5 ms·

Yep that's called vaccination! No need to get a full blown infection it's how we eradicated smallpox

dilyevsky 3y ago
That’s not vaccination that’s inoculation which is how they originally prevented smallpox before they developed an actual vaccine
- vikramkr 3y ago
  Its responsive to the parent question in that yes, we can have symptomless exposure to the infectious agent (or some part of it) and develop immunity. Maybe the distinction between using unweakened live pathogens and weakened or fragmented pathogens should have been emphasized but that didn't seem to the important part of the question
  - dorfsmay 3y ago
    Thanks, that was indeed my question. It'd be interesting to understand if that's true for all viruses and in what quantities. For example, in the early days of COVID, we were told that being close to infected people outdoor did not expose us to enough viruses to get infected. Could such exposure have provided immunity?
dorfsmay 3y ago
Vaccination is using deactivated viruses. My question is can we get the same effect from exposure to small doses of live viruses. The articles says exposure to tiny amount can "boost" immunity, which I assume means an immunity acquired earlier from a full blown infection (or vaccination).
- malfist 3y ago
  Vaccination can use deactivated viruses, but not always.
- maxerickson 3y ago
  Vaccines are rooted in a history of doing exactly what you are talking about. Smallpox variolation was done for hundreds of years before the development of the first vaccine. https://www.cdc.gov/smallpox/history/history.html https://www.cdc.gov/smallpox/history/history.html
- southernplaces7 3y ago
  As with many things in medicine, it depends on specifics and context. With some viruses, this might work, and with others it could kill you. Vaccination itself is tricky partly for this very reason as far as I know (not a doctor or epidemiologist). Variolation for example, the predecessor to the world's first practice of vaccination (against smallpox) involved taking tiny amounts of live smallpox from scabs or pustules and giving them to people intentionally for a much lighter infection course that made them immune without the usually killing or horrifically disfiguring blow of a full smallpox infection. (look up photos of smallpox scars in survivors, warning, it gets graphic. Even many famous figures like Stalin were completely pockmarked by the scars of the virus for the rest of their lives, as you can see in unedited photos of the dictator) It usually worked, but sometimes the patients got really sick anyhow and died. By the standards of the time, when fully a third of the population could expect to die from some epidemic disease or another, this was considered wonderful. Today it wouldn't be and thus the complexities of carefully calibrating vaccines.
  - cutemonster 3y ago
    Interesting! I suppose one more dangerous thing with this, could be how popular anti vaccination ideas could become, when the anti-vaxxers start saying that vaccine is live virus
    - southernplaces7 3y ago
      My variolation example above was only a very specific, very antique context of something that did involve live virus but wasn't considered true vaccination as we use it today. However, even today the basic reality is that some vaccines do involve live viruses or other pathogens in a weakened state. This doesn't make them dangerous in any general sense. And that live pathogens are sometimes used should be known and discussed for the sake of clinical honesty and public health transparency. Either way, for any deeply dedicated anti-vaxxer, it probably wouldn't matter what they hear from even the best source. Once one's fixation on a concept becomes emotional or ideological, the subtleties and details of explaining contrary details stop mattering to them.
- ABCLAW 3y ago
  Vaccination generally uses an adjuvant to increase immune response to the target antigen in order to provoke a response strong enough to produce lasting immunogenic memory. Antigens alone in small numbers aren't enough. Taking random adjuvants consistently after minimal exposure to environmental antigens is more likely to give you deleterious allergies or issues associated with chronic inflammation.
yieldcrv 3y ago
I’ve gotten lots of anti vaxxers to be into vaccines by saying what the parent said, most of them are just allergic to the word vaccine and don’t know what it means, (specifically I’m referring to using dead pathogens not just a low dosage of live ones) so just describe the procedure, and call it a secret that big pharma doesnt want them to know, and theyre into it. be anybody but a doctor lol slam dunk
- dorfsmay 3y ago
  I'm not anti vaccine, no need to out words in my mouth. My understanding of vaccine is that they use deactivated viruses but not small doses. My question is about live viruses, and if we can get exposed to small doses enough that will trigger a immunization mechanism without triggering a full blown infection? Or does it work to boost an existing immunity only.
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    > I'm not anti vaccine, no need to out words in my mouth. I didn't write that you were, I wrote that I've gotten anti vaxxers to like vaccines with the same logic. Its pretty clear that its coincidence that you didn't know your hypothesis was the basis of vaccination, regardless of your predilection.
  - api 3y ago
    There are many different kinds of vaccines that work in slightly different ways. “Vaccine” is a class of treatments akin to “anesthetic” or “antibiotic.” Some are weakened live agent. Some are killed or neutralized agent. Some are just a protein or other piece of the pathogen. Some like mRNA vaccines are code from the pathogen that causes your body to generate and then sensitize against something. There are probably other types. I do find the oversimplification in the debate frustrating. Either all vaccines are bad or all vaccines are great when in reality each one is a different thing. As with other drugs some work better than others and some have side effects while others mostly do not. As near as I can tell the mRNA COVID vaccine is fairly effective at reducing severity and duration of infection but not nearly so at completely preventing infection. There is a small risk of side effects but the danger from a more severe COVID infection is statistically much greater. Creating a vaccine in a year is nuts. What we came up with is not half bad given that time frame. We will probably have much better COVID vaccines in a few years.
refurb 3y ago
That's not vaccination. You get a hefty dose of vaccine. The difference is that it's either not an infectious agent at all (just a fragment of one) or it's a low-infectious agent.

