5 ms·

The public policy responses to this pandemic would make a whole lot more sense if intramuscular (humoral) vaccination actually prevented (or even significantly

The public policy responses to this pandemic would make a whole lot more sense if intramuscular (humoral) vaccination actually prevented (or even significantly mitigated) the spread of sars-cov-2. Unfortunately humoral vaccination only starts the B cell to plasma cells training and generation of igG antibodies in the body serum to protect internal organs. Other immune compartments like the upper respiratory mucosa are not protected by serum igG antibodies. And the T cells trained by intramuscular vaccination are not tissue resident in the upper respiratory where they are needed to stop infection. They just do a pretty darn good job at preventing serious disease. I wish governments of the world would heavily invest in the current and future intranasal sars-cov-2 boosters to prevent spread and follow up on the strong base of intramuscular body protection. I might not even be opposed to mandating intranasal vaccinations since they would stop spread. But this? This doesn't make a lot of scientific sense.

hhh 5y ago
I’ll take a shot in the arm, but my nose? Eehhhh…
- superkuh 5y ago
  Not a shot, an intranasal spray. The leading candidates on clinicaltrials.gov are adenovirus carried spike protein based versions (I would rather have mRNA) but it should still do the job of getting upper respiratory resident T cells trained on sars-cov-2 epitopes.
  - rastignack 5y ago
    It might work, who knows. But how comes there are 4 endemic coronaviruses ? Do you think a sterilizing vaccine is even possible ? Wouldn’t immunity also wane ?
    - superkuh 5y ago
      The igA antibodies produced by trained mucosal resident B->plasma cells would stick around for an even shorter time than the igG antibodies do in the body serum. But the trained and resident T cells would be there to kill off infected cells right at the start instead of after days. So yeah, I think a sterilizing intranasal vaccine is possible but it likely won't depend on the igA antibodies generated. This follows with the studies of "super" immunity in rare special medical workers who never get sick with covid-19 and also never show antibodies for it. The nature paper seemed to show it was their upper respiratory mucosal T cells doing the job; having already been trained and cross reactive with other coronaviruses. But we can't all be lucky mutants and most of our upper respiratory systems will need some training. ref: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/373/6553/397 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/373/6553/397 (paywall bypass full pdf: http://erewhon.superkuh.com/library/Biology/Coronavirus/Intranasal%20vaccination%20should%20block%20SARS-CoV-2%20transmission%20at%20the%20source_%20Scent%20of%20a%20vaccine_%20Frances%20E%20Lund_%20%20Troy%20D%20Randall_%20Science%202021.pdf http://erewhon.superkuh.com/library/Biology/Coronavirus/Intr...)
- ebiester 5y ago
  It happened with Polio.
  - howinteresting 5y ago
    I thought polio was oral (and IM).
bryanlarsen 5y ago
The Quebec government's major concern is protecting their health care system. The Canadian health care system was quite stretched pre-pandemic, and it wouldn't take much to break it. The goal at this point is less about preventing the spread than it is about increasing the vaccination rate to keep people out of hospitals.
- Flankk 5y ago
  Why are hospitals stretched thin? Nurses have quit, have been fired due to mandates, and have been prevented from returning to work due to infection. You need a passport to eat in a restaurant here. There are 30,000 pissed off truckers headed to Ottawa right now. They lost their jobs due to mandates. Your argument is that these things are smart decisions?
  - SSilver2k2 5y ago
    The needs of the many. Get the vaccine. It's safe and allows you to be part of society again.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
VHRanger 5y ago
Quebec has a heavily socialized medical system. 10% of the population is unvaccinated, but make up >50% of COVID beds in hopitals, a significant fraction of the *entire medical system*. At some point the other 90% of taxpayers shouldn't subsidized the stupid decisions of the remaining 10%. I'm not saying banning grocery store access is necessarily it, but something needs to be done
- whatshisface 5y ago
  >At some point the other 90% of taxpayers shouldn't subsidized the stupid decisions of the remaining 10%. The idea that vaccinated people are an island unconcerned with the fate of the un-vaccinated or the spread of the disease breaks down in two places: 1. You can still die from it if you have the shot, you're just substantially less likely to. 2. Eventually, unless they're stopped, random mutations will create a virus that the vaccine doesn't help with at all. Honestly, the fact that the virus is running around replicating in a way that's constantly exposed to anti-vaccination selection pressure (both from trying to jump out of the un-vaccinated reservoir to vaccinated people and replicating to a limited extent in the presence of vaccine-primed immune systems) is in some ways a worst-case-scenario. It would be hard to intentionally design a vaccine escape guided evolution experiment more effective than what we've created in the world today.
  - tux1968 5y ago
    There are literally billions of unvaccinated people on the planet still, and there are unvaccinated wildlife hosts for Covid as well. It was naive to think that anything but this scenario would emerge.
    - orang2tang 5y ago
      Yet we have many people who want to attempt to vaccinate the entire world 4-5 times over in order to defeat a common cold. Crazy times.
- rastignack 5y ago
  And overweight people make up to 65% of those. See a dark pattern here ?
nyokodo 5y ago
> This doesn't make a lot of scientific sense. This policy is the most flagrant targeted political attack. It has nothing to do with science. If you start restricting people’s ability to feed and clothe themselves you’ve crossed a very dark line.
space_fountain 5y ago
Covid vaccines did do a decent job at preventing spread in the original variants, and actually even now (unless I'm mistaken, it's hard to entirely keep up) the vaccines still cut the probability of you being infected at any point in time
- 34679 5y ago
  This is false. I challenge anyone to find any statement, from any of the mRNA vaccine manufacturers, from any point in time, that claims the vaccines reduce transmission even a tiny bit.
  - myko 5y ago
    https://twitter.com/JohnsHopkinsSPH/status/1481687506148118529 https://twitter.com/JohnsHopkinsSPH/status/14816875061481185... https://www.healthline.com/health-news/vaccinated-people-can-transmit-the-coronavirus-but-its-still-more-likely-if-youre-unvaccinated https://www.healthline.com/health-news/vaccinated-people-can... It is well known that vaccination helps to reduce spread. It isn't perfect, but it is better than being unvaccinated. The data is clear but you can also reason about this and feel like it is intuitively true - those that are vaccinated face better outcomes and are sick for shorter periods of time, the shorter period of time they are infected leads to them being unable to infect others for as long. It's pretty simple, really. edit: multiple studies by scientists in different countries is more reliable than marketing text from any specific manufacturer. The data is available, just read the studies mentioned in the article I linked, or research on your own.
    - 34679 5y ago
      If the vaccines reduce spread, the manufacturers would say so. I asked for such a claim from any one of them. Edit: >multiple studies by scientists in different countries is more reliable than marketing text from any specific manufacturer. I agree. The problem is, no such marketing text exists.
    - Baloo 5y ago
      Shouldn't people be isolating regardless of vaccination status, so the argument that they're sick for shorter amount of time is redundant? Why do we care about the virus spreading, it's always going to spread.. the concern should be giving the vaccine to the vulnerable that need it; the main benefit is reducing severity for them. For everyone else, its main benefit is securing revenue for the leading drug manufacturers. If I'm unvaccinated and testing negative, then what is the problem?
sleepingadmin 5y ago

