Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta(sciencemag.org)
sciencemag.org
Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/grim-warning-israel-vaccination-blunts-does-not-defeat-delta
238 comments
> all 3 of them told me to expect something like that - the virus mutates ... and the vaccines will likely be needing to adjust
Your doctor friends were informing you about a phenomenon commonly referred to as "immune escape".
The current mRNA based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are effective at preventing severe outcomes like hospitalization and death. However, they do not necessarily prevent infection or transmission - and they induce an immune response highly targeted toward the spike protein RBD [1]. Combined with mass vaccination strategies, these factors contribute to a situation that exerts tremendous selective pressure on the virus, and can result in convergent mutations that are advantageous for the virus in a large population of people [1][2]. These mutations can lead to partial or complete immune escape, which manifests as increased transmission or virulence, reduced vaccine efficacy, and reduced immunity in naturally infected individuals.
> Even the highest levels of vaccination are no protection
It's not quite accurate to say "are no protection". I would rephrase as:
Strategies for viral elimination should therefore be diversified across molecular targets and therapeutic modalities [1]
[1] Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/
[2] SARS-CoV-2 immune evasion by the B.1.427/B.1.429 variant of concern https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/06/30/scie...
Your doctor friends were informing you about a phenomenon commonly referred to as "immune escape".
The current mRNA based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are effective at preventing severe outcomes like hospitalization and death. However, they do not necessarily prevent infection or transmission - and they induce an immune response highly targeted toward the spike protein RBD [1]. Combined with mass vaccination strategies, these factors contribute to a situation that exerts tremendous selective pressure on the virus, and can result in convergent mutations that are advantageous for the virus in a large population of people [1][2]. These mutations can lead to partial or complete immune escape, which manifests as increased transmission or virulence, reduced vaccine efficacy, and reduced immunity in naturally infected individuals.
> Even the highest levels of vaccination are no protection
It's not quite accurate to say "are no protection". I would rephrase as:
Strategies for viral elimination should therefore be diversified across molecular targets and therapeutic modalities [1]
[1] Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/
[2] SARS-CoV-2 immune evasion by the B.1.427/B.1.429 variant of concern https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/06/30/scie...
>The current mRNA based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are effective at preventing severe outcomes like hospitalization and death
According to this very article this isn't even really true any more. Of the currently hospitalized population in Israel 60% are fully vaccinated. With 78% of the population vaccinated that implies the protection is actually surprisingly weak.
" “There are so many breakthrough infections that they dominate and most of the hospitalized patients are actually vaccinated,” says Uri Shalit, a bioinformatician at the Israel Institute of Technology (Technion) who has consulted on COVID-19 for the government. “One of the big stories from Israel [is]: ‘Vaccines work, but not well enough.’”
According to this very article this isn't even really true any more. Of the currently hospitalized population in Israel 60% are fully vaccinated. With 78% of the population vaccinated that implies the protection is actually surprisingly weak.
" “There are so many breakthrough infections that they dominate and most of the hospitalized patients are actually vaccinated,” says Uri Shalit, a bioinformatician at the Israel Institute of Technology (Technion) who has consulted on COVID-19 for the government. “One of the big stories from Israel [is]: ‘Vaccines work, but not well enough.’”
If vaccines bring hospitalizations down they are already a win. The percentage doesn't say much about the number of hospitalizations. In a country where lots of people are vaccinated, I would expect lots of vaccinated people in the hospital too. Like others said, it also depends on the cohort (age, vulnerability, etc.).
Wouldn't you have to look at the age of the population that is in hospital and that populations vaccination rate to accurately gauge this?. The overall vaccination rate could be vastly lower or higher than the overall population depending on what priority groups israel had.
What is the age of the hospitalised, and what is the vaccination rate for that age range? I expect most of the hospitalised to be elderly, and most of the non vaccinated to be young.
That's a misinterpretation of the statistics. The most vulnerable population has a much higher vaccination rate than the population as a whole, with well over 90% of Israelis over 70 vaccinated. People over 70 have a much higher chance of being hospitalized, so to only see 60% of hospitalizations be of vaccinated people shows how effective the vaccine still is at preventing serious disease.
The Delta variant emerged prior to widespread vaccination.
Yes the delta variant may have originated prior to widespread vaccination, but the dominance of the delta variant (and other VOCs) did coincide with mass vaccination campaigns.
Please see the first source I cited if you're interested in these ideas and want to hear more straight from the experts:
> "The spike protein receptor-binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2 is the molecular target for many vaccines and antibody-based prophylactics aimed at bringing COVID-19 under control." [1]
> "Such a narrow molecular focus raises the specter of viral immune evasion as a potential failure mode for these biomedical interventions. With the emergence of new strains of SARS-CoV-2 with altered transmissibility and immune evasion potential, a critical question is this: how easily can the virus escape neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) targeting the spike RBD?" [1]
> "Our modeling suggests that SARS-CoV-2 mutants with one or two mildly deleterious mutations are expected to exist in high numbers due to neutral genetic variation, and consequently resistance to vaccines or other prophylactics that rely on one or two antibodies for protection can develop quickly -and repeatedly- under positive selection." [1]
> "The speed at which nAb resistance develops in the population increases substantially as the number of infected individuals increases, suggesting that complementary strategies to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission that exert specific pressure on other proteins (e.g., antiviral prophylactics) or that do not exert a specific selective pressure on the virus (e.g., high-efficiency air filtration, masking, ultraviolet air purification) are key to reducing the risk of immune escape" [1]
> "Strategies for viral elimination should therefore be diversified across molecular targets and therapeutic modalities" [1]
Please see the first source I cited if you're interested in these ideas and want to hear more straight from the experts:
> "The spike protein receptor-binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2 is the molecular target for many vaccines and antibody-based prophylactics aimed at bringing COVID-19 under control." [1]
> "Such a narrow molecular focus raises the specter of viral immune evasion as a potential failure mode for these biomedical interventions. With the emergence of new strains of SARS-CoV-2 with altered transmissibility and immune evasion potential, a critical question is this: how easily can the virus escape neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) targeting the spike RBD?" [1]
> "Our modeling suggests that SARS-CoV-2 mutants with one or two mildly deleterious mutations are expected to exist in high numbers due to neutral genetic variation, and consequently resistance to vaccines or other prophylactics that rely on one or two antibodies for protection can develop quickly -and repeatedly- under positive selection." [1]
> "The speed at which nAb resistance develops in the population increases substantially as the number of infected individuals increases, suggesting that complementary strategies to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission that exert specific pressure on other proteins (e.g., antiviral prophylactics) or that do not exert a specific selective pressure on the virus (e.g., high-efficiency air filtration, masking, ultraviolet air purification) are key to reducing the risk of immune escape" [1]
> "Strategies for viral elimination should therefore be diversified across molecular targets and therapeutic modalities" [1]
It would have spread even faster without vaccination (it is considerably more infectious than other prevalent variants).
To be clear, the primary suggestion put forth by my original comment is:
Strategies for viral elimination should therefore be diversified across molecular targets and therapeutic modalities
Put another way: vaccines are a powerful and useful tool that can help us mitigate the pandemic, but if used indiscriminately they may actually work against us, so we need to proceed with caution and also use other tools where possible.
Strategies for viral elimination should therefore be diversified across molecular targets and therapeutic modalities
Put another way: vaccines are a powerful and useful tool that can help us mitigate the pandemic, but if used indiscriminately they may actually work against us, so we need to proceed with caution and also use other tools where possible.
I don't know how you'd adjudicate it, but I'd bet quite a lot that indiscriminate use of a (tested, safe) vaccine is pretty much always going to be better than not using it.
There's of course no reason to stop at indiscriminate use of it, we should employ whatever vaccine strategy seems to be best (in an empirical sense), and supplement with other measures, I'm going at the banality of the point.
There's of course no reason to stop at indiscriminate use of it, we should employ whatever vaccine strategy seems to be best (in an empirical sense), and supplement with other measures, I'm going at the banality of the point.
I agree with the general point that diversifying our vaccine targets is important for robust immunity, but you are sort of coming close to advocating that we not use the particular somewhat limited vaccine tech we have at our disposal now.
The best strategy against escape variants available to us right now is to reduce transmission rates (especially to immunocompromised people) as much as possible with high vaccination rates.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
The best strategy against escape variants available to us right now is to reduce transmission rates (especially to immunocompromised people) as much as possible with high vaccination rates.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
The core point of the OP article - and the data coming out of Israel - is that mass vaccination alone is less effective than expected at preventing the surge of transmission and infection by variants of concern.
The article you cited is in agreement with the literature I previously cited - as more people are infected the virus has more opportunity to mutate.
> The best strategy against escape variants available to us right now is to reduce transmission rates ... as much as possible with high vaccination rates
Your comment contradicts the mounting evidence we have available to us. Yes we need to use the vaccine tech we have at our disposal now - but in a highly targeted way, and supplemented by other viral elimination strategies that do not exert specific selective pressure on the virus.
The article you cited is in agreement with the literature I previously cited - as more people are infected the virus has more opportunity to mutate.
> The best strategy against escape variants available to us right now is to reduce transmission rates ... as much as possible with high vaccination rates
Your comment contradicts the mounting evidence we have available to us. Yes we need to use the vaccine tech we have at our disposal now - but in a highly targeted way, and supplemented by other viral elimination strategies that do not exert specific selective pressure on the virus.
What keeps me worried is how much community immunity is required to stop a virus as spreadable as measles. I think it’s something like 95%. That’s a hard bar to pass for a vaccine or even “natural immunity” through letting it spread. Mixed with the possibility of long covid we could see some scary disease rates for the foreseeable future.
So if I'm understanding you:
I am planning on taking my Governor's cheekily endorsed thumbs up to get a 3rd shot. I'm going to get JJ because it's not the same RNA spike target.
That's probably better than a 3rd RNA shot (no reformulated)?
I am planning on taking my Governor's cheekily endorsed thumbs up to get a 3rd shot. I'm going to get JJ because it's not the same RNA spike target.
That's probably better than a 3rd RNA shot (no reformulated)?
> That's probably better than a 3rd RNA shot
To be clear, right now there's no scientific literature that conclusively supports your suggestion here.
A better takeaway from my comment and OP would be that there is evidence we must diversify our viral elimination strategies at a population level.
It might actually be best to for you personally to stick with the same vaccines you had previously, but I'm going to stop there because you should consult your doctor for decisions like that.
To be clear, right now there's no scientific literature that conclusively supports your suggestion here.
A better takeaway from my comment and OP would be that there is evidence we must diversify our viral elimination strategies at a population level.
It might actually be best to for you personally to stick with the same vaccines you had previously, but I'm going to stop there because you should consult your doctor for decisions like that.
moderna and pfizer are different. different enough for moderna to be more efficient with delta and pfizer more efficient with alfa
thanks!
Natural immunity gives "ultrapotent" antibodies that works for 23 variants, including delta. That´s what will end this pandemic. Everyone will get infected, vaccinated and unvaccinated.
Ultrapotent antibodies against diverse and highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants
”Wang et al. identified four antibodies from early-outbreak convalescent donors that are potent against 23 variants, including variants of concern”
”The B cells isolated from donor-derived blood samples were sorted for antibody identification. This led to the identification of four potent neutralizing antibodies targeting the spike RBD. These antibodies showed a high affinity for the SARS-CoV-2 spike even at nanomolar concentrations.”
”The findings revealed that of 4 antibodies, two bound to RBDs in the “up position” and two bound to RBDs in the “down position.” Moreover, three out of four antibodies directly blocked the RBD – ACE2 interaction, and one indirectly inhibited the interaction through steric hindrance - the slowing of chemical reactions due to steric bulk.”
”By conducting multiple rounds of selection using combination treatments with two antibodies, it was observed that antibody combinations might reduce the risk of escape mutation acquisition and subsequent development of resistant viral variants.”
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/06/30/scie...
Ultrapotent antibodies against diverse and highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants
”Wang et al. identified four antibodies from early-outbreak convalescent donors that are potent against 23 variants, including variants of concern”
”The B cells isolated from donor-derived blood samples were sorted for antibody identification. This led to the identification of four potent neutralizing antibodies targeting the spike RBD. These antibodies showed a high affinity for the SARS-CoV-2 spike even at nanomolar concentrations.”
