viral load and hence also the probability of spreading.
- christkv 5y ago
  I don't think there is consensus about that unfortunately. I see plenty of pre-prints going both ways. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264262v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264262v... I think the only conclusion that can be supported truly at this point is that you seem to be less likely to get a severe disease progression. And before anyone jumps on the whole political thing. Yes I have taken two doses of the biogen vaccine.
pc86 5y ago
They do a lot more than that. A lot of the symptoms (coughing, sneezing, etc.) increase infectivity. The vaccines reduce not only the likelihood you'll get symptoms at all but if you do they reduce both the longevity and severity. Saying "well you're just less likely to go to the hospital" underplays their importance and gives unnecessary credence to the completely false notion that if you don't get vaccinated the only person you're potentially hurting is yourself.
- drcross 5y ago
  So you're saying a vaccinated person is likely to unknowingly infect other people around them?
  - selcuka 5y ago
    There is a slight chance, but it is not different than an unvaccinated person having an asymptomatic case (which is also common). That being said, the possibility of infecting others is much less when you don't have symptoms.
    - nradov 5y ago
      That's not really correct. I encourage everyone to get vaccinated but it only has temporary and limited effect on reducing transmission. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y
      - maxerickson 5y ago
        What interpretation are you expecting people to make? Because there's a huge impact from vaccination. The chances of having a breakthrough infection and passing it to someone else are quite a lot smaller than the chances of getting infected while being unvaccinated and passing it to someone else, just because breakthrough infections aren't that high (Even if they are higher than we'd like).
      - selcuka 5y ago
_djo_ 5y ago
They’re partially sterilising, with studies showing up to six times lower infection rates amongst the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. That’s a huge difference, and not just reducing the likelihood of hospitalisation.
- nradov 5y ago
  COVID-19 vaccines aren't sterilizing to any meaningful extent. They provide only limited and temporary protection against infection. The real benefit is in protection against severe symptoms. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y
kcplate 5y ago
> We know the vaccines are not sterilizing so you can still catch and spread it Unfortunately US media and government messaging at the beginning of this year touted the vaccines effectiveness as we historically understood vaccines to be, which was relatively sterilizing and a preventative. When Delta started infecting the fully vaccinated, it underscored the skepticism around these vaccines. Ironically, right now, I know more people in my social circle that have had breakthrough cases then people who had Covid prior to vaccine’s release.

mlyle 5y ago

It's also worth noting that the most people still had antibodies effective against A.30-- just not as effective. So the existing antibody response would be expected to slow infection and then the body is primed to broaden the variety and quantity of antibodies after infection. It's only a small portion of those receiving the AZ vaccine whose serum had no significant activity against A.30-- all of those with the mRNA vaccine did and most of those receiving AZ did.

cronix 5y ago
> It's only a small portion of those receiving the AZ vaccine whose serum had no significant activity against A.30-- all of those with the mRNA vaccine did and most of those receiving AZ did. How about those that received no vaccine, but have previously recovered from Covid? Is it an insignificant number because I rarely hear it discussed.
- armagon 5y ago
  I think it is due to politics that you don't hear this discussed; seemingly, nuance makes it more difficult to convey a message. The number of people who are known to have been infected is not insignificant, and the number who have been infected but it isn't known is much higher. (I thought estimated were that at least 4x as many people have had Covid as show up in the published results). There is every reason to expect that natural immunity (derived from a previous infection) is better (than that conferred by a vaccine), simply because the immune system will recognize the entire virus and not just the spike cell. This pre-print paper (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...) concludes: "This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant." If having pre-delta covid made it more likely that your immune system could face delta, then I think it would stand true for other variants, too.

kazinator 5y ago

> this is akin to software updates That is blatant fear mongering. :)

jjtheblunt 5y ago
:)

jtc331 5y ago

Except that data from the UK shows that’s precisely what’s not happening. Those who were immunologically naive when receiving the vaccine continue to not have N protein antibodies after subsequent infection. That is they did not gain new immunity that would have been gained in the reverse order of events.

jtc331 5y ago

You might want to read up on “original antigenic sin” before you assume the immune system is iterative in the way software is. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_antigenic_sin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_antigenic_sin

jjtheblunt 5y ago
super cool ; thank you