5 ms·

> That would certainly seem unlikely. Really the only way that's possible is by vaccinated groups having different behavior. No, other possibilities which have

> That would certainly seem unlikely. Really the only way that's possible is by vaccinated groups having different behavior. No, other possibilities which have been observed with other pathogens are Original Antigenic Sin (i.e. perhaps targeting the spike protein from the now-extinct Wuhan strain gets the immune system "stuck in a rut" with a less optimal response) or Antibody Dependent Enhancement. Not to say that these definitely are occurring in the case of SARS-CoV-2, but even Fauci acknowledged the possibility of disease enhancement before the vaccines were rolled out. A good article on the UK vaccinated/unvaccinated data, which was pulled when it no longer flattered the vaccines: https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/uk-will-hide-vaccinated-cases-and https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/uk-will-hide-vaccinated-ca...

renaudg 4y ago
To anyone else wondering : that "good article" comes from a notorious antivaxxer : https://twitter.com/ichudov https://twitter.com/ichudov
- native_samples 4y ago
  You're making a circular argument. Anyone who looks at the UK data showing negative effectiveness cannot avoid being "anti vax" because if vaccines make COVID more prevalent rather than less, then the cost:benefit ratio cannot possibly be positive. In your construction, actually observing published government statistics and acting rationally on it automatically makes someone a "notorious antivaxxer". It's ideology, not rationality.
  - renaudg 4y ago
    No, What I'm saying is that this guy is a run-of-the-mill antivaxxer, even outside Covid. Check his tweets and blog : he writes fallacious pieces against childhood vaccinations like : https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/florida-vaccine-hesitancy-reduced https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/florida-vaccine-hesitancy-... And no, he's not acting rationally. It may have the flavor of it at first glance, but the implications of what he says being true would invalidate large swathes of science. So is he a genius or a crank ? I don't have time to comb through and debunk every single claim (Brandolini's law !) but good old Occam's razor says he's a conspiracist crank who fallaciously massages data until it fits what he set out to prove. That is to say, an ideologue.
    - native_samples 4y ago
      Well, full marks for honesty I guess but aren't you just proving my point? You haven't read his article or engaged with his argument at all, but he must be a crank because you can't stomach the implications if he was right. A cursory inspection of the first few paragraphs shows that (a) it's about 2021 so definitely not "outside COVID" and (b) it's another example of what I was pointing out: he is looking at government data that looks pretty concerning and reacting to it in a rational way. Your only argument he's not rational is that "vast swathes" of science would be invalidated if he's right, therefore he must be a crank. That's not even an argument, is it? 1. Some of the biggest leaps forward in science have come from invalidation and correction of deeply fundamental science. That's why Einstein is famous. The potential to invalidate pre-existing scientific beliefs is pretty much a pre-condition for a study to be interesting. 2. Vaccine efficacy is a tiny sub-area of the overall scientific enterprise. If everything people believed about vaccines was disproven conclusively tomorrow that'd certainly be far less than 0.1% of all scientific knowledge. 3. Your heuristic is totally unable to correct handle or react to groupthink or bad incentives. The entire field of virology claimed that there was no possible way SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab and anyone who claimed it could was spreading conspiracy theories. Those same scientists were simultaneously writing private emails saying a lab escape was definitely possible and even looked likely. You were the sort of person who was successfully fooled by their conspiracy, and maybe still are. Fundamentally, your attitude here is poisonous to the search for truth that defines science to begin with. If you can't be bothered evaluating their arguments then don't express opinions on them.
- IdEntities 4y ago
- bsaul 4y ago
  worries about ADE is clearly widespread in scientific community, and the inversion of infection rates, with vaccinated people catching it more than non-vax, has occured everywhere with the most recent variants. Of course, any scientist name i'll give as a reference will be immediately categorized as "anti-vax" or "fringe and non representative"... Which curiously is still a grave thing, eventhough a lot of the consensus around covid vaccines has been proved incorrect times and times again (with the only remaining truth being that it does protect people at risk from lethal outcome, which is clearly the bare minimum and not the original expected outcome).
  - renaudg 4y ago
    >any scientist name i'll give as a reference will be immediately categorized as "anti-vax" or "fringe and non representative" That's because they probably are fringe and non representative. And for every Galileo there are 100.000 Dr Wakefield's > a lot of the consensus around covid vaccines has been proved incorrect times and times again If that were true it wouldn't be the consensus, by definition.
michaelmrose 4y ago
Just because somewhere a mechanism exists for a vaccine to render a pathogen more dangerous doesn't means that there is any reason to believe that mechanism is meaningfully a factor in this case. The fact that you yourself lack the know how to assess why this is or isn't a risk doesn't mean that everyone is rolling the dice it just means that you are uneducated on the matter. You give yourself away by your obsession with Fauci whom you always refer to as if he was a mononym like an idiot celebrity. Rarely Dr. Fauci or yet Anthony Fauci. Just fauci. You know a few interesting highly specific terms of art like Original Antigenic Sin which is in stark contrast to your otherwise very shallow understanding of the topic. This is because you collect interesting nonsense like a bird picking up shiny things. This site doesn't need people who have never created an account with Hacker News before to create one now to spread the same bullshit you folks spread on Facebook. I see folks like yourself all over hacker news in recent years and quite frankly like covid you are a pathogen. Its absolutely impossible to fix the dialogue with you folks because to you these are vital truths that are being ignored. You are for what its worth likely very much in good faith its just that you yourself have been infected. Fix your inputs and maybe you will fix your outputs. Good Luck.
kadoban 4y ago
> even Fauci acknowledged the possibility of disease enhancement before the vaccines were rolled out. Sure, but that's something that trials test for before a vaccine gets to the general public.
- IdEntities 4y ago
  Yep, and the virus has changed a lot since those trials were conducted, and even been subjected to certain evolutionary pressures by mass deployment of the vaccines themselves, which is not something it is possible to study in clinical trials. It's also not really possible to test for OAS because trial participants (at least, those in a highly abbreviated trial like those which were conducted for the COVID vaccines) only encounter one strain of the virus.
  - kadoban 4y ago
    Has there _ever_ been a vaccine where that happened, where initial trails showed it effective then years later it was worse than nothing?
    - native_samples 4y ago
      Yes, it's happened quite often unfortunately. And not just years later. Sometimes immediately. Flu vaccine rollouts have shown this effect in the past, as have (failed) HIV vaccines. People who took the Canadian flu vaccine got Swine Flu at a higher rate for example. The exact cause isn't known because anything that could be perceived as "anti-vaxx" doesn't get funded or honestly researched, even though it's important. But the best bet seems to be a form of imprinting. The immune system prefers to make antibodies that it's made before and does so even if it's exposed to a pathogen different enough to have evolved past those antibodies. For real epidemics this probably doesn't matter much, because they move in waves through the population, but if you repeatedly vaccinate the whole world then you're causing fixation on a long since extinct form of the spike protein. When a mutated virus turns up the body manufactures useless antibodies that don't work rather than trying to develop new ones. It's actually not even clear that the trials showed positive effectiveness for COVID. They reported it but the way they defined "vaccinated" creates a denominator problem. Their methodology would create the appearance of initially high effectiveness that steadily decays to nothing for anything, including water. Regulators not only didn't notice this but public health agencies adopted the same methodology. What becomes clear the moment you start learning about this stuff is, we never hear about these problems because any bad news about vaccines is immediately squashed and anyone who points it out gets banned and viciously attacked.