”The findings revealed that of 4 antibodies, two bound to RBDs in the “up position” and two bound to RBDs in the “down position.” Moreover, three out of four antibodies directly blocked the RBD – ACE2 interaction, and one indirectly inhibited the interaction through steric hindrance - the slowing of chemical reactions due to steric bulk.”
”By conducting multiple rounds of selection using combination treatments with two antibodies, it was observed that antibody combinations might reduce the risk of escape mutation acquisition and subsequent development of resistant viral variants.”
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/06/30/scie...
I don't know if we have this, but it would be good if we had a technology that enhanced your body's immune system to identify and kill viruses, rather than prime it to respond to a particular viral signal, that then may need to be updated as the virus changes (that's how I understand how vaccines work, but that could be false). You might think it's a subtle difference, but I think the former technology would be leaning into the body's existing ability to form a variety of antigens for viruses it encounters, and boosting its defense/offense against those, rather than 'handing out a series of police composite sketches', and saying 'Be On the Look Out for this specific guy, he might be coming through here.' The former could be more alike to enhancing predictive policing and profiling abilities, and beefing up response and enforcement capabilities.
The immune system already does that and its the responsibility of CD4+ helper T-cells.
The 2009 pandemic was significantly blunted because people born before 1957 had partial immunity from cross-reactive T-cells to H1N1 which was endemic in humans from 1918-1957. So after mutating in probably billions of pigs for 50 years the H1N1 virus that hopped back to humans was still sufficiently recognized by the immune system of older people to take any edge off of that pandemic.
I'm also fairly skeptical of the data coming out of Israel about waning immunity. Everyone is taking that data at face value while entirely ignoring the disclaimer: "(Potential confounders include the fact that the very oldest Israelis, with the weakest immune systems, were vaccinated first.)".
We really need a lot better data on much better matched cohorts to determine actual immune waning in the presence of the same viral variant.
The 2009 pandemic was significantly blunted because people born before 1957 had partial immunity from cross-reactive T-cells to H1N1 which was endemic in humans from 1918-1957. So after mutating in probably billions of pigs for 50 years the H1N1 virus that hopped back to humans was still sufficiently recognized by the immune system of older people to take any edge off of that pandemic.
I'm also fairly skeptical of the data coming out of Israel about waning immunity. Everyone is taking that data at face value while entirely ignoring the disclaimer: "(Potential confounders include the fact that the very oldest Israelis, with the weakest immune systems, were vaccinated first.)".
We really need a lot better data on much better matched cohorts to determine actual immune waning in the presence of the same viral variant.
Oh yeah definitely of course the immune system that already does that, the idea is just enhance its ability so that everyone has sort of Best in class defence against these viruses.
it can be kind of slow on an individual level, but on a population level you will have some people who have evolved better defenses, or more resilient immune systems. If we can share that around that's the idea.
It's very interesting though about that immunity thing you say. People born then.
it can be kind of slow on an individual level, but on a population level you will have some people who have evolved better defenses, or more resilient immune systems. If we can share that around that's the idea.
It's very interesting though about that immunity thing you say. People born then.
I think that was the idea that spurred monoclonal antibodies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoclonal_antibody
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoclonal_antibody
Interesting, thanks. :)
Beefing up the immune system without garunteeing it something to do seems like a recipe for autoimmune disorders, no?
Yeah, agree. It would be tricky. I'm hoping that by 'enhancing' the immune system you lean into its natural self-regulation equilibrium system and avoid that mostly--but then again autoimmune disorders seemingly emerge from those stasis systems going haywire, maybe without external poking...so it would be tricky for sure.
I guess the intuition is that the human immune system is an incredibly sophisticated, evolving capability that over time, and over the mass population, can respond to become resilient against a wide array of pathogens.
So if you could somehow capture the best of that (like, for illustration, take the immune system of the healthiest, most resilient person, 30 generations from now in the future) and convey that benefit to many other people, that would be truly awesome.
Sort of like an idea of training an AI, more iterations are better, the immune system of any one person at any one point in time, might not be so great, but the best immune system of the population after encountering many pathogens, is going to be really great.
How can we short circuit that "natural training" process and enhance the immune system? But I agree that attempts to do so might run the risk of creating or exacerbating autoimmune diseases...But I still think it's worth it.
I guess the intuition is that the human immune system is an incredibly sophisticated, evolving capability that over time, and over the mass population, can respond to become resilient against a wide array of pathogens.
So if you could somehow capture the best of that (like, for illustration, take the immune system of the healthiest, most resilient person, 30 generations from now in the future) and convey that benefit to many other people, that would be truly awesome.
Sort of like an idea of training an AI, more iterations are better, the immune system of any one person at any one point in time, might not be so great, but the best immune system of the population after encountering many pathogens, is going to be really great.
How can we short circuit that "natural training" process and enhance the immune system? But I agree that attempts to do so might run the risk of creating or exacerbating autoimmune diseases...But I still think it's worth it.
[deleted]
What I'm curious about is: what happens now?
When everyone starts realizing that vaccines and masks can't fully contain a spread, what's the next logical step to take?
Are people going to insist that you keep wearing your mask, take booster shots and live in fear for the next 50 years or are we going to collectively change our mindset from "Zero COVID" to accepting that COVID is just another risk factor in the world and move on?
When everyone starts realizing that vaccines and masks can't fully contain a spread, what's the next logical step to take?
Are people going to insist that you keep wearing your mask, take booster shots and live in fear for the next 50 years or are we going to collectively change our mindset from "Zero COVID" to accepting that COVID is just another risk factor in the world and move on?
There's an airbag in my car, but I also wear a seatbelt, obey the posted speed limits, use turn signals, stop at red traffic lights, and abstain from consuming alcohol while driving. This isn't "living in fear," it's observing reasonable caution in my daily life. I don't expect there will be "Zero accidents," but I want to avoid being injured and avoid causing injury to others. And I expect I'll keep taking these precautions for the next 50 years if I live that long. It just never ends. It's psychologically exhausting, come to think of it.
But wait, now you have me thinking, what if speed limits, traffic lights and all that other stuff were optional? Shouldn't they be? I mean, if I want to risk dying in a car accident, that's my business, and if others are concerned about my reckless driving, isn't that what their own seatbelts are for? I'm not forcing them to drink behind the wheel, why should they force me to not drink? Bottom line, if they want to live in endless fear of me and other freedom loving drivers, I won't stop them, they can just stay off the roads for all I care. So why should there be any safety mandates...for anything? My state governor should follow in the footsteps of DeSantis and Abbott, and make it illegal for localities to even impose speed limits.
But wait, now you have me thinking, what if speed limits, traffic lights and all that other stuff were optional? Shouldn't they be? I mean, if I want to risk dying in a car accident, that's my business, and if others are concerned about my reckless driving, isn't that what their own seatbelts are for? I'm not forcing them to drink behind the wheel, why should they force me to not drink? Bottom line, if they want to live in endless fear of me and other freedom loving drivers, I won't stop them, they can just stay off the roads for all I care. So why should there be any safety mandates...for anything? My state governor should follow in the footsteps of DeSantis and Abbott, and make it illegal for localities to even impose speed limits.
Wearing a mask is not a small ask.
If it was, attendance at bars, restaurants, shows, etc. would not fall off a cliff when imposed.
If it was, attendance at bars, restaurants, shows, etc. would not fall off a cliff when imposed.
> Wearing a mask is not a small ask.
Of course it is, I have been wearing mask for 2 years now. And I am wearing glasses.
Is washing your hands too much to ask too?
> If it was, attendance at bars, restaurants, shows, etc.
That was due to social distancing and lockdowns, not masks.
Of course it is, I have been wearing mask for 2 years now. And I am wearing glasses.
Is washing your hands too much to ask too?
> If it was, attendance at bars, restaurants, shows, etc.
That was due to social distancing and lockdowns, not masks.
The capacity limits were not an issue in the summertime when people could hang out outdoors, especially with the loosening of public drinking laws.
The masks? they made everything worse. They're incredibly bothersome to wear when its hot and humid, they induce psychological pressure on you via the feeling of being "smothered," and make every social interaction much harder to understand making each interaction more tiring to be a part of. It's equivalent to being in a Zoom conversation where you can't read all the subtleties of somebody else.
That's not even mentioning the blue collar labor force which has to wear these for 40 hours a week. My friends who work as waiters, bar staff, etc. still have to wear them during the day. The last thing they want to do when they get off work is to continue wearing them.
(all of this is relative to NYC, which had a ~31% closure rate for small businesses)
I understand some people here, such as yourself, don't think the masks are a big deal. But to the vast majority of the populace, they are a burden so bad its worth _moving cities and states to avoid_.
The masks? they made everything worse. They're incredibly bothersome to wear when its hot and humid, they induce psychological pressure on you via the feeling of being "smothered," and make every social interaction much harder to understand making each interaction more tiring to be a part of. It's equivalent to being in a Zoom conversation where you can't read all the subtleties of somebody else.
That's not even mentioning the blue collar labor force which has to wear these for 40 hours a week. My friends who work as waiters, bar staff, etc. still have to wear them during the day. The last thing they want to do when they get off work is to continue wearing them.
(all of this is relative to NYC, which had a ~31% closure rate for small businesses)
I understand some people here, such as yourself, don't think the masks are a big deal. But to the vast majority of the populace, they are a burden so bad its worth _moving cities and states to avoid_.
> Is washing your hands too much to ask too?
For (too) many people washing hands is indeed too much to ask...
For (too) many people washing hands is indeed too much to ask...
>> Is washing your hands too much to ask too?
> For (too) many people washing hands is indeed too much to ask...
This. This is why Covid is here to stay.
> For (too) many people washing hands is indeed too much to ask...
This. This is why Covid is here to stay.
COVID-19 spreads via the air, not through physical contact.
It's funny, every time this gets brought up people always say "it's not that bad/inconvenient" as if their experience is the only one that matter. If you live where it's hot and humid climate, a cloth face covering will get extremely uncomfortable (and drenched) very quickly. Or god forbid you have glasses, long hair, and/or ear rings that get tangled constantly. I've smashed a pair of sunglasses on the concrete at least twice in the last year because of masks, and very nearly my prescription glasses (which are far more expensive). Not to mention the psychological harm of (mass) mask wearing.
>Not to mention the psychological harm of (mass) mask wearing.
What is the mechanism for this harm?
What is the mechanism for this harm?
Mostly feelings of isolation and depression. For some, seeing faces (in person, not over video call) is super important for socialization. Basically, if you "get" people watching, you probably understand what I'm talking about. There's no studies as far as I know, but I imagine there's certain developmental aspects of interpreting facial expressions that young children are also missing out on to some extent. For me personally, I want to leave my house much less when everyone is wearing masks, both because it presents both a physical (however slight) and psychological burden on myself (it matters more for those with ADHD and other neurological differences). The biggest problem I have with the discussion now is that it borders on religious virtue signaling with how far people take it and you cannot bring up any counterarguments or examples without immediately being demonized.
"The main insight of the present research is that face masks’ use influences emotion inference from faces for all ages and especially for toddlers."
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.6694...
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.6694...
Wearing a mask is one of the least inconvenient inconveniences I've had during this pandemic.
agreed, always maintaining 6 feet is harder as I forget sometimes or just not paying too much attention
Restaurants, bars, and shows as we know them are probably over. Wearing a mask in a bar or restaurant doesn't make any sense. You're going to take the mask off while you're eating.
I'm tired of hearing "living in fear" equated with taking basic precautions to prevent the spread of disease, on HN of all places. It's just a dog whistle.
I'm tired of hearing that masks don't have consequences and are just basic precautions.
I for one feel it massively reduces the quality of my interactions and trust in people. I find it much harder to communicate properly. The long term consequences of this are not taken into account.
And I'm vaccinated, everyone in my country who wants to be vaccinated is. Why should I reduce the quality of my life for people who made a choice and took a risk? I actually don't mind that they made this choice, it's their risk. But don't destroy my quality of life for people who knowingly are taking a risk on their end.
I for one feel it massively reduces the quality of my interactions and trust in people. I find it much harder to communicate properly. The long term consequences of this are not taken into account.
And I'm vaccinated, everyone in my country who wants to be vaccinated is. Why should I reduce the quality of my life for people who made a choice and took a risk? I actually don't mind that they made this choice, it's their risk. But don't destroy my quality of life for people who knowingly are taking a risk on their end.
There's also people like me who have serious PTSS phenomenons with masks (for me caused by nearly suffocating several times when I was an infant). I hate it when people call it 'a small ask'. Living for the rest of my life with masking is just not an option. It's manageable during the crisis but we can't give up on finding a real solution and keep them forever.
