Israel’s Covid-19 boosters are preventing infections, new studies suggest(science.org)
science.org
Israel’s Covid-19 boosters are preventing infections, new studies suggest
https://www.science.org/content/article/israel-s-covid-19-boosters-are-preventing-infections-new-studies-suggest
353 comments
> Do weird plaques develop
> build-up of antibodies begin to form in random parts of the body
Real curious: do these things exist in the first place ? Plaques of what ? Where in the body ?
I've never heard of antibody build up and google neither apparently
> build-up of antibodies begin to form in random parts of the body
Real curious: do these things exist in the first place ? Plaques of what ? Where in the body ?
I've never heard of antibody build up and google neither apparently
The thing that comes to mind are leukaemia cutis, cutaneous b-cell lymphoma and POEMS syndrome.
(1) https://dermnetnz.org/topics/skin-manifestations-of-haematol...
(1) https://dermnetnz.org/topics/skin-manifestations-of-haematol...
Annual flu jabs aren't exactly uncommon. Obviously the mechanism isn't quite the same but there's no real reason to expect a high chance of issues at that rate of revaccination.
I wouldn't exactly call a comparison between gene therapy "isn't quite the same".
Flu shots contain inactivated/weakened flu virus (depending on the version), to the presence of which/antigens the body reacts by creating antibodies.
RNA vaccines are a different technology, which transfect (reprogram in IT speak) your own cells to produce spike proteins similar to the ones sars-cov-2 does (the consensus seems to be that this spike variant is, unlike the real one, harmless and is not free floating) which are then detected by the the body and antibodies are created.
The result is esentially the same, but the way you get there contains an extra step and it is this extra step that is the source of the vast majority of (rare) adverse reactions. Blood clots etc.
The ironic thing is that most people who are very strongly opinionated on this (both sides) have no idea what the actual difference is and blindly trust whatever either the government or a local anti-vax facebook group tells them.
Flu shots contain inactivated/weakened flu virus (depending on the version), to the presence of which/antigens the body reacts by creating antibodies.
RNA vaccines are a different technology, which transfect (reprogram in IT speak) your own cells to produce spike proteins similar to the ones sars-cov-2 does (the consensus seems to be that this spike variant is, unlike the real one, harmless and is not free floating) which are then detected by the the body and antibodies are created.
The result is esentially the same, but the way you get there contains an extra step and it is this extra step that is the source of the vast majority of (rare) adverse reactions. Blood clots etc.
The ironic thing is that most people who are very strongly opinionated on this (both sides) have no idea what the actual difference is and blindly trust whatever either the government or a local anti-vax facebook group tells them.
> The result is esentially the same, but the way you get there contains an extra step and it is this extra step that is the source of the vast majority of (rare) adverse reactions. Blood clots etc.
The blood clotting issue was found in the Adenovirus vector vaccines, not the mRNA vaccines.
The blood clotting issue was found in the Adenovirus vector vaccines, not the mRNA vaccines.
>your own cells to produce spike proteins similar to the ones sars-cov-2 does
Does this destroy the cell used to make the spike proteins? Or does your immune system destroy the cells that made spike proteins?
Does this destroy the cell used to make the spike proteins? Or does your immune system destroy the cells that made spike proteins?
No, it doesn’t work like that mRNA isn’t a virus or virus like it doesn’t hijacks the cell. The mRNA fragments are picked up by dendritic cells and antigens are produced. The antigens (and the mRNA itself) are then attacked by special proteins within your cells that are designed to destroy foreign or malformed proteins and the fragments of those destroyed antigens are then presented in the cell membrane for T and B cells to inspect and produce antibodies against.
That’s not how mRNA vaccines work.
mRNA isn’t gene therapy, it induces cells primarily the dendritic cells of your immune system to produce antigens and their antibodies.
Dendritic cells are essentially your body’s CSI they roam around Hoovering stuff that is floating in your body and analyzing it.
The mRNA is picked up through phagocytosis, is decoded by the ribosome and the cell begins to produce antigens.
The cells in your body then attack the antigens with proteasomes, once the antigens are broken down they’ll be presented in the cell membrane of the dendritic cells for other immune cells to sample and produce antibodies for.
This is really not that different than how deactivated virus or protein based vaccines work, dendritic cells swallow them up analyze them, break down the antigens and present the evidence to the “cops” that then go and hunt down the baddies…
The mRNA vaccine doesn’t hijacks the cells of your body in the same way as viruses do, it doesn’t interact with your DNA or nucleus the same way that retroviruses or well actual gene therapy do.
I really don’t understand why you are spreading this misinformation.
mRNA isn’t gene therapy, it induces cells primarily the dendritic cells of your immune system to produce antigens and their antibodies.
Dendritic cells are essentially your body’s CSI they roam around Hoovering stuff that is floating in your body and analyzing it.
The mRNA is picked up through phagocytosis, is decoded by the ribosome and the cell begins to produce antigens.
The cells in your body then attack the antigens with proteasomes, once the antigens are broken down they’ll be presented in the cell membrane of the dendritic cells for other immune cells to sample and produce antibodies for.
This is really not that different than how deactivated virus or protein based vaccines work, dendritic cells swallow them up analyze them, break down the antigens and present the evidence to the “cops” that then go and hunt down the baddies…
The mRNA vaccine doesn’t hijacks the cells of your body in the same way as viruses do, it doesn’t interact with your DNA or nucleus the same way that retroviruses or well actual gene therapy do.
I really don’t understand why you are spreading this misinformation.
A lot of people get a flu shot every year so on the level of abstraction of "a vaccine" it's not that big of a problem. These vaccines are slightly more side effecty than the average flu shot (flu shots don't usually make you feel as bad for the day or two after the shot) so who knows.
I've never felt weird after a flu shot other than slight pain in my arm. Each shot of moderna knocked me the f out in horrible ways. My pfizerwife was fine.
There's also variation from person to person and season to season in flu vaccine side effects, but the covid vaccine seems to be giving the two-day knockout a little more often. Maybe in 2025 we'll start getting specific figures. There does not seem to be a lot of desire to carefully quantify non life-threatening side effects, which is kind of understandable given the limited resources of regulatory agencies and the incentives of pharmaceuticals, but I would like to live in a scientific world where that kind of data was always collected, if for no other reason than that it would remove the element of trusting the system to act reasonably from medical decisionmaking.
Anecdotally when I took a flu shot years ago I was knocked out for a day.
It's not unusual to get very large numbers of lifetime doses of flu vaccines, and people frequently get quite a few doses of the tetanus vaccine. As far as I know, nothing goes wrong, although I've heard that side effects from tetanus vaccines are more likely if doses are administered too close together.
Vaccination of the population affects how the virus mutate, that's why some scientist are pushing for more research on viral medicine and hospitalization therapy and not to force vaccinate the world.
It's still an evolving process so we will find out the numbers soon.
It's still an evolving process so we will find out the numbers soon.
[deleted]
I'm not an expert, but my intuition is that it shouldn't be a big deal since vaccines are meant to start your body's response to a pathogen. I'm sure we build antibodies to all kind of weak baby viruses all the time throughout our lives without even knowing it.
Assuming it's only as effective as the original two-dose shot and prevents for the same duration, it seems like COVID will never go away. Assuming the current trend and a 9 month prevention, that pretty much aligns to what happened last year. So we'd need no new significant variants to develop or any outbreaks. Seems unlikely given that there are many countries with vaccination rates under 50%
Probably better to focus on the minimum number of vaccinations necessary to make hospitalization/death unlikely and move on from there. Preventing infection might be too high a bar to meet now.
Probably better to focus on the minimum number of vaccinations necessary to make hospitalization/death unlikely and move on from there. Preventing infection might be too high a bar to meet now.