renaudg 4y ago

To anyone else wondering : that "good article" comes from a notorious antivaxxer : https://twitter.com/ichudov https://twitter.com/ichudov

native_samples 4y ago
You're making a circular argument. Anyone who looks at the UK data showing negative effectiveness cannot avoid being "anti vax" because if vaccines make COVID more prevalent rather than less, then the cost:benefit ratio cannot possibly be positive. In your construction, actually observing published government statistics and acting rationally on it automatically makes someone a "notorious antivaxxer". It's ideology, not rationality.
- renaudg 4y ago
  No, What I'm saying is that this guy is a run-of-the-mill antivaxxer, even outside Covid. Check his tweets and blog : he writes fallacious pieces against childhood vaccinations like : https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/florida-vaccine-hesitancy-reduced https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/florida-vaccine-hesitancy-... And no, he's not acting rationally. It may have the flavor of it at first glance, but the implications of what he says being true would invalidate large swathes of science. So is he a genius or a crank ? I don't have time to comb through and debunk every single claim (Brandolini's law !) but good old Occam's razor says he's a conspiracist crank who fallaciously massages data until it fits what he set out to prove. That is to say, an ideologue.
  - native_samples 4y ago
    Well, full marks for honesty I guess but aren't you just proving my point? You haven't read his article or engaged with his argument at all, but he must be a crank because you can't stomach the implications if he was right. A cursory inspection of the first few paragraphs shows that (a) it's about 2021 so definitely not "outside COVID" and (b) it's another example of what I was pointing out: he is looking at government data that looks pretty concerning and reacting to it in a rational way. Your only argument he's not rational is that "vast swathes" of science would be invalidated if he's right, therefore he must be a crank. That's not even an argument, is it? 1. Some of the biggest leaps forward in science have come from invalidation and correction of deeply fundamental science. That's why Einstein is famous. The potential to invalidate pre-existing scientific beliefs is pretty much a pre-condition for a study to be interesting. 2. Vaccine efficacy is a tiny sub-area of the overall scientific enterprise. If everything people believed about vaccines was disproven conclusively tomorrow that'd certainly be far less than 0.1% of all scientific knowledge. 3. Your heuristic is totally unable to correct handle or react to groupthink or bad incentives. The entire field of virology claimed that there was no possible way SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab and anyone who claimed it could was spreading conspiracy theories. Those same scientists were simultaneously writing private emails saying a lab escape was definitely possible and even looked likely. You were the sort of person who was successfully fooled by their conspiracy, and maybe still are. Fundamentally, your attitude here is poisonous to the search for truth that defines science to begin with. If you can't be bothered evaluating their arguments then don't express opinions on them.
IdEntities 4y ago
bsaul 4y ago
worries about ADE is clearly widespread in scientific community, and the inversion of infection rates, with vaccinated people catching it more than non-vax, has occured everywhere with the most recent variants. Of course, any scientist name i'll give as a reference will be immediately categorized as "anti-vax" or "fringe and non representative"... Which curiously is still a grave thing, eventhough a lot of the consensus around covid vaccines has been proved incorrect times and times again (with the only remaining truth being that it does protect people at risk from lethal outcome, which is clearly the bare minimum and not the original expected outcome).
- renaudg 4y ago
  >any scientist name i'll give as a reference will be immediately categorized as "anti-vax" or "fringe and non representative" That's because they probably are fringe and non representative. And for every Galileo there are 100.000 Dr Wakefield's > a lot of the consensus around covid vaccines has been proved incorrect times and times again If that were true it wouldn't be the consensus, by definition.