> And I'm vaccinated, everyone in my country who wants to be vaccinated is. Why should I reduce the quality of my life for people who made a choice and took a risk?
Vaccination isn’t a magic talisman against infection, or against illness if infected, or against transmitting the disease if infected. It reduces the likelihood of each, all other things being equal, but it isn't a guarantee against any of them (and is less so against Delta, “Delta Plus", and apparently Lambda than other strains so far.
Masking further reduces both inbound and outbound transmission, and is just a basic precaution.
Vaccination isn’t a magic talisman against infection, or against illness if infected, or against transmitting the disease if infected. It reduces the likelihood of each, all other things being equal, but it isn't a guarantee against any of them (and is less so against Delta, “Delta Plus", and apparently Lambda than other strains so far.
Masking further reduces both inbound and outbound transmission, and is just a basic precaution.
OK, so basically humanity so far was in the wrong for not wearing masks for cold, flu, and every other transmissible disease, and we should wear masks forever in public?
YES! They did it in many asian countries before. When you feel under the weather you'd go to work/town in the mask not to spread.
Also cold/flu cases are way down due to people masking up and cleaning hands.
A lot of people complain about seatbelts being uncomfortable during driving, and yet its a law to wear them. Why?
Also cold/flu cases are way down due to people masking up and cleaning hands.
A lot of people complain about seatbelts being uncomfortable during driving, and yet its a law to wear them. Why?
That's not a sign of good hygiene, rather a sign of these countries dystopian work laws/ethics, where sick leave is apparently not a thing.
Asking people to wear a mask when they feel sick is not the current ask.
People have worn masks for all of those things.
Have you ever set foot in an Asian country? (Or at least seem videos, pictures, media from one?).
I've even witnessed mask wearing within the Asian communities in my (western) country.
Long before covid mask wearing has been an insanely common thing to do when you're sick.
Long before covid mask wearing has been an insanely common thing to do when you're sick.
Yes, mask wearing when sick is very common there. The vast majority of people do not (or rather, did not) wear masks during normal day-to-day life. There is a massive difference between wearing a mask all the time when in public vs wearing one when you've got the sniffles.
> OK, so basically humanity so far was in the wrong for not wearing masks for cold, flu,
Masking in flu season isn’t uncommon in some parts of the world, and it was a lot more common during the 1918-1920 pandemic, so, “humanity” as a whole is not a constant.
Cultural variation aside, different respiratory viruses have different combinations of infectiousness and deadliness and responses to various countermeasures, so their are rational reasons the reactions to each, given a constant utility function, would differ. The common cold, the 2019 seasonal flu, the 1919 pandemic flu, and COVID-19 are all very different things.
Masking in flu season isn’t uncommon in some parts of the world, and it was a lot more common during the 1918-1920 pandemic, so, “humanity” as a whole is not a constant.
Cultural variation aside, different respiratory viruses have different combinations of infectiousness and deadliness and responses to various countermeasures, so their are rational reasons the reactions to each, given a constant utility function, would differ. The common cold, the 2019 seasonal flu, the 1919 pandemic flu, and COVID-19 are all very different things.
[deleted]
We had a small chance of getting rid of covid if we had gotten nearly everyone, 90%+, vaccinated. That didn't happen, the politicization of the vaccine was insane, and so now we are stuck with covid.
What does this mean? It means we are all going to get covid. Repeatedly. It is a new seasonal illness that will be with us, absent some magical technology. It is (or will be) endemic.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/what-will-it-be-l...
The point of the vaccination now is the same thing as always, to minimize the impact on society. Less hospitalizations and death, less days of our life spent ill, less misery.
People 100% should still get vaccinated, it is deeply stupid not to. It is particularly important the next several months as delta rips through the remaining unvaccinated population (which include those that can't, including under 12 year olds), because we want to avoid filling up hospitals and making our health care quit. For the same reason, we should wear masks and maybe try to reduce the time spent breathing each others air a bit. But the only ones that should live in fear are those unvaccinated that have never had covid and probably the old. But managing fear is something the old has to do anyway, comes with age ;)
What does this mean? It means we are all going to get covid. Repeatedly. It is a new seasonal illness that will be with us, absent some magical technology. It is (or will be) endemic.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/what-will-it-be-l...
The point of the vaccination now is the same thing as always, to minimize the impact on society. Less hospitalizations and death, less days of our life spent ill, less misery.
People 100% should still get vaccinated, it is deeply stupid not to. It is particularly important the next several months as delta rips through the remaining unvaccinated population (which include those that can't, including under 12 year olds), because we want to avoid filling up hospitals and making our health care quit. For the same reason, we should wear masks and maybe try to reduce the time spent breathing each others air a bit. But the only ones that should live in fear are those unvaccinated that have never had covid and probably the old. But managing fear is something the old has to do anyway, comes with age ;)
> We had a small chance of getting rid of covid if we had gotten nearly everyone, 90%+, vaccinated.
By small chance, you mean 0% chance, right? Variants were already spreading by the time any vaccines were available. There are also billions of people who will likely not be vaccinated within the next couple years or so.
By small chance, you mean 0% chance, right? Variants were already spreading by the time any vaccines were available. There are also billions of people who will likely not be vaccinated within the next couple years or so.
We had a non-zero chance of stopping covid, even considering vaccines would take a couple of years to get to everyone, it didn't matter (much) if variants happened. The chance of zero covid comes from vaccines coming out fast enough to drop the R value below 1.0 for a significant amount of time for the virus to go away.
However, in hindsight, with animal populations being able to get infected, I think it probably was zero, although that gets well beyond my armchair "skills" ;)
However, in hindsight, with animal populations being able to get infected, I think it probably was zero, although that gets well beyond my armchair "skills" ;)
So in the end what's your point?
Do you support mandatory mask-wearing and social distancing for the rest of our lives?
Do you support mandatory mask-wearing and social distancing for the rest of our lives?
My point is that it is here to stay, we need to mitigate the rest of the initial infections (hopefully delta will take care of that in the next month or so), and then we go back to living our lives where individuals choose their own approach to avoiding and handling infectious pathogens.
To be clear: that means no mandates.
To be clear: that means no mandates.
Hospitals are collapsing again, we can't ignore it.
Get people vaccinated.
Or else we're going to wind up "flattening the curve" again until we finally burn through enough dead people that everyone is effectively either recovered or immunized and then the endemic burden should be an order of magnitude lower.
And hospitals only have so much throughput going through the ICU and into the morgue that they can sustain, which is limited by burned-out human resources, that have been strained and quitting during the pandemic.
If you want to totally let it rip and destroy the ICUs then you better drive really fucking carefully for a few months and hope you don't get a poor diagnosis of something or other fairly nasty. Have a bit of a chat with your appendix and make sure its feeling happy and doesn't blow up.
Get people vaccinated.
Or else we're going to wind up "flattening the curve" again until we finally burn through enough dead people that everyone is effectively either recovered or immunized and then the endemic burden should be an order of magnitude lower.
And hospitals only have so much throughput going through the ICU and into the morgue that they can sustain, which is limited by burned-out human resources, that have been strained and quitting during the pandemic.
If you want to totally let it rip and destroy the ICUs then you better drive really fucking carefully for a few months and hope you don't get a poor diagnosis of something or other fairly nasty. Have a bit of a chat with your appendix and make sure its feeling happy and doesn't blow up.
> Get people vaccinated
Repeating this line doesn't really work anymore. I vaccinated myself and my whole family months ago, my county has ~80% full vaccination rate, anyone and everyone who could and wanted to, got a shot already.
Yet, there are 90 million people in this country that don't give a shit and will not vaccinate. Worse, soon the vaccine will probably wear out, and then the whole country will have to be convinced all over again to get a booster shot, who knows how many times, too. And then there is stuff like TFA that says that although vaccines are the best we've got so far, vaccinated people still end up in the hospital.
So although I'll personally line up for any booster shots the moment they become available, the reality is probably going to get much more complicated than vaccinating everyone and moving on.
Repeating this line doesn't really work anymore. I vaccinated myself and my whole family months ago, my county has ~80% full vaccination rate, anyone and everyone who could and wanted to, got a shot already.
Yet, there are 90 million people in this country that don't give a shit and will not vaccinate. Worse, soon the vaccine will probably wear out, and then the whole country will have to be convinced all over again to get a booster shot, who knows how many times, too. And then there is stuff like TFA that says that although vaccines are the best we've got so far, vaccinated people still end up in the hospital.
So although I'll personally line up for any booster shots the moment they become available, the reality is probably going to get much more complicated than vaccinating everyone and moving on.
>don’t give a shit and will not vaccinate
Why would they if they just recovered from covid?
Why would they if they just recovered from covid?
I feel at this point hospitals should just triage the willfully unvaccinated covid patients behind all other emergencies.
Possibly set aside X number of beds for covid patients, the rest of the ICU beds are for everything else. Out of covid beds? Well you've gotta wait for someone to die and then they'll see you.
They chose to "not live in fear", they can live - and possibly die - with the consequences.
Possibly set aside X number of beds for covid patients, the rest of the ICU beds are for everything else. Out of covid beds? Well you've gotta wait for someone to die and then they'll see you.
They chose to "not live in fear", they can live - and possibly die - with the consequences.
I don't think it's that simple. Could we also triage patients that have an unhealthy lifestyle as recommended against by doctors for a long time? We know eating well works to build and maintain a healthy immune system, and that heart disease and obesity is one major factor to covid hospitalization and death. Could we put put the ones that have decided to stuff their faces with fast and processed foods in the back of the line with all other emergencies?
[deleted]
Sure, if that becomes necessary due to America's lifestyle, I don't see why not.
I'm unaware of that being the current issue though. It seems to me hospitals are overrun with COVID patients, most of them their due to their own unwillingness to get vaccinated.
I'm unaware of that being the current issue though. It seems to me hospitals are overrun with COVID patients, most of them their due to their own unwillingness to get vaccinated.
> Are people going to insist that you keep wearing your mask, take booster shots and live in fear
I get a flu shot every year and wear a seatbelt when I drive. Not living in fear of either. Taking reasonable precautions doesn't involve living in fear.
> or are we going to collectively change our mindset from "Zero COVID" to accepting that COVID is just another risk factor in the world and move on?
Look at the places (e.g., much of the US South) with high resistance to protective measures and the current status of the healthcare systems. Are we going to accept that being a permanent or at least frequently recurrent state worldwide and accept the COVID and non-COVID deaths from exhausting ICU space, and the high burnout we’ve seen in the healthcare field? Are we going to radically expand healthcare expenditures to expand capacity and attract/retain people in the field with that as the normal condition?
I get a flu shot every year and wear a seatbelt when I drive. Not living in fear of either. Taking reasonable precautions doesn't involve living in fear.
> or are we going to collectively change our mindset from "Zero COVID" to accepting that COVID is just another risk factor in the world and move on?
Look at the places (e.g., much of the US South) with high resistance to protective measures and the current status of the healthcare systems. Are we going to accept that being a permanent or at least frequently recurrent state worldwide and accept the COVID and non-COVID deaths from exhausting ICU space, and the high burnout we’ve seen in the healthcare field? Are we going to radically expand healthcare expenditures to expand capacity and attract/retain people in the field with that as the normal condition?
Florida has a higher age 65+ vaccination rate than California or New York: https://www.mayoclinic.org/coronavirus-covid-19/vaccine-trac...
Respiratory viruses peak earlier before Winter in the tropics (ie. the South USA) whereas they peak during the Winter in the North.
Southern USA will peak and fall, and then this Winter you'll see the same thing in the Northern USA. Its just the seasonality of colds/flus which has been known for decades.
Be prepared because this Winter seasonal peak will be blamed on a new 'variant', and used to push either new lockdowns/restrictions, or booster shots.
Respiratory viruses peak earlier before Winter in the tropics (ie. the South USA) whereas they peak during the Winter in the North.
Southern USA will peak and fall, and then this Winter you'll see the same thing in the Northern USA. Its just the seasonality of colds/flus which has been known for decades.
Be prepared because this Winter seasonal peak will be blamed on a new 'variant', and used to push either new lockdowns/restrictions, or booster shots.
> Florida has a higher age 65+ vaccination rate than California or New York
No, California has 97% and Florida has 93%; California also has higher age 18-64 and 12-17 vaccination rates [0], has a number of local jurisdictions that have resumed indoor masking mandates (including many school districts for in-person education, with many of those that haven’t adopted mandates having parent-option virtual academies available) rather than a state government attempting to prohibit mask mandates. Countermeasures are more than just vaccines.