[edit] this is in response to the earlier version of your post where you wonder if the virus will ever go away:
That I think is a given. Even if we had a bullet proof vaccine, you have such a large reserve of unvaccinated people across the world, plus animals, that the virus is endemic at this stage.
Which isn't a problem. If once vaccinated the virus is mostly harmless, then it is just one more of the many endemic diseases we live with without worrying about.
That I think is a given. Even if we had a bullet proof vaccine, you have such a large reserve of unvaccinated people across the world, plus animals, that the virus is endemic at this stage.
Which isn't a problem. If once vaccinated the virus is mostly harmless, then it is just one more of the many endemic diseases we live with without worrying about.
We might also see the first batch of medicines appear in 2022, if we can successfully prevent ICU visits with effective medicines for starters, that would mean a lot to healthcare professionals worldwide.
Is there any actual development here? It's definitely not a given that we can do this.
There actually is!
Two studies in Brazil have shown a pretty significant reduction in hospitalizations in a RCT of fluvoxamine. More data obviously required.
Plus there has been more work on other treatments, but most are pretty expensive.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22619137/fluvoxamine-covi...
Two studies in Brazil have shown a pretty significant reduction in hospitalizations in a RCT of fluvoxamine. More data obviously required.
Plus there has been more work on other treatments, but most are pretty expensive.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22619137/fluvoxamine-covi...
While obviously complicated, Pfizer is working on a promising medication and I know of a dutch trial using antibodies that’s starting a next phase.
I am not a virologist, but based on my reading, in 100 years COVID will still be with us. At worst it will be the flu, and at best it will be just another strain of a cold.
COVID has the very helpful quality of being least impactful on the very young. As new children are born they will be exposed to COVID multiple times over their lives, to the point when they are at ages we now consider vulnerable, they likely will have developed as much resistance as one can have.
COVID has the very helpful quality of being least impactful on the very young. As new children are born they will be exposed to COVID multiple times over their lives, to the point when they are at ages we now consider vulnerable, they likely will have developed as much resistance as one can have.
loceng(1)
"If once vaccinated the virus is mostly harmless"
Note that even not vaccinated, the ultra large majority of people either are asymptomatic or don't get anything worst than a flu (which doesn't mean covid = flu in general)
We seem to have forgotten that the original concern with the virus was the fact that it saturated intensive care units in hospitals, and thus prevented people from getting proper care.
Note that even not vaccinated, the ultra large majority of people either are asymptomatic or don't get anything worst than a flu (which doesn't mean covid = flu in general)
We seem to have forgotten that the original concern with the virus was the fact that it saturated intensive care units in hospitals, and thus prevented people from getting proper care.
Which, unfortunately, is still relevant - as seen in Louisiana and Florida. A frank and honest admission by one of the physicians on Reddit was that most people who stay in ventilator for weeks have no path to recovery but families don’t let them go. Essentially COVID patients hold up the beds for a long time as well.
That’s the original acute concern. Long run we still don’t know if it will have effects on brain function etc. There are some disturbing lines of evidence on this front. For example the UK biobank showing grey matter loss post infection including in mild cases:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.11.21258690v...
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.11.21258690v...
i remember this study, but i'm surprised we don't have more papers on the same topic since. It seemed like a pretty big news, and yet i don't hear people recommending mass-vaccination mention it.
Any idea why ?
Any idea why ?
[deleted]
I recommend mass vax and this point is one of the main points I use. But I agree with you that sadly, this danger is not well known.
My guess is it takes a while to do this sort of study. UK biobank was unusual in having such a large database of scans.
Vaccination should reduce the risks. But there was a nurses study that 19% of the breakthrough cases had lasting effects. So I would not expect vaccination to eliminate the risk if a breakthrough happens.
Vaccination should reduce the risks. But there was a nurses study that 19% of the breakthrough cases had lasting effects. So I would not expect vaccination to eliminate the risk if a breakthrough happens.
In places with high vaccination rates, to some extent, tracking new cases as positive test rates is fighting the last war.
>Which isn't a problem. If once vaccinated the virus is mostly harmless, then it is just one more of the many endemic diseases we live with without worrying about.
It's a problem if you're one of the many people who, for whatever reason, can't be safely vaccinated.
It's a problem if you're one of the many people who, for whatever reason, can't be safely vaccinated.
Is there any reason not to increase vaccine production rates so we have the capacity to vaccinate the world population faster than every 9 months?
nope - as you allude to, ideally we could spit out these vaccines and just give people 6-month boosters until everyone is vaccinated and we're good.
I believe the issue is that too many people fail to get vaccinated so it's challenging. Requiring boosters might also convert small numbers of people who got a vaccine one to not get it subsequent times.
I believe the issue is that too many people fail to get vaccinated so it's challenging. Requiring boosters might also convert small numbers of people who got a vaccine one to not get it subsequent times.
In the first world there is an issue of take up. But around much of the rest of the world, the issues is they haven’t received nearly enough vaccine.
If we don’t significantly vaccinate much of the rest of the world, my expectation is a continued high rate of variant creation as well as continued economic instability due to logistics disruption.
If we don’t significantly vaccinate much of the rest of the world, my expectation is a continued high rate of variant creation as well as continued economic instability due to logistics disruption.
[deleted]
> Is there any reason not to increase vaccine production rates
Intellectual property rights.
It's not a "good" reason. But it's a reality that needs to be overcome.
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
https://www.democracynow.org/2021/6/22/headlines/south_afric...
Germany doesn't want the Pfizer vaccine made freely: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
and by some co-incidence, this is good for German money: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-economy-biontech-...
Intellectual property rights.
It's not a "good" reason. But it's a reality that needs to be overcome.
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
https://www.democracynow.org/2021/6/22/headlines/south_afric...
Germany doesn't want the Pfizer vaccine made freely: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
and by some co-incidence, this is good for German money: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-economy-biontech-...
[deleted](1)
> Is there any reason not to increase vaccine production rates so we have the capacity to vaccinate the world population faster than every 9 months?
Capital constraints. Most specifically, human capital. mRNA production methods, including for critical precursors, are complicated. There is a limited number of people who can build and monitor the productions systems.
Capital constraints. Most specifically, human capital. mRNA production methods, including for critical precursors, are complicated. There is a limited number of people who can build and monitor the productions systems.
There are countries filled with idiots,like my lovely Romania where 70% of people don't want to get vaccinated, and we have to sell/donate millions and millions of doses.
Well, that's only partially true. Romania has preordered 120M doses for (at best) 15M eligible people. So either way, we'll have to donate tens of millions of doses.
The Irish population (including myself) are very grateful for this :) Kinda sucks for Romania though.
A few vaccines are 3 doses at 0,1,6-12 months and offer a decade of protection if you don't miss the last dose..
wow, wasn't aware of this development. which COVID vaccine is this? is it one of the nasal ones?
I think they're saying that other vaccines, not COVID vaccines, have this property. We can't assess decadal resistance yet for COVID vaccines.
If so, I'm not sure how that's relevant to COVID at the present. Per the article we're discussing it's unclear how long a 3rd dose will be effective for, hence my comment to begin with.
If we were to pre-suppose you gain a decade of prevention then yeah, that'd be great.
If we were to pre-suppose you gain a decade of prevention then yeah, that'd be great.
We don't know how the protections in the current vaccines are going to play out until we investigate them more.
Agreed, but we already know how 2-dose plays out with respect to Delta. The article in question is investigating how a 3rd dose fares against delta. There are also delta-specific boosters coming out soon.
I think they're saying that we can hope that three shots gives long term resistance, as it happens for other vaccines. We can only hope, and it's not a totally unrealistic hope given how other vaccines work.