That’s not vaccination that’s inoculation which is how they originally prevented smallpox before they developed an actual vaccine

vikramkr 3y ago
Its responsive to the parent question in that yes, we can have symptomless exposure to the infectious agent (or some part of it) and develop immunity. Maybe the distinction between using unweakened live pathogens and weakened or fragmented pathogens should have been emphasized but that didn't seem to the important part of the question
- dorfsmay 3y ago
  Thanks, that was indeed my question. It'd be interesting to understand if that's true for all viruses and in what quantities. For example, in the early days of COVID, we were told that being close to infected people outdoor did not expose us to enough viruses to get infected. Could such exposure have provided immunity?

dorfsmay 3y ago

Vaccination is using deactivated viruses. My question is can we get the same effect from exposure to small doses of live viruses. The articles says exposure to tiny amount can "boost" immunity, which I assume means an immunity acquired earlier from a full blown infection (or vaccination).

malfist 3y ago
Vaccination can use deactivated viruses, but not always.
maxerickson 3y ago
Vaccines are rooted in a history of doing exactly what you are talking about. Smallpox variolation was done for hundreds of years before the development of the first vaccine. https://www.cdc.gov/smallpox/history/history.html https://www.cdc.gov/smallpox/history/history.html
southernplaces7 3y ago
As with many things in medicine, it depends on specifics and context. With some viruses, this might work, and with others it could kill you. Vaccination itself is tricky partly for this very reason as far as I know (not a doctor or epidemiologist). Variolation for example, the predecessor to the world's first practice of vaccination (against smallpox) involved taking tiny amounts of live smallpox from scabs or pustules and giving them to people intentionally for a much lighter infection course that made them immune without the usually killing or horrifically disfiguring blow of a full smallpox infection. (look up photos of smallpox scars in survivors, warning, it gets graphic. Even many famous figures like Stalin were completely pockmarked by the scars of the virus for the rest of their lives, as you can see in unedited photos of the dictator) It usually worked, but sometimes the patients got really sick anyhow and died. By the standards of the time, when fully a third of the population could expect to die from some epidemic disease or another, this was considered wonderful. Today it wouldn't be and thus the complexities of carefully calibrating vaccines.
- cutemonster 3y ago
  Interesting! I suppose one more dangerous thing with this, could be how popular anti vaccination ideas could become, when the anti-vaxxers start saying that vaccine is live virus
  - southernplaces7 3y ago
    My variolation example above was only a very specific, very antique context of something that did involve live virus but wasn't considered true vaccination as we use it today. However, even today the basic reality is that some vaccines do involve live viruses or other pathogens in a weakened state. This doesn't make them dangerous in any general sense. And that live pathogens are sometimes used should be known and discussed for the sake of clinical honesty and public health transparency. Either way, for any deeply dedicated anti-vaxxer, it probably wouldn't matter what they hear from even the best source. Once one's fixation on a concept becomes emotional or ideological, the subtleties and details of explaining contrary details stop mattering to them.
ABCLAW 3y ago
Vaccination generally uses an adjuvant to increase immune response to the target antigen in order to provoke a response strong enough to produce lasting immunogenic memory. Antigens alone in small numbers aren't enough. Taking random adjuvants consistently after minimal exposure to environmental antigens is more likely to give you deleterious allergies or issues associated with chronic inflammation.

yieldcrv 3y ago

I’ve gotten lots of anti vaxxers to be into vaccines by saying what the parent said, most of them are just allergic to the word vaccine and don’t know what it means, (specifically I’m referring to using dead pathogens not just a low dosage of live ones) so just describe the procedure, and call it a secret that big pharma doesnt want them to know, and theyre into it. be anybody but a doctor lol slam dunk

dorfsmay 3y ago
I'm not anti vaccine, no need to out words in my mouth. My understanding of vaccine is that they use deactivated viruses but not small doses. My question is about live viruses, and if we can get exposed to small doses enough that will trigger a immunization mechanism without triggering a full blown infection? Or does it work to boost an existing immunity only.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  > I'm not anti vaccine, no need to out words in my mouth. I didn't write that you were, I wrote that I've gotten anti vaxxers to like vaccines with the same logic. Its pretty clear that its coincidence that you didn't know your hypothesis was the basis of vaccination, regardless of your predilection.
- api 3y ago
  There are many different kinds of vaccines that work in slightly different ways. “Vaccine” is a class of treatments akin to “anesthetic” or “antibiotic.” Some are weakened live agent. Some are killed or neutralized agent. Some are just a protein or other piece of the pathogen. Some like mRNA vaccines are code from the pathogen that causes your body to generate and then sensitize against something. There are probably other types. I do find the oversimplification in the debate frustrating. Either all vaccines are bad or all vaccines are great when in reality each one is a different thing. As with other drugs some work better than others and some have side effects while others mostly do not. As near as I can tell the mRNA COVID vaccine is fairly effective at reducing severity and duration of infection but not nearly so at completely preventing infection. There is a small risk of side effects but the danger from a more severe COVID infection is statistically much greater. Creating a vaccine in a year is nuts. What we came up with is not half bad given that time frame. We will probably have much better COVID vaccines in a few years.

refurb 3y ago

That's not vaccination. You get a hefty dose of vaccine. The difference is that it's either not an infectious agent at all (just a fragment of one) or it's a low-infectious agent.