But, in any case, you didn’t answer the question: Are you willing to accept the degree of healthcare overload and the effects it is having on healthcare workers as a permanent or at least frequently recurrent state and accept the COVID and non-COVID deaths from exhausting ICU space, and the high burnout we’ve seen in the healthcare field? Is your plan to radically expand healthcare expenditures to expand capacity and attract/retain people in the field with that as the normal condition? Or are you willing to see the same load with dwindling capacity?
EDIT: forgot the link.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/covid-19-vaccine...
No, California has 97% and Florida has 93%; California also has higher age 18-64 and 12-17 vaccination rates [0], has a number of local jurisdictions that have resumed indoor masking mandates (including many school districts for in-person education, with many of those that haven’t adopted mandates having parent-option virtual academies available) rather than a state government attempting to prohibit mask mandates. Countermeasures are more than just vaccines.
But, in any case, you didn’t answer the question: Are you willing to accept the degree of healthcare overload and the effects it is having on healthcare workers as a permanent or at least frequently recurrent state and accept the COVID and non-COVID deaths from exhausting ICU space, and the high burnout we’ve seen in the healthcare field? Is your plan to radically expand healthcare expenditures to expand capacity and attract/retain people in the field with that as the normal condition? Or are you willing to see the same load with dwindling capacity?
EDIT: forgot the link.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/covid-19-vaccine...
Getting booster shots to lessen the risk to people that are at greater risk from the virus isn't a huge imposition.
We should make it easier for more people to do it (people that don't have sick leave or aren't sure they can take it and so on).
We should make it easier for more people to do it (people that don't have sick leave or aren't sure they can take it and so on).
oliv__(1)
The article mentions vaccination, but it also mentions that Israel is going to have to go back to masks and social distancing. It is my understanding that this situation happened partially because they stopped wearing masks...
There was a prior study that mentioned the efficiency of the vaccine alone was somewhere in the 60-65 percent range without masks for the BioNTech vaccine, about a 33% drop in efficiency is nothing to laugh at.
Perhaps this will be a spur to invent a better mask? I believe fear will subside as over time most people tend to adjust to new realities.
What you should hope to be invented is better vaccines/treatment.
We have the vaccine/treatment. We lack a population willing to embrace it, at sufficient levels to make a meaningful difference.
We have a similarly large population full of so much vitriol that it wouldn't matter what the topic is, instinct is to rebel. The first step is for people advocating for vaccines to stop this hateful bile, and with social media etc. it just ain't gonna happen.
The shot still generally does a great job at keeping the vaccinated from hospitalized.
We're already burning out our primary care enough for some to leave the profession, or worse.
Just because COVID is another risk factor, it doesn't mean we stop taking measures against it. The flu's a risk factor, yet we take flu shots, and don't go out french kissing strangers who's coughing, sneezing and having a fever.
We're already burning out our primary care enough for some to leave the profession, or worse.
Just because COVID is another risk factor, it doesn't mean we stop taking measures against it. The flu's a risk factor, yet we take flu shots, and don't go out french kissing strangers who's coughing, sneezing and having a fever.
If our mindset had been "zero covid", we'd not have gotten the mutants and the v1 vaccine would have driven it extinct.
Please dont abuse the name of a strategy that was never implemented.
What governments did was 'keep incidence below X by means of lockdowns', and 'relax restrictions if incidence is below X'.
This is a simple control system that keeps the incidence at X. Not below X.
Unfortunately X was chosen via hospital bed capacity, so it was quite high, about 500 cases / 100k per week. High enough to generate mutants. With X=5, the same lockdown measures would have been in effect for much the same time (they'd have been started a few weeks earlier). Also, for very low values of X, you might have been able to get away with just contact tracing or travel controls instead of lockdowns, so the average lockdown intensity over time, under zero covid, could have been lower than what we had. The point of zero covid is to have less lockdown!
Anyway, the idea was to buy time until you get the vaccine. Zero covid was never intended to be an indefinite duration program.
This is what zero covid really means (low X). I agree with everything else you said.
Please dont abuse the name of a strategy that was never implemented.
What governments did was 'keep incidence below X by means of lockdowns', and 'relax restrictions if incidence is below X'.
This is a simple control system that keeps the incidence at X. Not below X.
Unfortunately X was chosen via hospital bed capacity, so it was quite high, about 500 cases / 100k per week. High enough to generate mutants. With X=5, the same lockdown measures would have been in effect for much the same time (they'd have been started a few weeks earlier). Also, for very low values of X, you might have been able to get away with just contact tracing or travel controls instead of lockdowns, so the average lockdown intensity over time, under zero covid, could have been lower than what we had. The point of zero covid is to have less lockdown!
Anyway, the idea was to buy time until you get the vaccine. Zero covid was never intended to be an indefinite duration program.
This is what zero covid really means (low X). I agree with everything else you said.
If we had effective treatments and OTC therapies for this illness, the pressure to vaccinate against every resurgence and new mutation would basically disappear. With so much social difficulty with vaccines, this seems like the most likely long term path. Where's my cherry flavored Covidquil?
This doesn’t seem like a particularly likely path, given the… lacklustre performance of most antivirals. Like, no responsible doctor would ever say to an at-risk person “no need to get the flu vaccine; tamiflu exists”. Even if an effective antiviral shows up, realistically it’ll probably be more a tamiflu than a magic cure.
This is absolutely wrong.
A vaccine is a fraction of the cost of treatment, and it has no long-term side effects. Even better, a vaccine reduces the chance for a virus to mutate.
Treatments, even if they work, are going to have side effects, and there are still unknown risks from a severe (unvaccinated) infection anyway.
Vaccines are a miracle of proactivity, and there's no reason to try to replace them with something expensive, risky, and reactive.
A vaccine is a fraction of the cost of treatment, and it has no long-term side effects. Even better, a vaccine reduces the chance for a virus to mutate.
Treatments, even if they work, are going to have side effects, and there are still unknown risks from a severe (unvaccinated) infection anyway.
Vaccines are a miracle of proactivity, and there's no reason to try to replace them with something expensive, risky, and reactive.
Honest question here, do vaccines actually reduce the chance for covid to mutate? Spitballing, I would expect a vaccine to decrease the number of total mutations that can occur but also simultaneously increase the selective pressure on the virus, increasing the chance that any mutations that improve the virus’ ability to resist the vaccine become dominant.
To make an analogy, does spraying every surface in a hospital with an antibacterial solution result in no bacteria or just make it more likely to see resistant bacteria? I’d guess it’s a function of how potent the solution was and how well every last surface was coated. If you start with a 10% solution, don’t achieve full coverage and keep ramping up slowly perhaps we’ll just see something like this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8
Agree with the rest of your post though.
To make an analogy, does spraying every surface in a hospital with an antibacterial solution result in no bacteria or just make it more likely to see resistant bacteria? I’d guess it’s a function of how potent the solution was and how well every last surface was coated. If you start with a 10% solution, don’t achieve full coverage and keep ramping up slowly perhaps we’ll just see something like this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8
Agree with the rest of your post though.
You're correct that it's possible for vaccines to be distributed in a way that promotes mutations[1]. You're also correct that there are many factors, including number of times the virus replicates and also selective pressure.
At this point, it looks like our mRNA vaccines:
- leave a short enough window between doses to minimize mutations
- reduce viral load within a vaccinated person[2]
- prevent many transmissions entirely[3][4][5]
...which, added all up, appears to net out the way you'd expect: the vaccine reduces the risk of mutations.
1. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/02/10/9659409...
2. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01316-7
3. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...
4. https://www.physiciansweekly.com/covid-19-breakthrough-infec...
5. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-crucial-vacci...
At this point, it looks like our mRNA vaccines:
- leave a short enough window between doses to minimize mutations
- reduce viral load within a vaccinated person[2]
- prevent many transmissions entirely[3][4][5]
...which, added all up, appears to net out the way you'd expect: the vaccine reduces the risk of mutations.
1. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/02/10/9659409...
2. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01316-7
3. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...
4. https://www.physiciansweekly.com/covid-19-breakthrough-infec...
5. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-crucial-vacci...
the cost of these vaccines is largely hidden, no? Each country made deals behind closed doors AFAIK. I've seen some estimates of $12-$30 a shot, but have no idea the validity of this.
How much do the treatments cost? Is it vastly different?
> No long term side effects.
How do you know? I thought the only study/data from Pfizer covered 6 months. That's not very long term? https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v...
I don't think we need to replace vaccines, but large swathes of the population still don't have access. It seems very likely that a multi-modal approach would allow us to treat more people, faster.
Even Pfizer sees vaccination as well as treatment as the path forward: https://www.pfizer.com/science/coronavirus/antiviral-efforts
How much do the treatments cost? Is it vastly different?
> No long term side effects.
How do you know? I thought the only study/data from Pfizer covered 6 months. That's not very long term? https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v...
I don't think we need to replace vaccines, but large swathes of the population still don't have access. It seems very likely that a multi-modal approach would allow us to treat more people, faster.
Even Pfizer sees vaccination as well as treatment as the path forward: https://www.pfizer.com/science/coronavirus/antiviral-efforts
> How much do the treatments cost? Is it vastly different?
An average hospitalization costs $73,000 in the US, according to data collected from insurance claims[1].
That means that a single hospitalization costs the same as vaccinating 2,400 people (using your $30/shot estimate).
> How do you know? I thought the only study/data from Pfizer covered 6 months. That's not very long term?
Although I'm not an expert, a friend of mine is getting his PhD studying the immune system and explained it to me this way:
Any additional risk of mRNA vaccines would (with almost 100% certainty) occur shortly after vaccination[2], theorized to be as a result of a strong(er) immune response.
After the immune response has subsided, the vaccinated person's immune system would be hard to distinguish from someone who received a traditional vaccine because the goal of the vaccines is the same: to teach the immune system what the virus looks like[3][4] without actually requiring an active virus.
So to put that together, we can be fairly confident in an mRNA vaccine's long-term safety because its long-term effects are similar to other vaccines that we've studied for more than 100 years and because the mechanism of action subsides within a few months[5].
1. https://www.fairhealth.org/article/costs-for-a-hospital-stay...
2. https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/how-do-we-know-covid-19...
3. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/why-are-mrna-vaccines-so...
4. https://www.vumc.org/viiii/infographics/how-does-mrna-vaccin...
5. https://www.uab.edu/news/health/item/12143-three-things-to-k...
An average hospitalization costs $73,000 in the US, according to data collected from insurance claims[1].
That means that a single hospitalization costs the same as vaccinating 2,400 people (using your $30/shot estimate).
> How do you know? I thought the only study/data from Pfizer covered 6 months. That's not very long term?
Although I'm not an expert, a friend of mine is getting his PhD studying the immune system and explained it to me this way:
Any additional risk of mRNA vaccines would (with almost 100% certainty) occur shortly after vaccination[2], theorized to be as a result of a strong(er) immune response.
After the immune response has subsided, the vaccinated person's immune system would be hard to distinguish from someone who received a traditional vaccine because the goal of the vaccines is the same: to teach the immune system what the virus looks like[3][4] without actually requiring an active virus.
So to put that together, we can be fairly confident in an mRNA vaccine's long-term safety because its long-term effects are similar to other vaccines that we've studied for more than 100 years and because the mechanism of action subsides within a few months[5].
1. https://www.fairhealth.org/article/costs-for-a-hospital-stay...
2. https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/how-do-we-know-covid-19...
3. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/why-are-mrna-vaccines-so...
4. https://www.vumc.org/viiii/infographics/how-does-mrna-vaccin...
5. https://www.uab.edu/news/health/item/12143-three-things-to-k...
Pandemrix was also similar to previous vaccines but caused an increase in narcolepsy, no? Immune systems are complicated.
Yes, and the reason it caused bad side effects was the strong immune response[1], which is a short term effect. That is exactly what has been extensively tested for the Covid vaccines.
1. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/why-pandemic-flu-sho...
1. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/why-pandemic-flu-sho...
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by short term effect, the first sentence in the article you linked mentions it's an incurable disease and it took them years to admit it was linked to Pandemrix.
English is not my native language so maybe I didn't understand what you meant by that.
English is not my native language so maybe I didn't understand what you meant by that.
I understand the confusion. I meant that the long-term narcolepsy was caused by something that happened in the short-term while the immune system was still reacting to the vaccine.