What are these other vaccines? are the vaccinations for other coronaviruses? I'm not a biologist so I'm not seeing the connection. Is there reason to believe adding more doses would make the prevention jump from less than a year to a decade?
You can see the recommended vaccine schedule here. Several include 3+ doses.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolesc...
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolesc...
I'm aware of the 3 dose vaccines - what I'm asking is if there's any connection between the duration and the type of vaccine and the type of underlying virus.
The flu, for example as existed longer than COVID and we do not have a "3 dose" vaccine that prevents the flu for a decade. Why would we expect this for COVID as opposed to an annual booster?
The flu, for example as existed longer than COVID and we do not have a "3 dose" vaccine that prevents the flu for a decade. Why would we expect this for COVID as opposed to an annual booster?
HPV is a 3-dose vaccination in most cases. I believe Hep A and Hep B vaccines also have 3-dose versions, but I'm not sure if the 2 or 3 dose schedule is standard.
this wouldn't be covid-19 vaccine, rather a vaccine for another disease. We absolutely do not have any data on the efficacy of any covid-19 vaccine after a decade (or more than 18 months or so) yet.
I assume this is snark, but misguided if so. I believe the parent comment was simply stating there are some vaccines generally with this trait, so perhaps the covid vaccines would similarly improve from a 3rd dose
it was an honest question. what about it came across as snarky?
Expecting that we would be aware of vaccines that provide a decade long protection against a disease that has been around for less than 3 years. I mean we could have those vaccines already, but we couldn't possibly know that we have them until they've been around for a decade or more.
Per the article we already know 3-dose of Pfizer does not offer a decade of prevention. What the article states is that it offers a level of protection similar to when one first completes the two-dose regimen, so we don't have to wait a decade to know.
All we know is that an additional dose does increase your protection, but it doesn't necessarily give you a decade of protection since there were people who got the 3rd dose and still got COVID.
All we know is that an additional dose does increase your protection, but it doesn't necessarily give you a decade of protection since there were people who got the 3rd dose and still got COVID.
> All we know is that an additional dose does increase your protection, but it doesn't necessarily give you a decade of protection since there were people who got the 3rd dose and still got COVID.
That doesn't mean anything regarding protection longevity. There will always be instances of individuals who fail to receive immune protection from a vaccine. The vast majority of people could potentially receive years of protection with a 3rd dose, while a small group doesn't get any protection at all. That isn't specific to covid.
That doesn't mean anything regarding protection longevity. There will always be instances of individuals who fail to receive immune protection from a vaccine. The vast majority of people could potentially receive years of protection with a 3rd dose, while a small group doesn't get any protection at all. That isn't specific to covid.
Sure, but if you like at the data in the article it's virtually identical to the 2nd dose data.
It's why I'm more interested in companies that can treat the symptoms effectively than only the vaccines right now. IMO the only way this ever truly gets better is if the effects can be mitigated quickly.
Whoever figures that out is going to make a lot of money.
Whoever figures that out is going to make a lot of money.
Good luck with that in 2021, someone is already making a lot of money, and ostensibly weaponizing big tech into preventing anyone from even talking about alternatives.
"CBD and its metabolite, 7-OH-CBD, but not congeneric cannabinoids, potently block SARS-CoV-2 replication in lung epithelial cells. CBD induces interferon expression and up-regulates its antiviral signaling pathway. A cohort of human patients previously taking CBD had significantly lower SARSCoV-2 infection incidence of up to an order of magnitude relative to matched pairs or the general population. This study highlights CBD, and its active metabolite, 7-OH-CBD, as potential preventative agents and therapeutic treatments for SARS-CoV-2 at early stages of infection."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7987002/
I am not saying anything, JUST SAYIN'
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7987002/
I am not saying anything, JUST SAYIN'
It's been figured out, but we're waiting on Pfizer to bring it's protease inhibitor to market before we acknowledge existing, out of patent medications that do the same thing.
> as effective as the original two-dose shot and prevents for the same duration
We're giving boosters of a vaccine developed against the Beta variant. That's better than nothing. But it's inefficient against Delta.
Pfizer/BioNTech are working on a Delta-specific booster [1]. If we can get approvals rolling faster without compromising safety, it might mean being able to release variant-specific boosters earlier in their transmission cycle.
[1] https://investors.biontech.de/news-releases/news-release-det...
We're giving boosters of a vaccine developed against the Beta variant. That's better than nothing. But it's inefficient against Delta.
Pfizer/BioNTech are working on a Delta-specific booster [1]. If we can get approvals rolling faster without compromising safety, it might mean being able to release variant-specific boosters earlier in their transmission cycle.
[1] https://investors.biontech.de/news-releases/news-release-det...
> If we can get approvals rolling faster without compromising safety, it might mean being able to release variant-specific boosters earlier in their transmission cycle.
This is basically it. We'd need an approval process similar to what exists for flu shots today. I'm not versed on what that process is, but if that can happen with covid, it'll be the biggest batch of red tape cut.
This is basically it. We'd need an approval process similar to what exists for flu shots today. I'm not versed on what that process is, but if that can happen with covid, it'll be the biggest batch of red tape cut.
pfizer and moderna have essentially filed for rolling submissions. the biggest impediment to vaccines stopping the virus is morons not getting the vaccine.
Yeah, dang morons not getting the not-yet-available booster shot!
I mean, those dang morons not getting the available vaccine which does nothing for transmission of the current viral variant! Eesh, well that doesn’t hold water either...
Ugh this is too complicated, let’s just blame the unvaccinated anyways mmkay?
I mean, those dang morons not getting the available vaccine which does nothing for transmission of the current viral variant! Eesh, well that doesn’t hold water either...
Ugh this is too complicated, let’s just blame the unvaccinated anyways mmkay?
As to whether the current batch of mRNA vaccines are "inefficient" against delta, the science is far from settled.
There are no changes to the mRNA vaccines composition in the booster. Moderna has been testing a lower "dosage" of the booster at 50 mcg vs. 100mcg for the current vaccine, but other than that it's the same stuff it's always been.
There are no changes to the mRNA vaccines composition in the booster. Moderna has been testing a lower "dosage" of the booster at 50 mcg vs. 100mcg for the current vaccine, but other than that it's the same stuff it's always been.
The question is how useful variant-specific boosters are at this point in time, though. As I understand it there are two things working against them. Firstly, one of the main ways Delta seems to beat vaccination is by replicating more efficiency before the immune system can respond, and tailoring the vaccine more specifically to it won't really help with that. Secondly, a booster for a very similar variant might just boost the existing immune response for the previous variant rather than creating new, more specific antibodies ("original antigenic sin") - this is apparently one factor limiting the effectiveness of flu vaccines.
I wonder if this is really the case. It seems like the original vaccines trained everyone's immune system on the spike protein specifically because this is exposed and highly conserved by the virus, such that it's hard to change and still leave an effective virus. Delta, however, found such a mutation that made it more virulent and it escaped.
If we vaccinate against the modified spike, it's not clear how many more mutations exist like Delta. Maybe we can still get ahead of it, but I don't think anyone knows yet.
I do wonder if we'll see reformulated boosters against Delta's spikes, though.
If we vaccinate against the modified spike, it's not clear how many more mutations exist like Delta. Maybe we can still get ahead of it, but I don't think anyone knows yet.
I do wonder if we'll see reformulated boosters against Delta's spikes, though.
I wonder how accurately we can run mutation simulations updated based on best current data to correct the best guess optimization function(s). It would be a breakthrough if we can predict the likeliest mutation. I'm aware of the enormous number of variables making this tremendously difficult...