hhh 5y ago

I’ll take a shot in the arm, but my nose? Eehhhh…

superkuh 5y ago
Not a shot, an intranasal spray. The leading candidates on clinicaltrials.gov are adenovirus carried spike protein based versions (I would rather have mRNA) but it should still do the job of getting upper respiratory resident T cells trained on sars-cov-2 epitopes.
- rastignack 5y ago
  It might work, who knows. But how comes there are 4 endemic coronaviruses ? Do you think a sterilizing vaccine is even possible ? Wouldn’t immunity also wane ?
  - superkuh 5y ago
    The igA antibodies produced by trained mucosal resident B->plasma cells would stick around for an even shorter time than the igG antibodies do in the body serum. But the trained and resident T cells would be there to kill off infected cells right at the start instead of after days. So yeah, I think a sterilizing intranasal vaccine is possible but it likely won't depend on the igA antibodies generated. This follows with the studies of "super" immunity in rare special medical workers who never get sick with covid-19 and also never show antibodies for it. The nature paper seemed to show it was their upper respiratory mucosal T cells doing the job; having already been trained and cross reactive with other coronaviruses. But we can't all be lucky mutants and most of our upper respiratory systems will need some training. ref: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/373/6553/397 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/373/6553/397 (paywall bypass full pdf: http://erewhon.superkuh.com/library/Biology/Coronavirus/Intranasal%20vaccination%20should%20block%20SARS-CoV-2%20transmission%20at%20the%20source_%20Scent%20of%20a%20vaccine_%20Frances%20E%20Lund_%20%20Troy%20D%20Randall_%20Science%202021.pdf http://erewhon.superkuh.com/library/Biology/Coronavirus/Intr...)
ebiester 5y ago
It happened with Polio.
- howinteresting 5y ago
  I thought polio was oral (and IM).

bryanlarsen 5y ago

The Quebec government's major concern is protecting their health care system. The Canadian health care system was quite stretched pre-pandemic, and it wouldn't take much to break it. The goal at this point is less about preventing the spread than it is about increasing the vaccination rate to keep people out of hospitals.