From that link:
> The flu vaccine is designed to trigger antibodies to influenza’s surface proteins, but if it elicits antibodies to the nucleoprotein as well, those might well latch on to the hypocretin receptor, and eventually lead to death of the cells, the researchers thought.
That couldn't just spontaneously happen a year after getting a vaccine.
From that link:
> The flu vaccine is designed to trigger antibodies to influenza’s surface proteins, but if it elicits antibodies to the nucleoprotein as well, those might well latch on to the hypocretin receptor, and eventually lead to death of the cells, the researchers thought.
That couldn't just spontaneously happen a year after getting a vaccine.
Thank you for the explanation.
The prices the EU, at least, is paying are public. IIRC they range from about 2 eur for AZ to about 30 for the MRNAs.
Today, there are no particularly effective treatments. Monoclonal antibodies might do something, and cost a few thousand quid, but you wouldn’t want to be relying on them as an alternative to a vaccine.
Today, there are no particularly effective treatments. Monoclonal antibodies might do something, and cost a few thousand quid, but you wouldn’t want to be relying on them as an alternative to a vaccine.
You cannot say it has "no long-term side effects". also a new flu vaccine is developed every year because influenza viruses naturally mutate quickly, as do any viruses. Don't just write things that you wish were true.
It seems unlikely at this point that there are unforeseen long term side effects. Historically vaccine side effects have emerged within a few weeks to months of vaccination [0].
I’m not personally ruling it out 100%, but is there even a proposed mechanism through which vaccine side effects could emerge like years later?
[0]: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/vaccines-...
I’m not personally ruling it out 100%, but is there even a proposed mechanism through which vaccine side effects could emerge like years later?
[0]: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/vaccines-...
> You cannot say it has "no long-term side effects"
What are the long-term side effects of the vaccine? Or are you saying that you expect us to discover some in the future?
What are the long-term side effects of the vaccine? Or are you saying that you expect us to discover some in the future?
when planning on injecting a new type of product to 100% of a (healthy) population you better be sure about what you're doing...
Biology "certitude" is far from being as strong as a mathematical proof. Humans are different, and the complexity of interaction inside a single body are horribly complex.
I'm very surprised decades of science fiction litterature isn't enough to make people think twice.
Biology "certitude" is far from being as strong as a mathematical proof. Humans are different, and the complexity of interaction inside a single body are horribly complex.
I'm very surprised decades of science fiction litterature isn't enough to make people think twice.
They only need to be certain that the risk of the vaccine for the individual is lower than the risk of Covid for that same person.
In what way do you think millions of doctors, disease experts, and drug researchers have gotten that wrong? They have evidence that Covid is worse, but where is evidence to the contrary?
> I'm very surprised decades of science fiction litterature isn't enough to make people think twice.
Isn't it arrogant to assume that all the experts on vaccines are less informed or less cautious than you are, just because you've read sci-fi?
They didn't just think twice. They've done decades of research and testing, and they've closely monitored safety at every stage of rollout.
In what way do you think millions of doctors, disease experts, and drug researchers have gotten that wrong? They have evidence that Covid is worse, but where is evidence to the contrary?
> I'm very surprised decades of science fiction litterature isn't enough to make people think twice.
Isn't it arrogant to assume that all the experts on vaccines are less informed or less cautious than you are, just because you've read sci-fi?
They didn't just think twice. They've done decades of research and testing, and they've closely monitored safety at every stage of rollout.
i don't know a lot of doctor that advocate for the benefit of a covid vaccine for young kids. when they do it's usually in the hope of herd immunity, which seems disproved by the variants cases in countries with hugh vaccination rate.
in general i would also be very skeptical of "scientific consensus" related by the media when you see how much bad press some doctor got for criticising public health politics (even when proved right later on).
in general i would also be very skeptical of "scientific consensus" related by the media when you see how much bad press some doctor got for criticising public health politics (even when proved right later on).
We don't really know because the even the phase 2 trials for these vaccines have not been done..
How come there are phase 3 results of Moderna?
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2035389
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2035389
Long term side effects won't be known for 5-10 years, especially as vaccinated people have kids.
Reminder of the Thalidomide drug:
> Thalidomide is a sedative drug discovered at the end of the 50s, which caused a worldwide tragedy. The drug has been prescribed to many pregnant women in order to relieve pregnancy nausea. It was later found that thalidomide caused irreversible damages to the fetus and thousands of children were born with severe congenital malformations. Many of them did not survive more than a few days after they were born.
https://thalidomide.ca/en/the-canadian-tragedy/
Reminder of the Thalidomide drug:
> Thalidomide is a sedative drug discovered at the end of the 50s, which caused a worldwide tragedy. The drug has been prescribed to many pregnant women in order to relieve pregnancy nausea. It was later found that thalidomide caused irreversible damages to the fetus and thousands of children were born with severe congenital malformations. Many of them did not survive more than a few days after they were born.
https://thalidomide.ca/en/the-canadian-tragedy/
> Long term side effects won't be known for 5-10 years, especially as vaccinated people have kids.
Good news, then. Viral vector vaccines (like the J&J version) have been studied and tested since the 1970s, and mRNA vaccines (like Pfizer) have been studied since the 1980s[1][2].
What ingredient in Covid vaccines do you suspect will become the new thalidomide?
We know that the actual viral vector and mRNA components of the vaccines will degrade and disappear from the body in the short term[3], so it must be one of the other ingredients, right?
It's also important to weigh the completely unknown long-term effects of Covid against the well-known long-term effects of training an immune system with a vaccine.
1. https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/how-do-we-know-covid-19...
2. https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-maga...
3. https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/where-mrna-vaccines-and-sp...
Good news, then. Viral vector vaccines (like the J&J version) have been studied and tested since the 1970s, and mRNA vaccines (like Pfizer) have been studied since the 1980s[1][2].
What ingredient in Covid vaccines do you suspect will become the new thalidomide?
We know that the actual viral vector and mRNA components of the vaccines will degrade and disappear from the body in the short term[3], so it must be one of the other ingredients, right?
It's also important to weigh the completely unknown long-term effects of Covid against the well-known long-term effects of training an immune system with a vaccine.
1. https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/how-do-we-know-covid-19...
2. https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-maga...
3. https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/where-mrna-vaccines-and-sp...
We know that the spike protein itself causes damage. For adults that’s almost never an issue, but I feel like the overarching recommendation that pregnant women get the vaccine is misguided. It doesn’t make much sense to get it if they’ve already had COVID or are still working from home.
If those aren’t true then the risk is probably worth it as a raging infection would almost certainly be worse for the baby. I just wish there was some nuance in our government’s recommendations.
If those aren’t true then the risk is probably worth it as a raging infection would almost certainly be worse for the baby. I just wish there was some nuance in our government’s recommendations.
The spike protein absolutely does not cause damage. Please cite a reputable source.
The claim that the spike protein is dangerous in and of itself is a fixture of anti-vax disinformation online.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/06/08/fac...
The claim that the spike protein is dangerous in and of itself is a fixture of anti-vax disinformation online.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/06/08/fac...
In addition to the links dTal commented with, your own link says this:
"While it is true that the spike protein has 'superantigen' properties, which means it has the POTENTIAL to cause adverse effects, we know that it doesn’t cause these effects in many infected patients, it doesn’t cause many of these superantigen effects in most vaccinated individuals, and the levels are incredibly low in the blood, suggesting this shouldn’t be a concern," he said."
Many, most, etc. is a pretty far cry from "absolutely does not." I already said for most people it shouldn't be an issue. Could it be developmentally harming fetuses? Maybe we'll find out 10 years from now that they'll have a slightly lower IQ than they should.
Or maybe for adults we'll see an increase in autoimmune diseases a few years from now. Or, hopefully, there will be no widespread long term effects. These things take time to suss out. I'm so incredibly sick of absolutism reigning over everything now. It should be perfectly acceptable to have a nuanced opinion over who should take the vaccine instead of everyone or noone.
"While it is true that the spike protein has 'superantigen' properties, which means it has the POTENTIAL to cause adverse effects, we know that it doesn’t cause these effects in many infected patients, it doesn’t cause many of these superantigen effects in most vaccinated individuals, and the levels are incredibly low in the blood, suggesting this shouldn’t be a concern," he said."
Many, most, etc. is a pretty far cry from "absolutely does not." I already said for most people it shouldn't be an issue. Could it be developmentally harming fetuses? Maybe we'll find out 10 years from now that they'll have a slightly lower IQ than they should.
Or maybe for adults we'll see an increase in autoimmune diseases a few years from now. Or, hopefully, there will be no widespread long term effects. These things take time to suss out. I'm so incredibly sick of absolutism reigning over everything now. It should be perfectly acceptable to have a nuanced opinion over who should take the vaccine instead of everyone or noone.
I fear there is a very common phenomenon nowadays - especially in the world of covid - where the wrong people say something for the wrong reasons, which makes right thinking people automatically dismiss it. It's a trap and we shouldn't fall into it.
You can't say "The spike protein absolutely does not cause damage". That's going too far. Speaking as someone who doesn't pay attention to whatever the conspiracy theory of the day is, I have nevertheless always wondered about the effect of of proteins in the blood whose sole purpose is to breach cell walls. Your comment motivated me to do a quick google. There are in fact many reputable papers hinting at unpredictable spike protein effects. Here's three:
SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Induces Degradation of Junctional Proteins That Maintain Endothelial Barrier Integrity [0]
The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein alters barrier function in 2D static and 3D microfluidic in-vitro models of the human blood–brain barrier [1]
SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins disrupt the blood-brain barrier, new research shows [2]
[0] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2021.68778...
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096999612...
[2] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201029141941.h...
You can't say "The spike protein absolutely does not cause damage". That's going too far. Speaking as someone who doesn't pay attention to whatever the conspiracy theory of the day is, I have nevertheless always wondered about the effect of of proteins in the blood whose sole purpose is to breach cell walls. Your comment motivated me to do a quick google. There are in fact many reputable papers hinting at unpredictable spike protein effects. Here's three:
SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Induces Degradation of Junctional Proteins That Maintain Endothelial Barrier Integrity [0]
The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein alters barrier function in 2D static and 3D microfluidic in-vitro models of the human blood–brain barrier [1]
SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins disrupt the blood-brain barrier, new research shows [2]
[0] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2021.68778...
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096999612...
[2] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201029141941.h...
As someone feeling a bit rough after my first Pfizer dose and generally is a hypochondriac - nooooo
Hey man, right here with you feeling rough after jab #2 :) The roughness is your immune system, not the spike protein itself per se, which is why jab #2 makes you feel a lot rougher - your immune system goes ape the second time.
A little perspective - one way or another, we're all going to be exposed to this damn spike protein eventually, and the vaccine is by far the safer way. If it does do something bad, we haven't noticed it yet, which presumably means it can't be that bad. I haven't seen any reports of people getting long covid from a jab.
A little perspective - one way or another, we're all going to be exposed to this damn spike protein eventually, and the vaccine is by far the safer way. If it does do something bad, we haven't noticed it yet, which presumably means it can't be that bad. I haven't seen any reports of people getting long covid from a jab.
Goodness. Vaccine rates in the U.S. are stalling at 60%. Now the plan is to do booster shots after 8 months. What do you think is going to happen to those rates with the first booster? The second?
Vaccines are great. Therapies are also great. This is absolutely not wrong.
Vaccines are great. Therapies are also great. This is absolutely not wrong.
> Where's my cherry flavored Covidquil?
Where's my portable cold fusion generator?
Vaccines just fucking work right now. Much like wind and solar.
Effective antivirals are like thorium nukes and carbon capture. Very hard problems that nobody can adequately solve.
Where's my portable cold fusion generator?
Vaccines just fucking work right now. Much like wind and solar.
Effective antivirals are like thorium nukes and carbon capture. Very hard problems that nobody can adequately solve.
There were several prominent epidemiologists who said early on “Covid will end up like the flu, you’ll need a yearly vaccine, we’ll have new variants and we’ll get waves of infections through out the year”.
And here we are.
And here we are.
Except that it is still much more dangerous for unvaccinated people than the flu, which is an important distinction.
The original strain of the flu was also more deadly. But it eventually mutated and became less
With that high number of young people dying of the flu back then you may say that the host mutated and became less susceptible to the original strain of the flu.