We don't have the technology to stimulate that accurately in software. It would have to be done using transgenic animal models and/or human tissue cultures. Essentially it would be a form of gain-of-function research, and there are concerns that a lab accident could result in an even more dangerous variant escaping into the wild.
With ML-assisted drug discovery in, say, kinase inhibitors we search the molecule variation space for test candidates. What stops us from applying this to the protein scale by folding binding sites to discover variant candidates that would be more virulent? I'd like to understand this better.
Sure you can explore the solution space in software to identify candidates but at some point you have to create a live virus and see how it actually performs.
It's like Linux on the desktop and fusion reactors. It seems like we are always one jab away from being safe and overcoming covid.
At this point we need to acknowledge that there will be no "overcoming" it and it will be endemic, like the flu.
Oh, we have acknowledged it. The question is, have our politicians acknowledged it, or will they keep taking our rights?
Try going out in public naked or running a few red lights and then come back and troll some more about your "rights". The world is full of rules to prevent you from being a jerk and endangering others.
Your argument comes down to "we limit your rights in other ways, so limiting your rights in this way should be accepted".
That's not a very convincing argument - it could be applied to anything. "We force you to show ID to fly on a plane, so being forced to show ID to access the internet should be accepted".
That's not a very convincing argument - it could be applied to anything. "We force you to show ID to fly on a plane, so being forced to show ID to access the internet should be accepted".
rules preventing you from doing something is one thing, but injecting a new product some people still have doubts about (no matter if they're correct or not) is a very different matter.
I'm amazed that people still come with the "safety belt" argument.
We've had decades of increase protections about food additives, GMOs, hormones in animals, etc on the principle of precaution with everything related to health, because things in this matter are complex. And now for some reason, we should stop thinking about tradeoffs and unknown unknowns over long terms consequences eventhough we're talking about treating the whole world population.
I'm amazed that people still come with the "safety belt" argument.
We've had decades of increase protections about food additives, GMOs, hormones in animals, etc on the principle of precaution with everything related to health, because things in this matter are complex. And now for some reason, we should stop thinking about tradeoffs and unknown unknowns over long terms consequences eventhough we're talking about treating the whole world population.
You gotta be joking, right? You realize the same people who are mouthing off about freedom believe in absolutely zero protections for consumers against food additives and are in a constant state of denial about environmental pollution that has drastically harmed human health and ecosystems right? They very same politicians hemming about freedoms and how vaccines are dangerous just give carte blanche to the marketplace to push whatever preservatives and addiction-inducing flavor molecules into foods are the most successful at jacking up the GDP. All the protections that you mentioned have been over the objections of the exact politicians that you no doubt support because they believe in "freedoms". Or whatever.
You gotta get the MMR vaccine to go to a public school. You gotta get Tetanus and other vaccines to go to college.
You gotta get the MMR vaccine to go to a public school. You gotta get Tetanus and other vaccines to go to college.
Totally not true about tetanus and other vaccines to go to college.
EDIT: Meningitis is the exception.
EDIT: Meningitis is the exception.
This is where I went to undergrad:
https://www.purdue.edu/push/Immunization/
https://www.purdue.edu/push/Immunization/
Go look at ALL the other colleges. That is only one.
https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/features/vaccines-for-college...
EDIT: Example, University of Texas,
https://www.healthyhorns.utexas.edu/requiredvaccine/
Meningitis and measles
https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/features/vaccines-for-college...
EDIT: Example, University of Texas,
https://www.healthyhorns.utexas.edu/requiredvaccine/
Meningitis and measles
Your comment is pretty interesting, because i've had the intimate suspicion that the debate around public health measure to fight covid have been rendered impossible because of the trump / biden US election. The Dem vs Rep political fight seems to be ruining every single scientific debate it gets a hold on.
FYI: i'm french, so i have absolutely no interest in that Dem vs Rep debate, and people here i know that are the most reluctant about vaccination with mRNA vaccines are the ones that are the closest to being ecologist activists.
EDIT: as for other compulsory vaccines, that's why i mentioned "new product" / technology. We're not even talking about a new vaccine, we're talking about a completely new technology to produce an immunity response.
FYI: i'm french, so i have absolutely no interest in that Dem vs Rep debate, and people here i know that are the most reluctant about vaccination with mRNA vaccines are the ones that are the closest to being ecologist activists.
EDIT: as for other compulsory vaccines, that's why i mentioned "new product" / technology. We're not even talking about a new vaccine, we're talking about a completely new technology to produce an immunity response.
Forgive me for pattern-matching your political leanings; it's insufferable to deal with a dozen variants of "it's just a flu" mutated from the dear leader's mouth over here. You're right, real dialog on scientific matters is getting impossible, because people can't do basic research.
If you'd like to read up on mRNA vaccines, here's an article from the pre-COVID days, before something as simple as a scientific advancement to fight disease became so politically charged.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243
Ecological activists, by numbers, are a round off error in the debate over this vaccine. It is absolutely tainted with politics, as the majority of anti-vaxxers land on one side of the political spectrum. I know some. It's everything from "it's the mark of the beast" to "I'm not so sure about this". What really underlies it is a deep, irrational selfishness that doesn't want to do a damn thing, even if, and especially if COVID doesn't seem that risky for that person. That whole line of reasoning is a fail. People who want the pandemic to be over know that vaccination is the only way. Sitting on your ass, no matter what is in your head, and being another vessel for this shit to mutate is actively prolonging it.
So yeah, I absolutely pounce on ignorant people who are prolonging this.
If you'd like to read up on mRNA vaccines, here's an article from the pre-COVID days, before something as simple as a scientific advancement to fight disease became so politically charged.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243
Ecological activists, by numbers, are a round off error in the debate over this vaccine. It is absolutely tainted with politics, as the majority of anti-vaxxers land on one side of the political spectrum. I know some. It's everything from "it's the mark of the beast" to "I'm not so sure about this". What really underlies it is a deep, irrational selfishness that doesn't want to do a damn thing, even if, and especially if COVID doesn't seem that risky for that person. That whole line of reasoning is a fail. People who want the pandemic to be over know that vaccination is the only way. Sitting on your ass, no matter what is in your head, and being another vessel for this shit to mutate is actively prolonging it.
So yeah, I absolutely pounce on ignorant people who are prolonging this.
I would be very careful to label an opinion as being ignorant, and then assert things like "people… know vaccination is the only way [to get rid of the pandemic]".
The scientific community seems to be very divided on whether "getting rid of covid" is even a goal at this point (at least based on what i read on what virologist and epidemiologist say).
I feel you (like many others) have failed to put their instinctive repulsion for the archetypal anti-vaxer aside and objectively evaluate the pros and cons of every strategy.
EDIT: thanks for the paper, but already the title itself says it all and seem to comfort my position: "a new era in vaccinology". We all know what happens with 1.0 versions of a brand new tech, right ? I'll still take the time to read it entirely since you've taken the time to send it to me.
The scientific community seems to be very divided on whether "getting rid of covid" is even a goal at this point (at least based on what i read on what virologist and epidemiologist say).
I feel you (like many others) have failed to put their instinctive repulsion for the archetypal anti-vaxer aside and objectively evaluate the pros and cons of every strategy.
EDIT: thanks for the paper, but already the title itself says it all and seem to comfort my position: "a new era in vaccinology". We all know what happens with 1.0 versions of a brand new tech, right ? I'll still take the time to read it entirely since you've taken the time to send it to me.
Going out in the public naked is actually accepted in some parts of the world and it is a lot 'closer' than you think.
For instance, go to one of the beaches right in Barcelona, topless. Another example, go to Baker Beach in SF, topless and bottomless. A third example, go to beaches in some of the Greek islands, topless and bottomless.
