I remember reading this article over a year ago, while trying to understand why vaccines are unlikely to stimulate the same evolution of resistance as incomplet

I remember reading this article over a year ago, while trying to understand why vaccines are unlikely to stimulate the same evolution of resistance as incomplete application of antibiotics does. The article provides good overview and solid explanation behind this observation. My layman's understanding that it is because vaccines do not directly "fight" the weak spot of the virus, but rather stimulate a multi-modal response of one's own immune system, so the evolutionary pressure generated is not different from the one of a "natural" response. It sounded reasonable and reassuring. However, I then read somewhere else (cannot really find a link now) that such logic does not fully apply to the current breed of mRNA vaccines. Specifically because the immune response they stimulate is not a multi-modal, but rather narrowly focused and tied to a very specific "configuration" of the virus. So from this perspective they are more akin to a drug rather than classic vaccine. This sounded reasonable and plausible as well. But there is another layer to this onion! Because the vaccine, through induced immune response, so very narrowly "target" probably the most critical part of the virus, every vaccine "escape" will likely transform the virus in the direction of reduced virulence. The useful model suggests that when part of mutational "budget" is spent on extended contagiousness, the less of it remains for potential fatality. There was also some explanation why this is more applicable to viruses than to bacteria. Something about horizontal gene transfer, if I remember correctly. So, even though the immune escape in this case is, probably, as likely as with drugs, it may actually be a desirable thing, bringing us closer to a harmless, unnoticeable variety of SARS-V-2. While I don't think this logic supports vaccine mandates currently introduced, it could alleviate some concerns held by some people and work toward increasing of voluntary uptake. It is a pity that instead of expanding on a very solid base provided in the article, and using the opportunity to educate people and make them thinking, the editors seriously misread their audience and decided to slap that religious statement across. For many, this outright invalidates the whole content, which is understandable and unfortunate.