Since SARS-CoV-2 seems to be especially dangerous for people after reproductive age I don‘t expect the same pressure as with flu. It may influence our inverted age pyramid, though. And it may have influence on the number of highly educated people >50 and older people with disposable income. (I belong in this group)
Since SARS-CoV-2 seems to be especially dangerous for people after reproductive age I don‘t expect the same pressure as with flu. It may influence our inverted age pyramid, though. And it may have influence on the number of highly educated people >50 and older people with disposable income. (I belong in this group)
I havent (needed) a flu shot in a couple decades.
I'm not interested in yearly jabs. Better to lose the waist inches and high BMI. Few want the self-responsibility of healthy living.
And I don't agree with headline of "grim", as it was obvious a year ago this was coming. Who lost any excess weight in the past year?
And I don't agree with headline of "grim", as it was obvious a year ago this was coming. Who lost any excess weight in the past year?
I live healthy. I built a home gym at the start of lockdown and have continued to train powerlifting and Olympic WL both throughout. I get my cardio in, I eat well. I didn't lose weight in the past year – I gained muscle, and my numbers are the best they've ever been.
I got both Pfizer/BNT shots as soon as I could, and I'll get the boosters as soon as I can too.
The belief that healthy living alone is enough to stymie a virus that we still understand relatively poorly is foolhardy. It's in the same category as juice cleanses and homeopathy as far as I'm concerned.
I got both Pfizer/BNT shots as soon as I could, and I'll get the boosters as soon as I can too.
The belief that healthy living alone is enough to stymie a virus that we still understand relatively poorly is foolhardy. It's in the same category as juice cleanses and homeopathy as far as I'm concerned.
As far as "belief" goes, you're the one on the side of belief here.
All the data and numbers show the risk is incredibly low for someone like you (provided you don't have an auto-immune disease)
All the data and numbers show the risk is incredibly low for someone like you (provided you don't have an auto-immune disease)
> As far as "belief" goes, you're the one on the side of belief here.
No.
We don't understand why COVID hits some people harder than others. We don't understand why some people end up with "long COVID" sequelae and some don't. I don't particularly want to roll those dice from immunological naivety.
The vaccines were free. The biggest risk I would have faced was myocarditis, and the risk even for that is higher from a COVID infection than from the mRNA vaccines.
Furthermore, getting vaccinated means that we all get back to a place where COVID is less of a big deal societally. While the data does show that vaccinated individuals can transmit Delta, it shows that they do so for a shorter period of time, and anything we can shave off of R0 is a good thing. Perfect, enemy of good, etc.
Getting vaccinated was close to no skin off my back. I had a sore arm for a few days. The payoff is that I reduce the (admittedly small) risk I did have, and I'm part of the herd boxing COVID in.
What's the downside?
No.
We don't understand why COVID hits some people harder than others. We don't understand why some people end up with "long COVID" sequelae and some don't. I don't particularly want to roll those dice from immunological naivety.
The vaccines were free. The biggest risk I would have faced was myocarditis, and the risk even for that is higher from a COVID infection than from the mRNA vaccines.
Furthermore, getting vaccinated means that we all get back to a place where COVID is less of a big deal societally. While the data does show that vaccinated individuals can transmit Delta, it shows that they do so for a shorter period of time, and anything we can shave off of R0 is a good thing. Perfect, enemy of good, etc.
Getting vaccinated was close to no skin off my back. I had a sore arm for a few days. The payoff is that I reduce the (admittedly small) risk I did have, and I'm part of the herd boxing COVID in.
What's the downside?
> What's the downside?
We don't know what we don't know. That's the downside. You've just taken an experimental drug which has yet to be approved by the FDA, and was designed using novel technology we haven't broadly tested on humans. What's more, the companies providing the shots cannot be held liable for these vaccines.
Who's to say we don't discover issues with mRNA delivery 5 years from now? That risk seems much higher to me than the risk of long COVID for individuals such as yourself (and me).
We don't know what we don't know. That's the downside. You've just taken an experimental drug which has yet to be approved by the FDA, and was designed using novel technology we haven't broadly tested on humans. What's more, the companies providing the shots cannot be held liable for these vaccines.
Who's to say we don't discover issues with mRNA delivery 5 years from now? That risk seems much higher to me than the risk of long COVID for individuals such as yourself (and me).
Covid19 already has well-known short- and mid-term downsides for >> 1% of grown-ups infected. The hard “downsides“ are so dangerous that we had trouble to properly treat the sick.
BNT/Pfizer has so little short- and mid-term downsides that it is difficult to properly spot them statistically, even after about a half billion vaccinations.
Both may have long-term downsides, but: all vaccinations we know didn‘t have any long term downsides. The problems were either visible immediately or they were relatively rare so that they were only detected after a significant number of people had been vaccinated. The downsides of Covid-19 are not rare compared to that, for any age. There is no reason to consider the vaccine more frightening than Covid19. On the other hand everything about the virus SARS-CoV-2 and the disease Covid-19 is experimental because this virus has not been tried on humans until now! The infection it causes is way more complex than the immune reaction BNT/Pfizer causes and it definitely would not have passed a phase-1 study.
If you are afraid of BNT you should basically panic about Covid-19.
BNT/Pfizer has so little short- and mid-term downsides that it is difficult to properly spot them statistically, even after about a half billion vaccinations.
Both may have long-term downsides, but: all vaccinations we know didn‘t have any long term downsides. The problems were either visible immediately or they were relatively rare so that they were only detected after a significant number of people had been vaccinated. The downsides of Covid-19 are not rare compared to that, for any age. There is no reason to consider the vaccine more frightening than Covid19. On the other hand everything about the virus SARS-CoV-2 and the disease Covid-19 is experimental because this virus has not been tried on humans until now! The infection it causes is way more complex than the immune reaction BNT/Pfizer causes and it definitely would not have passed a phase-1 study.
If you are afraid of BNT you should basically panic about Covid-19.
wrl(2)
"I'm part of the herd boxing COVID in."
The 'rona is in cats and deer, so it will be around for approximately forever. Vaccinated humans still get it and transmit it, though may have less severe symptoms. Will you please explain what you are boxing in?
The 'rona is in cats and deer, so it will be around for approximately forever. Vaccinated humans still get it and transmit it, though may have less severe symptoms. Will you please explain what you are boxing in?
I would love to see the "data" for incredible low risk? BTW low risk of hospitalization or long covid and brain fogs?
See this comment for my own personal risk: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28109526
(Slightly out of date as we've seen cases rise considerably since 8 days ago)
(Slightly out of date as we've seen cases rise considerably since 8 days ago)
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. Comorbidity is a fundamental driving factor in whether or not you survive this virus. We've not heard any recommendations from any health agency suggesting a healthier lifestyle would help - it most certainly would statistically speaking. And 18 months in I doubt we'll see anything like that because it has proven to not be politically expedient. (FWIW Ive been intermittent fasting with some pretty good success)
> We've not heard any recommendations from any health agency suggesting a healthier lifestyle would help - it most certainly would statistically speaking.
Would it? Do you have research on recent lifestyle changes and COVID?
Or are you just assuming that on-average stats relating to comorbities represent simple binary on-off switches?
Would it? Do you have research on recent lifestyle changes and COVID?
Or are you just assuming that on-average stats relating to comorbities represent simple binary on-off switches?
[deleted]
Is it mutating as fast as flu? The Delta variant was first identified in December of last year and is the main variant of concern still.
And then lots of people will have gotten sufficient protection against it from their first vaccination.
And then lots of people will have gotten sufficient protection against it from their first vaccination.
Is this necessarily a bad thing? If it protects the vast majoriy of people from going into the hospital and they gain additional immunity from covid, then I don't really see a downside.
The pretense all along as far as I can tell from most countries has been one of "zero COVID". Meaning a total removal/extermination of the virus. Whether or not this was ever realistic is really the underlying debate that hasn't yet fully surfaced.
Europeans learned to live with the bubonic plague, which has never been eradicated, and Native Americans, over time, overcame the smallpox that was introduced among them. The people of today can do the same with Covid. It is the only way.
The bubonic plague killed around a third of Europe (1) and upended the social order for generations (2).
Up to 90% of Native Americans died from smallpox and other imported diseases (3) and it's clear that their societies were in fact overcome.
They died a lot. To handwave "learn to live with" is naïve and facile. A virus can't care if we lose a double-digit percentage of population, but we're not choosing that course.
Don't mistake a disaster remembered 500 years later for "eh. it worked out ok" Don't confuse mass death with "learn to live with".
1) https://www.history.com/topics/middle-ages/black-death
2) https://www.britannica.com/event/Black-Death/Effects-and-sig...
3) https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-...
Up to 90% of Native Americans died from smallpox and other imported diseases (3) and it's clear that their societies were in fact overcome.
They died a lot. To handwave "learn to live with" is naïve and facile. A virus can't care if we lose a double-digit percentage of population, but we're not choosing that course.
Don't mistake a disaster remembered 500 years later for "eh. it worked out ok" Don't confuse mass death with "learn to live with".
1) https://www.history.com/topics/middle-ages/black-death
2) https://www.britannica.com/event/Black-Death/Effects-and-sig...
3) https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-...
COVID is not nearly as deadly and we know this after 18 months of living with it.
Please stop comparing the two.
Please stop comparing the two.
Your reply might be below the wrong comment? Grandparent post raised the topic.
Agreed. Events like this should remind us to not be so arrogant.
"The people of today can do the same with Covid."?
The plague wiped out 1/2 of Europeans and Smallpox maybe the majority of Aboriginals. Or something like that.
Yes, 'we can survive' I don't think anyone doubts that.
The question is, is it going to kill several million Americans or more during it's run.
Hopefully not but I'm also someone can show us what the light at the end of this tunnel looks like.
The plague wiped out 1/2 of Europeans and Smallpox maybe the majority of Aboriginals. Or something like that.
Yes, 'we can survive' I don't think anyone doubts that.
The question is, is it going to kill several million Americans or more during it's run.
Hopefully not but I'm also someone can show us what the light at the end of this tunnel looks like.
Covid has a below 1% case fatality rate. It is not going to ‘kill several million Americans’.
> Covid has a below 1% case fatality rate.
The US has 622K fatalities on 37M cases, which is a 1.68% CFR (and is an undercount, because some current cases that will be fatalities aren't yet.) Of course, CFR isn't a constant, it varies with current healthcare overload and the lethality of different strains, among other factors.
The US has 622K fatalities on 37M cases, which is a 1.68% CFR (and is an undercount, because some current cases that will be fatalities aren't yet.) Of course, CFR isn't a constant, it varies with current healthcare overload and the lethality of different strains, among other factors.
I love how now the fatalities are an undercount and the number of cases is a certainty so it fits this shoehorned argument.
In reality the fatalities are ‘people who died within a certain period after being tested positive’ and an enormous amount of cases without any symptoms go undetected.
In reality the fatalities are ‘people who died within a certain period after being tested positive’ and an enormous amount of cases without any symptoms go undetected.
> I love how now the fatalities are an undercount and the number of cases is a certainty so it fits this shoehorned argument.
Cases are a certainty basically by definition (now, if you want to do the usual thing and argue that we should look at IFR and not CFR, that’s a different story, but I’m not the one who introduced a false claim about CFR.)
> an enormous amount of cases without any symptoms go undetected.
By definition, if an infection goes undetected, its not a case.
Cases are a certainty basically by definition (now, if you want to do the usual thing and argue that we should look at IFR and not CFR, that’s a different story, but I’m not the one who introduced a false claim about CFR.)
> an enormous amount of cases without any symptoms go undetected.
By definition, if an infection goes undetected, its not a case.
Of course not that's my point - 'if' millions of Americans die, it's not really comforting to say 'oh we'll make it through'. Of course we'll make it through, that's not the issue.
The goal was to get as many people vaccinated first before being naturally exposed to the virus.
That should cut down the fatality rate, along with the rest of the lifelong damage the virus causes, by at least an order of magnitude.
The goal was also to avoid the hospital system and ICUs collapsing, which should be a natural result of everyone getting vaccinated.
Vaccine boosters yearly or every other year were also always discussed as early as March 2020 to deal either with waning immunity or reformulations to address antigenic escape.
That should cut down the fatality rate, along with the rest of the lifelong damage the virus causes, by at least an order of magnitude.
The goal was also to avoid the hospital system and ICUs collapsing, which should be a natural result of everyone getting vaccinated.
Vaccine boosters yearly or every other year were also always discussed as early as March 2020 to deal either with waning immunity or reformulations to address antigenic escape.