Another example, in the summer, do you see men go around topless?
Yet another example, go to bathhouses in Turkey or Japan.
Yet another example, go to your local gym's locker room.
Yet another example, all those tribal peoples that you read about. Many of them were topless and were often bottomless.
Yet another example. Go to the Folsom Street Parade or Bay to Breakers in SF.
How is this endangering anyone other than your prudishness that you want to impose on others?
For instance, go to one of the beaches right in Barcelona, topless. Another example, go to Baker Beach in SF, topless and bottomless. A third example, go to beaches in some of the Greek islands, topless and bottomless.
Another example, in the summer, do you see men go around topless?
Yet another example, go to bathhouses in Turkey or Japan.
Yet another example, go to your local gym's locker room.
Yet another example, all those tribal peoples that you read about. Many of them were topless and were often bottomless.
Yet another example. Go to the Folsom Street Parade or Bay to Breakers in SF.
How is this endangering anyone other than your prudishness that you want to impose on others?
Stop downvoting this, it's a legitimate question. When are we going to stop all the policy bullshit, accept that it is endemic, and get back to normalcy as much as we can? It's wearing on everybody.
The acknowledgement of it being endemic doesn't necessitate that we put up with covid's destructive nature. It's still the case that:
1. A large number of people globally don't have access to the vaccine yet.
2. A large proportion of the USA's population either doesn't feel motivated to get the vaccine or is explicitly opposed to it.
There will come a day where we collectively say that enough is enough and we've done all we can, but there is still a lot of work to do before we get to that point. Managing the spread and improving vaccination numbers will overall reduce the damage done to people and the health system when we reach that point.
1. A large number of people globally don't have access to the vaccine yet.
2. A large proportion of the USA's population either doesn't feel motivated to get the vaccine or is explicitly opposed to it.
There will come a day where we collectively say that enough is enough and we've done all we can, but there is still a lot of work to do before we get to that point. Managing the spread and improving vaccination numbers will overall reduce the damage done to people and the health system when we reach that point.
It seems like longer, but COVID has only been a thing for around 21 months.
To be this far in vaccination at this point is huge progress. Achieving desktop Linux and nuclear fusion have been ongoing projects for far longer.
To be this far in vaccination at this point is huge progress. Achieving desktop Linux and nuclear fusion have been ongoing projects for far longer.
There is no such thing as safety, only varying degrees of risk. Everyone has a different risk tolerance. Failure to explicitly quantify acceptable risks leads to people making invalid assumptions and talking past each other.
This is very true - I remember a colleague getting slapped down by the FDA when he said his company's FDA-approved drug was "safe". "There is no 'safe' drug", he was told, "only acceptable risk-benefit tradeoffs".
In addition, what is acceptable on a national level (e.g. 50 deaths from vaccination side effects) may not be acceptable on a individual basis (e.g. you die from a vaccine side effect).
Just like people dismiss the risk of Covid until it kills a family member, the flip side is people dismiss the risk of vaccination until it kills a family member.
In addition, what is acceptable on a national level (e.g. 50 deaths from vaccination side effects) may not be acceptable on a individual basis (e.g. you die from a vaccine side effect).
Just like people dismiss the risk of Covid until it kills a family member, the flip side is people dismiss the risk of vaccination until it kills a family member.
In fairness, I think it's been just as frustrating to the health officials setting out those targets— between non-compliance with the initial guidelines (both due to idiocy, and due to governments dragging their heels on the income/rent supports that would have allowed poor people to actually stay home), and then the appearance of the delta variant just as vaccination campaigns were getting seriously under way, I'm sure it has very much felt like fighting a battle against moving goalposts.
> due to governments dragging their heels on the income/rent supports that would have allowed poor people to actually stay home
Government supports or not, you do realize everyone can't stay home?
Government supports or not, you do realize everyone can't stay home?
Why do so many discussions around this have to devolve to reasoning against absolute straw-men arguments?
The point wasn't for "everybody" to stay at home but to expand "everybody who can" to the highest possible number, by removing economic and other barriers.
The point wasn't for "everybody" to stay at home but to expand "everybody who can" to the highest possible number, by removing economic and other barriers.
Why do people act like a completely unreasonable plan (and plan is generous) created by the morons in charge was ever going to be followed, let alone work?
Garbage in, garbage out.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Looking back with the benefit of hindsight, what do you suppose the decisions makers could have done in the moment that would have persuaded you and other contrarians that they had a plan worth following, or at least worth trying?
> could have done in the moment
Which moment? The moment we invaded Afghanistan 20 years ago and racked up trillions in debt killing people over seas instead of investing in infrastructure? The moment when the Bush administration lied about WMD and the media just cheered the war on?
The moment nursing home residents were left untreated in their rooms because the 'data' said you couldn't treat anybody with steroids?
It's hard to pick a moment, because the 'science' has been junk from the jump. The bulk of 1st world governments are liars and criminals. Why would I believe a solitary thing they ever have to say?
Which moment? The moment we invaded Afghanistan 20 years ago and racked up trillions in debt killing people over seas instead of investing in infrastructure? The moment when the Bush administration lied about WMD and the media just cheered the war on?
The moment nursing home residents were left untreated in their rooms because the 'data' said you couldn't treat anybody with steroids?
It's hard to pick a moment, because the 'science' has been junk from the jump. The bulk of 1st world governments are liars and criminals. Why would I believe a solitary thing they ever have to say?
For me, it was when the Swedish approach was widely derided even though it was logically sound. (isolate the at-risk, everyone else get on with life and build herd immunity).
Interesting. I never thought it was logically sound, and my impression is that the the data has borne that out, basically all along (and that it was quite valuable to have Sweden and New Zealand as the two outlier examples for what it looked like to handle the pandemic especially poorly and especially well). A recent example with some hard numbers:
"Sweden has recorded more COVID-19 cases per capita than most countries so far: Since the start of the pandemic, roughly 11 out of every 100 people in Sweden have been diagnosed with COVID-19, compared with 9.4 out of every 100 in the UK and 7.4 per 100 in Italy. Sweden has also recorded around 145 COVID-19 deaths for every 100,000 people — around three times more than Denmark, eight times more than Finland, and nearly 10 times more than Norway.
Had Sweden implemented tighter rules, experts told Insider, the country might have seen a COVID-19 death toll more similar to those Nordic neighbors."
https://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-covid-no-lockdown-str...
"Sweden has recorded more COVID-19 cases per capita than most countries so far: Since the start of the pandemic, roughly 11 out of every 100 people in Sweden have been diagnosed with COVID-19, compared with 9.4 out of every 100 in the UK and 7.4 per 100 in Italy. Sweden has also recorded around 145 COVID-19 deaths for every 100,000 people — around three times more than Denmark, eight times more than Finland, and nearly 10 times more than Norway.
Had Sweden implemented tighter rules, experts told Insider, the country might have seen a COVID-19 death toll more similar to those Nordic neighbors."
https://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-covid-no-lockdown-str...
>roughly 11 out of every 100 people in Sweden have been diagnosed with COVID-19, compared with 9.4 out of every 100 in the UK and 7.4 per 100 in Italy
If the goal is to shoot for herd immunity, then you would need 40-60% of population to have antibodies. No way to get from A -> B without people 'catching it'
At some point it needs to be accepted that Covid is now endemic and is 'never going away'. Trying to stave it off with leaky vaccines is like trying safeguard your 0-day with a leaky firewall.
Logical and medically minded people should focus on developing and testing therapeutics to reduce the need for hospitalizations. Sadly that will require loss of profits to very large companies.