Flankk 5y ago
Why are hospitals stretched thin? Nurses have quit, have been fired due to mandates, and have been prevented from returning to work due to infection. You need a passport to eat in a restaurant here. There are 30,000 pissed off truckers headed to Ottawa right now. They lost their jobs due to mandates. Your argument is that these things are smart decisions?
- SSilver2k2 5y ago
  The needs of the many. Get the vaccine. It's safe and allows you to be part of society again.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

VHRanger 5y ago

Quebec has a heavily socialized medical system. 10% of the population is unvaccinated, but make up >50% of COVID beds in hopitals, a significant fraction of the *entire medical system*. At some point the other 90% of taxpayers shouldn't subsidized the stupid decisions of the remaining 10%. I'm not saying banning grocery store access is necessarily it, but something needs to be done

whatshisface 5y ago
>At some point the other 90% of taxpayers shouldn't subsidized the stupid decisions of the remaining 10%. The idea that vaccinated people are an island unconcerned with the fate of the un-vaccinated or the spread of the disease breaks down in two places: 1. You can still die from it if you have the shot, you're just substantially less likely to. 2. Eventually, unless they're stopped, random mutations will create a virus that the vaccine doesn't help with at all. Honestly, the fact that the virus is running around replicating in a way that's constantly exposed to anti-vaccination selection pressure (both from trying to jump out of the un-vaccinated reservoir to vaccinated people and replicating to a limited extent in the presence of vaccine-primed immune systems) is in some ways a worst-case-scenario. It would be hard to intentionally design a vaccine escape guided evolution experiment more effective than what we've created in the world today.
- tux1968 5y ago
  There are literally billions of unvaccinated people on the planet still, and there are unvaccinated wildlife hosts for Covid as well. It was naive to think that anything but this scenario would emerge.
  - orang2tang 5y ago
    Yet we have many people who want to attempt to vaccinate the entire world 4-5 times over in order to defeat a common cold. Crazy times.
rastignack 5y ago
And overweight people make up to 65% of those. See a dark pattern here ?

nyokodo 5y ago

> This doesn't make a lot of scientific sense. This policy is the most flagrant targeted political attack. It has nothing to do with science. If you start restricting people’s ability to feed and clothe themselves you’ve crossed a very dark line.

space_fountain 5y ago

Covid vaccines did do a decent job at preventing spread in the original variants, and actually even now (unless I'm mistaken, it's hard to entirely keep up) the vaccines still cut the probability of you being infected at any point in time

34679 5y ago
This is false. I challenge anyone to find any statement, from any of the mRNA vaccine manufacturers, from any point in time, that claims the vaccines reduce transmission even a tiny bit.
- myko 5y ago
  https://twitter.com/JohnsHopkinsSPH/status/1481687506148118529 https://twitter.com/JohnsHopkinsSPH/status/14816875061481185... https://www.healthline.com/health-news/vaccinated-people-can-transmit-the-coronavirus-but-its-still-more-likely-if-youre-unvaccinated https://www.healthline.com/health-news/vaccinated-people-can... It is well known that vaccination helps to reduce spread. It isn't perfect, but it is better than being unvaccinated. The data is clear but you can also reason about this and feel like it is intuitively true - those that are vaccinated face better outcomes and are sick for shorter periods of time, the shorter period of time they are infected leads to them being unable to infect others for as long. It's pretty simple, really. edit: multiple studies by scientists in different countries is more reliable than marketing text from any specific manufacturer. The data is available, just read the studies mentioned in the article I linked, or research on your own.
  - 34679 5y ago
    If the vaccines reduce spread, the manufacturers would say so. I asked for such a claim from any one of them. Edit: >multiple studies by scientists in different countries is more reliable than marketing text from any specific manufacturer. I agree. The problem is, no such marketing text exists.
  - Baloo 5y ago
    Shouldn't people be isolating regardless of vaccination status, so the argument that they're sick for shorter amount of time is redundant? Why do we care about the virus spreading, it's always going to spread.. the concern should be giving the vaccine to the vulnerable that need it; the main benefit is reducing severity for them. For everyone else, its main benefit is securing revenue for the leading drug manufacturers. If I'm unvaccinated and testing negative, then what is the problem?

sleepingadmin 5y ago