Of course it was realistic. China basically achieved it (I am not a China fan or defender), but the rest of the world failed. The whole world achieved it for the first SARS. However, that ship sailed a long time ago. Probably before the first surge in Italy of COVID-19.
You have a lot more faith in the data coming out of China than I do. The CCP has lied from the beginning and attempted (successfully in most cases) to silence the researchers from the Wuhan lab that attempted to report early on.
China didn’t really achieve Zero Covid if they exported it to the rest of the world. They may have stamped out some local outbreaks.
[deleted]
> China basically achieved it
No, it didn't.
> (I am not a China fan or defender)
Then why are you making B.S. “rah rah China” claims that even Chinese state media doesn't?
No, it didn't.
> (I am not a China fan or defender)
Then why are you making B.S. “rah rah China” claims that even Chinese state media doesn't?
I don't know who was saying this (I wasn't personally reading it), but it was obviously dumb.
The question really isn't whether vaccinated people get sick, or even whether they spread the virus, but whether they end up in the hospital. Right now, if you're vaccinated, you are extraordinarily unlikely to end up in the hospital.
The question really isn't whether vaccinated people get sick, or even whether they spread the virus, but whether they end up in the hospital. Right now, if you're vaccinated, you are extraordinarily unlikely to end up in the hospital.
That's the topic of the article. You are much less likely to end up in a hospital or ICU if you are vaccinated, but it won't be extraordinary, especially if you are old.
> What is clear is that “breakthrough” cases are not the rare events the term implies. As of 15 August, 514 Israelis were hospitalized with severe or critical COVID-19, a 31% increase from just 4 days earlier. Of the 514, 59% were fully vaccinated. Of the vaccinated, 87% were 60 or older.
> What is clear is that “breakthrough” cases are not the rare events the term implies. As of 15 August, 514 Israelis were hospitalized with severe or critical COVID-19, a 31% increase from just 4 days earlier. Of the 514, 59% were fully vaccinated. Of the vaccinated, 87% were 60 or older.
> > What is clear is that “breakthrough” cases are not the rare events the term implies. As of 15 August, 514 Israelis were hospitalized with severe or critical COVID-19, a 31% increase from just 4 days earlier. Of the 514, 59% were fully vaccinated. Of the vaccinated, 87% were 60 or older.
This is a bad interpretation by the article's author. At some point (at 100% vaccination rate) we'd expect 100% of people in hospital to be vaccinated.
Talking about "breakthrough" cases and how rare they are depends on the absolute number of infections. This article doesn't have that data but it does say this:
> Yet the country is now logging one of the world’s highest infection rates, with nearly 650 new cases daily per million people.
The population is 3.9m, so 2500 cases per day. According to https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/israel it is actually up to 6000 cases per day.
So there are probably 100K+ active cases. 303 (ie, 0.59 * 514) cases of vaccinated people is 0.26%. That's a pretty low rate.
This is a bad interpretation by the article's author. At some point (at 100% vaccination rate) we'd expect 100% of people in hospital to be vaccinated.
Talking about "breakthrough" cases and how rare they are depends on the absolute number of infections. This article doesn't have that data but it does say this:
> Yet the country is now logging one of the world’s highest infection rates, with nearly 650 new cases daily per million people.
The population is 3.9m, so 2500 cases per day. According to https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/israel it is actually up to 6000 cases per day.
So there are probably 100K+ active cases. 303 (ie, 0.59 * 514) cases of vaccinated people is 0.26%. That's a pretty low rate.
Not super important, but yesterday there were 8,646 new cases detected.
> The population is 3.9m, so 2500 cases per day. According to https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/israel it is actually up to 6000 cases per day.
The population is 9.3 million, so 650 cases/million is indeed about 6000 cases per day.
The population is 9.3 million, so 650 cases/million is indeed about 6000 cases per day.
Arhhh!
I swear it said 3.9M before, but maybe I'm wrong.
I swear it said 3.9M before, but maybe I'm wrong.
Regardless of the rate, the absolute number is staggeringly high. As you said, Israel has 303 fully vaccinated people hospitalized with severe or critical COVID-19. Adjusting for population, that's the equivalent of the US having 10,700 fully vaccinated people hospitalized at any one point, and that's just for critical and severe cases. If they all need ICU beds, that's like having 10 to 20% of America's ICU beds permanently occupied by Covid patients. It's still much better than the case without vaccines, but if these numbers are true, there is a lot of cause for concern.
Just noting that generally speaking severe COVID patients aren't in ICU now that treatment is better.
Indeed it is a lot, but it's comparable to the worst flu seasons. Exact numbers on ICU utilisation are hard to find, but US hospitals have struggled in the past:
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-flu-demand-2018...
https://www.healio.com/news/infectious-disease/20190205/bad-...
Indeed it is a lot, but it's comparable to the worst flu seasons. Exact numbers on ICU utilisation are hard to find, but US hospitals have struggled in the past:
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-flu-demand-2018...
https://www.healio.com/news/infectious-disease/20190205/bad-...
A less effective vaccination keeps COVID around longer and farther than a more effective one, though, giving the virus more time and population surface to mutate into further variants. (But still less than no vaccination.)
I'm not an expert in this, so I cannot say how significant that issue is, but this is at least one potential downside that I am seeing to the vaccination being weaker for that variant.
EDIT: To clarify since some have misunderstood: I did not assert that the vaccination causes higher mutation, quite the opposite. I asserted that the absence of vaccination (entirely or effectively) gives more opportunity for mutation. I understand now that there are higher order effects that make this more complex.
I'm not an expert in this, so I cannot say how significant that issue is, but this is at least one potential downside that I am seeing to the vaccination being weaker for that variant.
EDIT: To clarify since some have misunderstood: I did not assert that the vaccination causes higher mutation, quite the opposite. I asserted that the absence of vaccination (entirely or effectively) gives more opportunity for mutation. I understand now that there are higher order effects that make this more complex.
Is it analogous to flu? Do flu vaccines cause mutations as well?
One interesting thing about covid is that it seems to be the first time humanity has collected so much data (eg. contact tracing, phylogenetics through genome sequencing, etc.) about this kind of virus, and applied modern medical knowledge in trying to combat it.
It's very apparent that the overall response hasn't been nearly good enough, but it's probably also the best response there's ever been. (perhaps not the best ROI, though?)
One interesting thing about covid is that it seems to be the first time humanity has collected so much data (eg. contact tracing, phylogenetics through genome sequencing, etc.) about this kind of virus, and applied modern medical knowledge in trying to combat it.
It's very apparent that the overall response hasn't been nearly good enough, but it's probably also the best response there's ever been. (perhaps not the best ROI, though?)
> Do flu vaccines cause mutations as well?
That is not what I have written, please reread!
That is not what I have written, please reread!
That's a fair critique. I feel like I've heard concerns about the potential for the virus to mutate because of the high level of vaccinations, but like you, I don't know how significant of an issue that is.
What you've heard is misinformation. Vaccines reduce potential for mutation, which is both intuitive and borne out by data.
That's neither intuitive nor true in all cases.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-vaccines-can-drive-pathog...
https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-vaccines-can-drive-pathog...
I also have this concern. I haven’t seen it addressed anywhere and I am but a mere layperson.
I think the parent was talking about the lack of vaccinations yielding more time to mutate, not the vaccinations themselves. Viruses aren't like bacteria; they don't mutate in direct response to vaccines.
That is correct. My premise was that the more virus exists in absolute numbers (if the vaccine is weaker for the Delta variant), the more virus has the opportunity to mutate.
Just to clarify: That is not my concern.
addicted(2)
the fact that the delta variant came from a country that didn't have widespread vaccines dispels this notion.
Seems perfectly in line with what I said? More virus, more time to mutate -> more mutations?
I now understand that there are second order effects that make this more complex, but I don't see the contradiction right here.
I now understand that there are second order effects that make this more complex, but I don't see the contradiction right here.
I suppose either you edited it to change the text or the more likely event was that I misread it. yeah you're mostly correct and there are those second order effects too.
It's going to mutate regardless of how many people are vaccinated. The entire point is to make it so that people don't have the runaway immune system responses that are melting lungs and brains.
The likelihood of mutation is directly proportional to how widespread a virus is multiplied by the amount of time it stays that way (more specifically, the area under the curve for infections over time). Vaccination and control of spread is critical to preventing further variants
Doesn't this mostly depend on 3 things?
1. Likelihood of breakthrough infections.
2. Mutation rate.
3. Initial volume of infections.
For instance, if the likelihood of breakthrough infections is low enough to overcome the reproduction rate, the mutation rate is slow enough, and the initial volume of infections low enough, you'd expect that the virus would die out if enough people have had the vaccine, right?
On the other hand, if the likelihood of breakthrough infections were high, mutation rate were high, initial volume of infections high, makes sense that you would expect to see ongoing mutation.
Another way I think this might go is that mutations happen & breakthrough infections happen, but the breakthrough infections further boost immunity, and the severity never re-approaches the original severity of covid.
1. Likelihood of breakthrough infections.
2. Mutation rate.
3. Initial volume of infections.
For instance, if the likelihood of breakthrough infections is low enough to overcome the reproduction rate, the mutation rate is slow enough, and the initial volume of infections low enough, you'd expect that the virus would die out if enough people have had the vaccine, right?
On the other hand, if the likelihood of breakthrough infections were high, mutation rate were high, initial volume of infections high, makes sense that you would expect to see ongoing mutation.
Another way I think this might go is that mutations happen & breakthrough infections happen, but the breakthrough infections further boost immunity, and the severity never re-approaches the original severity of covid.
This isn't really true. For instance, it's been shown that mutations are far more common in immunocompromised people (many of whom cannot even take the vaccines) where the virus can just camp out for months and train itself against the human immune system. So one particular host might serve as a more fertile environment for variants than thousands of others combined.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/03/11/immunocompr...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/03/11/immunocompr...
Likehood of mutation might be, but spread of variants is a more complicated function. Vaccination for sure might affect how likely one variant predominates against others.
Considering cross-immunization between variants with natural immunity, it might be more efficient to refrain from vaccines to give cross-immunity with a weaker variant.
Considering cross-immunization between variants with natural immunity, it might be more efficient to refrain from vaccines to give cross-immunity with a weaker variant.
Only if you ignore the fact that viruses compete for hosts.
Is that true? Intuitively, the more virus exists (in absolute numbers, even), the more virus may potentially mutate into worse variants. More infected people -> more individual virus instances, each with a given chance to mutate, and more time for that mutation to occur (because expired virus is replenished with fresh virus in available hosts; though you can probably fold this into higher virus numbers instead with the same result).
I'm gladly corrected if I missed something!
I'm gladly corrected if I missed something!
Variant that achieve immune escape from vaccine-induced immunity are bound to propagate at a faster rate if most people are vaccinated.
Even if that variant is more lethal (from which you might expect a smaller R0), it might be prevalent because of an augmentation in R0 from vaccination (which might be lesser had people developed a more complete natural immunity).
Even if that variant is more lethal (from which you might expect a smaller R0), it might be prevalent because of an augmentation in R0 from vaccination (which might be lesser had people developed a more complete natural immunity).
People are still dying from breakthrough cases. Children (w/o vaccine) are dying of delta. Not to go full scaremonger but we don't know that much about long covid at this point. Plus the CDC admits that there is likely an undercount of people who got COVID post-vaccination https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/bre...
It's an "ounce of prevention, pound of cure" type of situation
It's an "ounce of prevention, pound of cure" type of situation
>Children (w/o vaccine) are dying of delta
The number of children who are dying of covid has been ridiculously low for a virus that spreads so easily. Hasn't covid deaths for children under the age of 12 been under 1000 since the pandemic started?
The number of children who are dying of covid has been ridiculously low for a virus that spreads so easily. Hasn't covid deaths for children under the age of 12 been under 1000 since the pandemic started?
It’s even lower if you factor in that the vast majority of those that died had existing underlying health issues.
The level of social isolation the elderly have unilaterally imposed on the youth is a travesty.
The level of social isolation the elderly have unilaterally imposed on the youth is a travesty.
It's not the elderly that have been imposing isolation, they have all been sent to long term care homes to die.
Our leaders however are not letting this crisis go to waste.
Our leaders however are not letting this crisis go to waste.
Is this not a bit confused? The children being referred to would need supervision wouldn't they? They are also totally capable at spreading it to older people.
I find a lot of the discourse / antilockdown sentiment to be really confusing.