If the goal is to shoot for herd immunity, then you would need 40-60% of population to have antibodies. No way to get from A -> B without people 'catching it'
At some point it needs to be accepted that Covid is now endemic and is 'never going away'. Trying to stave it off with leaky vaccines is like trying safeguard your 0-day with a leaky firewall.
Logical and medically minded people should focus on developing and testing therapeutics to reduce the need for hospitalizations. Sadly that will require loss of profits to very large companies.
Why jump to an assumption that there's a dark profit motive here? Isn't that what has led to people clinging to snake oil miracle cures like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin?
Certainly there was never any profit motive for anyone (except maybe Amazon and Uber Eats) when people were encouraging to stay home, or wear improvised masks.
In any case, there is lots of study going on in this area— it's not like Pfizer and friends have somehow squelched research into it, particularly when the makers of the other drugs under investigation stand to make a giant windfall from a successful result:
https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2020/3/...
Yes it's endemic and we're all just going to get it now. But getting it is much, much less bad for the vaccinated than the unvaccinated, and at least as a parent of young kids, I know I won't be rushing them out to a pox party until there's an approved vaccine they can take first in order to prepare.
Certainly there was never any profit motive for anyone (except maybe Amazon and Uber Eats) when people were encouraging to stay home, or wear improvised masks.
In any case, there is lots of study going on in this area— it's not like Pfizer and friends have somehow squelched research into it, particularly when the makers of the other drugs under investigation stand to make a giant windfall from a successful result:
https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2020/3/...
Yes it's endemic and we're all just going to get it now. But getting it is much, much less bad for the vaccinated than the unvaccinated, and at least as a parent of young kids, I know I won't be rushing them out to a pox party until there's an approved vaccine they can take first in order to prepare.
>Why jump to an assumption that there's a dark profit motive here?
Total legal immunity + gov mandates to buy your product. Thats probably the largest single profit motive that could possibly exist...I mean can you reasonably imagine a greater profit scenario?
Total legal immunity + gov mandates to buy your product. Thats probably the largest single profit motive that could possibly exist...I mean can you reasonably imagine a greater profit scenario?
That wasn't the topic but thanks for sharing your feelings.
I think we tend to under-acknowledge that the "return to normal" line is also a moving goalpost. I'm typing this comment out from a cross-country trip; when I return, I can eat in a restaurant or work from the office or even dance in a crowded nightclub if I want to. There's still mask mandates here and there, but I think there's a strong argument for the perspective that vaccines already did work and we already are back to normal in almost every way that government policy can achieve.
It's not quite as lax for families with kids under 12, but broadly speaking, I agree with you.
Some things are just never going to be completely as they were in February 2020— for example, I think there's far broader cultural awareness of factors like indoor air sharing, aerosols, hand sanitation, personal vaccine records, etc than probably at any other point in history. I expect that the lower-than-usual flu numbers from last winter will persist for some time as people continue to take care about these kind of things.
And no one alive today will need to be reminded to get the malaria shot before going on safari— checking your vaccine status is permanently embedded in the current generation as travel-thing now, just like making sure you have your visa lined up and your insurance in order.
Some things are just never going to be completely as they were in February 2020— for example, I think there's far broader cultural awareness of factors like indoor air sharing, aerosols, hand sanitation, personal vaccine records, etc than probably at any other point in history. I expect that the lower-than-usual flu numbers from last winter will persist for some time as people continue to take care about these kind of things.
And no one alive today will need to be reminded to get the malaria shot before going on safari— checking your vaccine status is permanently embedded in the current generation as travel-thing now, just like making sure you have your visa lined up and your insurance in order.
If you think that's fun, imagine the steady state being like flu - monitoring Covid variants, then trying to predict which ones will be the next "wave".
Some years you'll get it right and put a big damper on spread and some years you'll pick the wrong variant leaving most people unprotected.
That's one reason why flu deaths in the US fluctuate annually (in addition to the severity of the flu). A few years back the vaccine basically did nothing.
Some years you'll get it right and put a big damper on spread and some years you'll pick the wrong variant leaving most people unprotected.
That's one reason why flu deaths in the US fluctuate annually (in addition to the severity of the flu). A few years back the vaccine basically did nothing.
vkou(3)
swader999(1)
A question to consider is, how to we move from pandemic to endemic? COVID-19 isn't going away and will join the other endemic viruses like chicken pox, the other widely out there coronaviruses, etc.
It's got to be something like how much of the population are getting sick. I presume when a disease is endemic you have a fairly steady rate of illness and death taking into account seasonal variation. Whereas right now covid still seems to be spreading quickly through the population and causing large numbers to get sick at once.
When I think about this I think of two parts of it.
First, there are other endemics. Influenza is one of them. In the US along millions get sick from it and tens of thousands die each year. We live within that realm.
There will be people with different degrees of risk and levels for being ok with going back to "normal" as COVID-19 is just out there. How do we decided (as groups in the world population) what we are ok with?
Second, what do we do to proactively push the population towards endemic? Different groups will go toward different things with different levels of risk. There is no quantitative right answer. What things can we do and how does that affect things.
First, there are other endemics. Influenza is one of them. In the US along millions get sick from it and tens of thousands die each year. We live within that realm.
There will be people with different degrees of risk and levels for being ok with going back to "normal" as COVID-19 is just out there. How do we decided (as groups in the world population) what we are ok with?
Second, what do we do to proactively push the population towards endemic? Different groups will go toward different things with different levels of risk. There is no quantitative right answer. What things can we do and how does that affect things.
For me before we can even talk about covid being endemic it needs to reach a steady state and we're nowhere near that right now.
In terms of risk management flu is a good example because most humans encounter various versions in childhood but we still offer vaccination every year against the most likely variants. And we can still have flu pandemics. It's largely in a steady state though but the reality of that means we actually need to do a lot of management as risk profiles change locally. And largely this is a medical issue not a political one.
In terms of risk management flu is a good example because most humans encounter various versions in childhood but we still offer vaccination every year against the most likely variants. And we can still have flu pandemics. It's largely in a steady state though but the reality of that means we actually need to do a lot of management as risk profiles change locally. And largely this is a medical issue not a political one.
> Second, what do we do to proactively push the population towards endemic?
Vaccinate people.
Vaccinate people.
Probably the same as what seems to have happened with the last coronavirus pandemic in 1889. HCoV-OC43 probably killed a lot of people worldwide with symptoms similar to COVID-19. Now most of us get infected as children and gain immunity that protects us later in life. Fortunately now we have vaccines to cut the death toll, but even most vaccinated people will eventually get infected with SARS-CoV-2.
https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-maga...
https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immu...
https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-maga...
https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immu...
Chickenpox is no longer endemic in the sense that covid proponents say covid will be. Chickenpox has am effective vaccine, get that and you don’t get chickenpox. Vaccination has substantially reduced it and could eliminate it in local areas.
Endemicity proponents argue it will be like the common cold. But that’s unproven. Endemic just means “present”. Malaria is endemic, dengue is endemic. HIV is endemic in certain areas and groups. The word itself tells you nothing.
Absent restrictions and even with vaccinations you’d expect most people to get a covid infection 1x per year or two. Same way we generally do with other coronaviruses. The hope is that SARS-Cov-2 is just like any other coronavirus and with immunity won’t cause long run issues upon repeat reinfection.
We’ll find out the answer by 2024 or so.
Endemicity proponents argue it will be like the common cold. But that’s unproven. Endemic just means “present”. Malaria is endemic, dengue is endemic. HIV is endemic in certain areas and groups. The word itself tells you nothing.
Absent restrictions and even with vaccinations you’d expect most people to get a covid infection 1x per year or two. Same way we generally do with other coronaviruses. The hope is that SARS-Cov-2 is just like any other coronavirus and with immunity won’t cause long run issues upon repeat reinfection.