michaelmrose 4y ago

Just because somewhere a mechanism exists for a vaccine to render a pathogen more dangerous doesn't means that there is any reason to believe that mechanism is meaningfully a factor in this case. The fact that you yourself lack the know how to assess why this is or isn't a risk doesn't mean that everyone is rolling the dice it just means that you are uneducated on the matter. You give yourself away by your obsession with Fauci whom you always refer to as if he was a mononym like an idiot celebrity. Rarely Dr. Fauci or yet Anthony Fauci. Just fauci. You know a few interesting highly specific terms of art like Original Antigenic Sin which is in stark contrast to your otherwise very shallow understanding of the topic. This is because you collect interesting nonsense like a bird picking up shiny things. This site doesn't need people who have never created an account with Hacker News before to create one now to spread the same bullshit you folks spread on Facebook. I see folks like yourself all over hacker news in recent years and quite frankly like covid you are a pathogen. Its absolutely impossible to fix the dialogue with you folks because to you these are vital truths that are being ignored. You are for what its worth likely very much in good faith its just that you yourself have been infected. Fix your inputs and maybe you will fix your outputs. Good Luck.

kadoban 4y ago

> even Fauci acknowledged the possibility of disease enhancement before the vaccines were rolled out. Sure, but that's something that trials test for before a vaccine gets to the general public.

IdEntities 4y ago
Yep, and the virus has changed a lot since those trials were conducted, and even been subjected to certain evolutionary pressures by mass deployment of the vaccines themselves, which is not something it is possible to study in clinical trials. It's also not really possible to test for OAS because trial participants (at least, those in a highly abbreviated trial like those which were conducted for the COVID vaccines) only encounter one strain of the virus.
- kadoban 4y ago
  Has there _ever_ been a vaccine where that happened, where initial trails showed it effective then years later it was worse than nothing?
  - native_samples 4y ago
    Yes, it's happened quite often unfortunately. And not just years later. Sometimes immediately. Flu vaccine rollouts have shown this effect in the past, as have (failed) HIV vaccines. People who took the Canadian flu vaccine got Swine Flu at a higher rate for example. The exact cause isn't known because anything that could be perceived as "anti-vaxx" doesn't get funded or honestly researched, even though it's important. But the best bet seems to be a form of imprinting. The immune system prefers to make antibodies that it's made before and does so even if it's exposed to a pathogen different enough to have evolved past those antibodies. For real epidemics this probably doesn't matter much, because they move in waves through the population, but if you repeatedly vaccinate the whole world then you're causing fixation on a long since extinct form of the spike protein. When a mutated virus turns up the body manufactures useless antibodies that don't work rather than trying to develop new ones. It's actually not even clear that the trials showed positive effectiveness for COVID. They reported it but the way they defined "vaccinated" creates a denominator problem. Their methodology would create the appearance of initially high effectiveness that steadily decays to nothing for anything, including water. Regulators not only didn't notice this but public health agencies adopted the same methodology. What becomes clear the moment you start learning about this stuff is, we never hear about these problems because any bad news about vaccines is immediately squashed and anyone who points it out gets banned and viciously attacked.