I understand lockdowns are a bad experience but are we not agreed that they save lives, and the quality of life (long covid)?
I find a lot of the discourse / antilockdown sentiment to be really confusing.
I understand lockdowns are a bad experience but are we not agreed that they save lives, and the quality of life (long covid)?
Yes, the old and sick are the real people at risk.
Long COVID and the unknowns around that are why my wife and me have become very careful again despite having received both shots. It's good that the vaccine apparently means that less people will die, but avoiding to live with, for example, brain fog for an unknown (possibly lifelong) amount of time seems worth the precautions.
> Not to go full scaremonger but we don't know that much about long covid at this point.
My sister had a very mild case of Covid last year after lockdowns started lifting and she went to the hairdresser (masked, obviously not vaccinated). She had the telltale loss of taste, but really no other symptom, and she recovered.
I saw her yesterday in person for the first time in a number of months and she looked so skinny I had to say something, it was worrying to me. She told me she has trouble eating anymore because everything tastes like shit. She says that things she used to love now taste the way cigarettes smell, and she simply can't stomach it.
Her words: "People need to realize that even if you don't die from Covid, it can change your life. I wish I never got this."
My sister had a very mild case of Covid last year after lockdowns started lifting and she went to the hairdresser (masked, obviously not vaccinated). She had the telltale loss of taste, but really no other symptom, and she recovered.
I saw her yesterday in person for the first time in a number of months and she looked so skinny I had to say something, it was worrying to me. She told me she has trouble eating anymore because everything tastes like shit. She says that things she used to love now taste the way cigarettes smell, and she simply can't stomach it.
Her words: "People need to realize that even if you don't die from Covid, it can change your life. I wish I never got this."
Well, that proves it! Infinite quarantine it is!
Every human that ever lives will die someday. A good life involves a prudent balancing of risks and costs. Nobody alive can ever be 100% safe before or after the advent of covid. Covid maybe a good thing if it forces mature adults to deal with their inevitable mortality like mature adults. Instead we have been seeing pervasive infantilisation of society. Safety has a cost. The world is not black and white. Disclaimer: the above is my opinion. Not flaming.
Well let's talk about infantilization then: I don't mind fearing or being at peace with death. Our society could use that.
It's just that we're in a global plague right now and a large chunk of people just want to do whatever they want no matter if others are affected by their actions. Basically a stage of development such as children before they realize others are also people. It's like ten people walking a tightrope and the last one is jumping up and down. A non-infantilized society is one where we can expect everyone to be a grownup and avoid the bad quadrant of the prisoner's dilemma, and guess what? We've found out that you get an infantile society if people are just asked nicely
It's just that we're in a global plague right now and a large chunk of people just want to do whatever they want no matter if others are affected by their actions. Basically a stage of development such as children before they realize others are also people. It's like ten people walking a tightrope and the last one is jumping up and down. A non-infantilized society is one where we can expect everyone to be a grownup and avoid the bad quadrant of the prisoner's dilemma, and guess what? We've found out that you get an infantile society if people are just asked nicely
I would respectfully submit
that the death rate of covid does not justify the scale of the response. It is unreasonable to shut down society for a disease whose median age victim is about 80 and whose whole population case fatality rate is in the low single digit percent at worse.
The elderly and well off want to minimize their risk at the expense of the young and the poor. Who do you think delivered your Amazon packages while you worked from home?
At both extremes a part of the population is unwilling to compromise and is willing to force another part to pay for their "freedom." In my opinion the yuppies obessively using instacart and Amazon are just as selfish as the Trump supporters and rednecks who may have denied covid existed. Both groups want what they want the cost be damned.
The elderly and well off want to minimize their risk at the expense of the young and the poor. Who do you think delivered your Amazon packages while you worked from home?
At both extremes a part of the population is unwilling to compromise and is willing to force another part to pay for their "freedom." In my opinion the yuppies obessively using instacart and Amazon are just as selfish as the Trump supporters and rednecks who may have denied covid existed. Both groups want what they want the cost be damned.
Wuhan has been reopened for a long time now. We had every piece of information to make a good decision at the time in February 2020. Now we are thrashed about in a sea of half-measures, societal tension, and the total closing up of public life. We were so lost even by the time the CDC was encouraging people to not wear masks because it'll give you higher risk of contracting covid. Now our future's truly new.
Actually large sections of China are being locked back down again as they contend with new outbreaks. The whole concept of the Immaculate Covid Response has aged terribly as one "did it right" country after another either has had major outbreaks (Japan) or resorted to completely draconian and even militarized responses (Australia, NZ) to keep the spread down.
Things have only gone this way recently because of the delta variant, if all countries had taken the virus as seriously as those countries the delta variant probably wouldn’t exist and these countries would now be able to effectively vaccinate their populations.
Yep, new variants are always the excuse. These perfectly designed and implemented "public health" measures would have worked to eliminate the virus if only India had put itself into a nationwide lockdown -- it might have caused tens of thousands to starve but we're just going to assume it somehow would have prevented the Delta variant from coming into existence!
[deleted]
What death rate would cause you to reconsider a lockdown?
Why would the onus work that way? What death rate do you think government should start restrictions at? Driving? Eating certain things? Smoking? The mental health fallout from living as some technocrat wants you to?
Smoking is a good example. My country has quite bad COVID numbers both in number of cases and deaths. Yet: in one and a half years of pandemic fewer than 4500 people died from COVID.
About 6000 die each year from smoking-related diseases. You all probably know how different government takes on these issues are.
I think that the reaction we've seen was inevitable. It's less about covid in particular and more that (and I don't know a diplomatic way to say it) there was a risk averse, authoritarian, nanny-state, "we need to save people from themselves" advocate group waiting in the wings that just needed their cue to for the balance of power to shift and their views to be prioritized.
To be clear, I don't mean some coordinated cabal, I just mean that society's views have drifted that way, we haven't had anything bad happen for years, the significance of individual freedom has been forgotten, we're well into turning on ourselves anyway. And so now with a push, there is a new majority, and we're seeing politicians take advantage of strong views and fall in line to represent them, disregarding safeguards and norms that we previously had in place but were not updated to contemplate something like this.
And now viewpoints that would have been intolerant and completely out of line with western democracy, and ridiculed as some mid 20th century authoritarianism are suddenly applauded all over social media.
To be clear, I don't mean some coordinated cabal, I just mean that society's views have drifted that way, we haven't had anything bad happen for years, the significance of individual freedom has been forgotten, we're well into turning on ourselves anyway. And so now with a push, there is a new majority, and we're seeing politicians take advantage of strong views and fall in line to represent them, disregarding safeguards and norms that we previously had in place but were not updated to contemplate something like this.
And now viewpoints that would have been intolerant and completely out of line with western democracy, and ridiculed as some mid 20th century authoritarianism are suddenly applauded all over social media.
Natural immunity also blunts delta but isn’t talked about in this article. I don’t understand why both can’t be allowed to work.
There seems to be some evidence that having a longer duration between the first and second doses provides better long-term protection, i.e. gaps of 7+ weeks, compared to the 3+ weeks the US and Israel have generally done.
NZ is currently thinking about increasing the gap to > 6 weeks because of this.
I wonder how much that would affect things.
NZ is currently thinking about increasing the gap to > 6 weeks because of this.
I wonder how much that would affect things.
I heard that as well. My feeling is that with all the treatments we are deploying against the virus, one thing we are doing is creating a selective pressure, forcing it to evolve to promote more resistant and transmissible variants. Whether those transmissible variants also contain higher mortality might be a crapshoot game of chance, but I don't hear this sort of idea spouted a lot and I think it's worth considering. It might be similar to the way that antibiotics have helped select for 'treatment-resistant' 'superbugs'.
Vaccines are very different from antibiotics. Antibiotics are single molecules that bind a very specific target. A single mutation of a single protein can render an antibiotic useless. Vaccines induce the immune system to generate a repertoire of antibodies, each of which binds in a different way and each of which is then selected and "evolved" (hypermutation) for increased efficacy. And each individual person creates a different starting and ending repertoire of antibodies. A single mutation, or even a large group of mutations, does not so easily side step all this diversity of antibody types/binding modes. Moreover, we have evidence that the idea that vaccines increase the likelihood of variants is just wrong. We do not see that effect for mumps, polio, smallpox, or any other virus. Moreover, delta appears to have arisen in India, which at the time had vaccination rates very close to zero. Again, providing strong evidence that vaccines are not applying selective pressure for more virulent strains.
That's interesting. it's a good argument. Maybe vaccines are the answer. But I don't think we can rule it out and say it's 'just wrong' tho right?
The delta and lambda variants emerged, and they were both more transmissible, and more vaccine resistant, is that right? I mean, why do you need to evolve vaccine resistance and transmissibility at the same time? Seems weird, and given the 'shotgun' quality of antibodies across individual and population, particularly so.
Which lets me feel that we are applying some selective pressure with vaccines. Compared to the other virus mentioned, what's different is the scale and rate of vaccine roll out here is unprecedentedly greater. Maybe in the previous cases our immune system had already evolved stronger defenses by the time the vaccines were given, 'patching more holes in the dam' so to speak.
The delta and lambda variants emerged, and they were both more transmissible, and more vaccine resistant, is that right? I mean, why do you need to evolve vaccine resistance and transmissibility at the same time? Seems weird, and given the 'shotgun' quality of antibodies across individual and population, particularly so.
Which lets me feel that we are applying some selective pressure with vaccines. Compared to the other virus mentioned, what's different is the scale and rate of vaccine roll out here is unprecedentedly greater. Maybe in the previous cases our immune system had already evolved stronger defenses by the time the vaccines were given, 'patching more holes in the dam' so to speak.
> Moreover, delta appears to have arisen in India, which at the time had vaccination rates very close to zero.
For the sake of clarity, the first viral genome of B.1.617 (eventually named Delta) was identified by India's variant tracking program on October 5, 2020, long before any vaccines were approved. India's case load was also quite low at this point, and the initial lockdown was being slowly rolled back.
For the sake of clarity, the first viral genome of B.1.617 (eventually named Delta) was identified by India's variant tracking program on October 5, 2020, long before any vaccines were approved. India's case load was also quite low at this point, and the initial lockdown was being slowly rolled back.
Increased transmission is worse than increased fatality rate, counterintuitively, as it's the same percentage deaths of a much much higher number infected - resulting in higher numbers of absolute deaths than if the CFR increased without an increase of transmissibility.
Ah, that's a great and simple and direct explanation of that. Thanks, I'm gonna try to remember that.
The bottom line is, it's that after second vaccination amount of antibodies start to decline and at some point of time efficiency of vaccination going down with it.
The "better" long term protection by longer gap between doses probably just buys extra couple of months or so of good efficiency at cost of lowered between two shots
Yet you will have a period of time where the person that waits for second dose would have an increased risk compared to normally schedule one.
Isn't that kind of true even for the earlier variants? I personally know fully vaccinated people who got infected. Their symptoms were mild, and recovery was smooth. So yes, vaccination "blunted" but didn't defeat.
One thing to ponder is that Israel used Pfizer and apparently Moderna, has a significantly better protection against Delta.
That has not been established. You are referring to a preliminary study that has not been peer reviewed. See:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
Vaccination doesn't "defeat" regular COVID as well (right?).
You can still get COVID when vaccinated. The symptoms you get are less intense, and therefore transmission is less likely (though definitely still possible).
You can still get COVID when vaccinated. The symptoms you get are less intense, and therefore transmission is less likely (though definitely still possible).
I wonder what is the mutation mode of viruses regarding vaccines? Does harsher environment (more people with immunity) spur mutation, or is mutation frequency correlating with number of infected people?
The latter. Vaccines just affect the pathway variants take, but not the rate at which they mutate (they aren't bacteria and other life forms). And argument can be made that the vaccines create pathways to variants that wouldn't have been as viable without the existence of the vaccine, but that's relatively academic. A large population is what increases variant creation.
Argh, this news is so exhausting it’s almost unbearable :(
It is very refreshing to talk to them because they, being good doctors, deal calmly and reasonably with probabilities rather than absolutes.
Very early, even before general public could get vaccines, all 3 of them told me to expect something like that - the virus mutates, it is expected to develop, the mutation for reproductive number going up is likely to occur - and it did - and the vaccines will likely be needing to adjust.
Even the highest levels of vaccination are no protection, and I am pretty tiny Israel in a sea of the largely unvaccinated is going to be swamped.