We’ll find out the answer by 2024 or so.
If it goes like the other four coronaviruses that are endemic it will reach a state where (1) if you catch it but already have some immunity (from a prior infection or a vaccine) your chances of serious illness are low, (2) if you are a kid your chances of serious illness are pretty low even if you don't yet have any immunity, (3) you catch it every year or two or three for the rest of your life which keeps boosting your decaying immunity so there is a good chance we may not need vaccine booster shots (a lot depends on what variants become endemic and what vaccines are available).
At that stage we probably won't even bother to track it. It will just be another of a large group of viruses (including those other four endemic coronaviruses) that cause similar symptoms and risk that we lump together and collectively call a "common cold".
Right now we are at the stage where we have a lot of people who aren't kids and who have no prior immunity. For past pandemic => endemic transitions that meant everyone went through their first infection without immunity (and often without good treatments available for the serious illnesses that resulted because these past pandemics were often before modern medicine). We have better treatments in general nowadays, so that route would not be as bad as it was for pandemics a couple hundred years ago, but it still would kill a lot of people.
With this one we've got a chance via vaccination for almost all of the teen and above population that hasn't yet been infected to get some immunity before their first infection. (Eventually pre-teens will be included once vaccines are authorized for them).
At that stage we probably won't even bother to track it. It will just be another of a large group of viruses (including those other four endemic coronaviruses) that cause similar symptoms and risk that we lump together and collectively call a "common cold".
Right now we are at the stage where we have a lot of people who aren't kids and who have no prior immunity. For past pandemic => endemic transitions that meant everyone went through their first infection without immunity (and often without good treatments available for the serious illnesses that resulted because these past pandemics were often before modern medicine). We have better treatments in general nowadays, so that route would not be as bad as it was for pandemics a couple hundred years ago, but it still would kill a lot of people.
With this one we've got a chance via vaccination for almost all of the teen and above population that hasn't yet been infected to get some immunity before their first infection. (Eventually pre-teens will be included once vaccines are authorized for them).
My understanding is that if you've had a two-shot series you should get a third shot within 12 months of your second in order to extend immunity for a significant period of time. I'm hoping boosters are offered for Pfizer & Moderna soon, because most people I know are fully vaccinated but also aware that COVID is basically endemic at this point.
As far as I can tell is bad news for rare vaccine side effects. If the side effects are rare but you take a booster twice a year for 50 years, rare outcomes become much more likely. (Referring here to the high count but not that high stuff that shows up in VAERS like tinnitus.)
Hopefully more vaccines are developed that become safer over time so that the danger falls faster than the repeated risk accumulates. Or perhaps the rare side effects are due to personal susceptibility and aren't cumulative so people who didn't get bad side effects the first time won't get them the 90th.
Hopefully more vaccines are developed that become safer over time so that the danger falls faster than the repeated risk accumulates. Or perhaps the rare side effects are due to personal susceptibility and aren't cumulative so people who didn't get bad side effects the first time won't get them the 90th.
People take the flu shot annually and are generally fine. Unless it’s showing that COVID-19 vaccines are much more dangerous than flu vaccines, this isn’t a big concern.
With regards to the side effects that don't matter (feeling really tired for one or two days) they're stronger than the average flu shot, so maybe they're stronger in other ways, or maybe not.
Nobody can quantify the reporting bias on VAERS, and the side effects of midrange severity showing up there aren't scary enough to justify the kind of regulatory investigation that the blood clotting thing received, so we are unlikely to see a study on this in the near term.
Nobody can quantify the reporting bias on VAERS, and the side effects of midrange severity showing up there aren't scary enough to justify the kind of regulatory investigation that the blood clotting thing received, so we are unlikely to see a study on this in the near term.
Given that it's a very different technology from flu vaccines, we shouldn't really assume that they're not. Too early to be sure of course but there are some concerning studies and anecdata already [1].
[1] https://www.scivisionpub.com/abstract-display.php?id=1811&fb...
[1] https://www.scivisionpub.com/abstract-display.php?id=1811&fb...
> rare outcomes become much more likely.
Citations needed.
Alternatively if vaccine reactions depend on something like immunotype of the individual that isn't going to change, and if you tolerate the vaccine today you're likely to tolerate it for the next 50 years.
Also if we apply the concept of Original Antigenic Sin, then once you've formed a healthy humoral reaction to a given antigen you're likely to continue to have healthy reactions to similar antigens in the future (and vice versa, if you form a poor immune reaction you my have poor reactions in the future).
Citations needed.
Alternatively if vaccine reactions depend on something like immunotype of the individual that isn't going to change, and if you tolerate the vaccine today you're likely to tolerate it for the next 50 years.
Also if we apply the concept of Original Antigenic Sin, then once you've formed a healthy humoral reaction to a given antigen you're likely to continue to have healthy reactions to similar antigens in the future (and vice versa, if you form a poor immune reaction you my have poor reactions in the future).
>Citations needed.
Well, like you point out it depends on how many of the rare effects are determined by variation from person to person, and how many are determined by variation from time to time. If it's all person-to-person then your chance of a rare effect drops to zero once you have a single dose, but if it's time-to-time, your chances of making it through without something weird happening drop as (P_safe)^n, i.e., exponentially.
Without any studies I know of that would tell us which was happening, we could assign a neutral prior of 50% to both cases. That leads to:
P(safe) = 1/2(1-0) + 1/2 (P_safe)^n.
Obviously this is an oversimplification, but it still leads to an exponential decay, just not to 0.
Well, like you point out it depends on how many of the rare effects are determined by variation from person to person, and how many are determined by variation from time to time. If it's all person-to-person then your chance of a rare effect drops to zero once you have a single dose, but if it's time-to-time, your chances of making it through without something weird happening drop as (P_safe)^n, i.e., exponentially.
Without any studies I know of that would tell us which was happening, we could assign a neutral prior of 50% to both cases. That leads to:
P(safe) = 1/2(1-0) + 1/2 (P_safe)^n.
Obviously this is an oversimplification, but it still leads to an exponential decay, just not to 0.
I have little understanding of this but someone who actually works on vaccines told me this theory: Your body upon coming in contact with the vaccine starts to product antibodies (the first shot). This is generally enough for a normal immune system to fight the disease if in the future the body was to come in contact with the virus. The second shot is for hyper immunity after 4 weeks. What it does is that it basically tells your body make a lot more antibodies now and the second shot is actually a booster shot. So every time you take a shot afterwards (like in the middle of a pandemic) your body produces an abundance of antibodies and will likely fend off the virus much more easily than if there was no booster dose of any kind and just a vaccine shot. This is important because simply protecting your body from the virus is not enough since you could be carrying the virus and spreading it with mild infection which will not be a problem for you but will not protect others and so the hyperimmunity is important for preventing spread during a wave. I won’t be surprised if this one is a yearly dose as you need to be hyperimmune to not show symptoms and spread.
There's more to immunity than the antibodies generated as a short term response to infection or vaccination. Memory cell activity is more important to long term immunity.
Another benefit is cell memory. If you see the vaccines kids get, almost all are multiple shots. Including 3-4 shots for Hep-B. It's nothing new. The reason is body takes repeat threat more seriously and builds the cell memory. So even when the antibody is gone the cell memory tells body to act quickly and what to do.
taxicabjesus(1)
I would love to see more research on whether a different/better vaccine could provide stronger or longer lasting immunity. There are a whole lot of mechanisms by which a vaccine might produce immunity (antibodies, memory B cells that can produce antibodies if needed, various forms of T cells, and probably mechanisms that haven't been discovered or understood yet.) It seems that most research on immunity focuses on antibodies in blood, and I think this is just because they are relatively easy to measure.
I haven't seen anything suggesting that mRNA vaccines are especially good as compared to other vaccines. mRNA vaccines were quick to develop given all the past work that had been done, but that isn't the same thing as being good once developed and mass-produced. Novavax's subunit vaccine did extremely well in trials, and it's mostly old technology.
Are there useful studies of the efficacy of the J&J and AZ vaccines over time? Those are newish technology, too.
I haven't seen anything suggesting that mRNA vaccines are especially good as compared to other vaccines. mRNA vaccines were quick to develop given all the past work that had been done, but that isn't the same thing as being good once developed and mass-produced. Novavax's subunit vaccine did extremely well in trials, and it's mostly old technology.
Are there useful studies of the efficacy of the J&J and AZ vaccines over time? Those are newish technology, too.
The headline doesn't quite do the article justice.
Boosters in this one study reduced measured infection (they didn't measure actual hospitalization/disease!) by some amount in the very short term.
But experts say this tells us very little about what effect they will have over even months, instead of weeks/days.
Last paragraph:
> If the booster’s additional immunity fades quickly, or if the booster campaign distracts from surveillance efforts or from reaching people who have not been vaccinated at all, Dowdy says, the effort will have little long-term impact: “We need longer term data before we can say that giving people boosters at any given interval is the right strategy.”
Boosters in this one study reduced measured infection (they didn't measure actual hospitalization/disease!) by some amount in the very short term.
But experts say this tells us very little about what effect they will have over even months, instead of weeks/days.
Last paragraph:
> If the booster’s additional immunity fades quickly, or if the booster campaign distracts from surveillance efforts or from reaching people who have not been vaccinated at all, Dowdy says, the effort will have little long-term impact: “We need longer term data before we can say that giving people boosters at any given interval is the right strategy.”
It's almost as if we can't science our way out of this. Instead we need selfish, ignorant people to take the smallest steps to make a real impact.
I'm pretty surprised to still see some misinformation in some of the posts here.
I have a friend who has a PhD in molecular biology and she described the mRNA vaccines to me.
The mRNA is only a piece of the spike protein, and does not enter the cell's nucleus. It only interacts with the cytoplasm. Normally, if a cell had to deal with an actual SARS-CoV-2 virus, it would be dealing with the spike proteins and the entire virus, basically, a much higher dose, and it would also invade the actual cell.
She also described the ingredients of an mRNA vaccine, which were basically:
-mRNA (which is gone from the body in a few days)
-lipids
-salt and sugars
It's also worth noting that the mRNA does not interact with a person's actual DNA. I just don't see why there is so much concern out there. This is a potentially deadly virus. Look at the states with the highest amount of unvaccinated individuals in the US. They are running out of hospital beds [1]. This is not about taking our freedoms, this is about getting this under control.
I do agree with the other posters here that say that COVID will likely just become endemic. My understanding is that eventually it will probably be a common cold, once humans have enough antibodies for it.
[1] https://fortune.com/2021/08/25/states-icu-beds-covid-cases-d...
I have a friend who has a PhD in molecular biology and she described the mRNA vaccines to me.
The mRNA is only a piece of the spike protein, and does not enter the cell's nucleus. It only interacts with the cytoplasm. Normally, if a cell had to deal with an actual SARS-CoV-2 virus, it would be dealing with the spike proteins and the entire virus, basically, a much higher dose, and it would also invade the actual cell.
She also described the ingredients of an mRNA vaccine, which were basically:
-mRNA (which is gone from the body in a few days)
-lipids
-salt and sugars
It's also worth noting that the mRNA does not interact with a person's actual DNA. I just don't see why there is so much concern out there. This is a potentially deadly virus. Look at the states with the highest amount of unvaccinated individuals in the US. They are running out of hospital beds [1]. This is not about taking our freedoms, this is about getting this under control.
I do agree with the other posters here that say that COVID will likely just become endemic. My understanding is that eventually it will probably be a common cold, once humans have enough antibodies for it.
[1] https://fortune.com/2021/08/25/states-icu-beds-covid-cases-d...
> My understanding is that eventually it will probably be a common cold, once humans have enough antibodies for it.
This can’t be right. Antibodies fade: for other coronaviruses within 6-12 months. They aren’t a thing the body keeps around forever.
Lasting immunity would be from memory T cells or memory T cells, if their long run response worked well and the virus didn’t change enough between infections.
This can’t be right. Antibodies fade: for other coronaviruses within 6-12 months. They aren’t a thing the body keeps around forever.
Lasting immunity would be from memory T cells or memory T cells, if their long run response worked well and the virus didn’t change enough between infections.
Actually we didn't get into antibodies and memory T cells when talking with my friend. I don't have a PhD in this, so I can't say either way.
I mostly just wanted to pass on the information from her regarding the ingredients and how the mRNA only interacts with the cytoplasm of the cell, and not the actual DNA. That's the important part.
I mostly just wanted to pass on the information from her regarding the ingredients and how the mRNA only interacts with the cytoplasm of the cell, and not the actual DNA. That's the important part.
That's because most people don't remember the basics from their Biology classes. I believe it's taught here in the US with the basics: DNA->RNA->Protein. The J&J vaccine does work with DNA I believe, so people may be confusing them?
The explanation reminds me of this wonderful (and previously posted on HN) article https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/reverse-engineering-source...
The amount of times I've seen text to the extent of "mRNA does not alter DNA" vastly exceeds the amount of text I've seen that claims mRNA does alter DNA. As far as I could see nobody in this thread is claiming such a thing, so I'm genuinely curious to know why you feel the need to point it out.
Everyone knows you can't predict what a treatment will do just by knowing its mechanism - if you could, clinical trials would never fail. Talking about the mechanism is the least effective way to explain how it's safe, because most people realize that well-controlled studies are the only true authority.
A hypothesis still must precede a trial, and many hypotheses are formed based on an understanding of fundamental concepts/mechanisms and prior studies.
Studies are still required because a hypothesis is just that - a hypothesis - but I wouldn't completely dismiss a discussion of the mechanism, because this may still provide meaningful context and/or help form an initial understanding of risk before having real study results.
Studies are still required because a hypothesis is just that - a hypothesis - but I wouldn't completely dismiss a discussion of the mechanism, because this may still provide meaningful context and/or help form an initial understanding of risk before having real study results.
There are a few hypotheses suggested by the higher-count events in VAERS, as well as the standard ones checked in postmarket studies (effects on pregnant women and children in particular). I agree that the mechanism is a good way to do hypothesis generation, but it's not a solid argument for the safety of a treatment. It is really only an antidote to specific, hallucinatory claims, like the line about it "changing your DNA."
Except we’ve been studying this for well over a hundred years, and it’s not a medication, it’s only presenting something to the immune system so it can perform it’s singular task on.
So, by this point, you’re telling me I can’t understand what editing a cell in my excel spreadsheet will do without a huge test of hundreds or thousands of people all making the same edit to figure out if it’ll work.
We know it works. We know how it works. It works by handing the task to the immune system and getting the fuck out of the way.
Clinical trials are to assess if it works well enough to consider widespread use.
So, by this point, you’re telling me I can’t understand what editing a cell in my excel spreadsheet will do without a huge test of hundreds or thousands of people all making the same edit to figure out if it’ll work.
We know it works. We know how it works. It works by handing the task to the immune system and getting the fuck out of the way.
Clinical trials are to assess if it works well enough to consider widespread use.
The claims that rare side effects have been well-characterized and can be predicted from the mechanism alone are simply not true - the FDA itself required further postmarketing studies (to be finished around 2023) as a requirement in their approval letter. The foundation of convincing people that taking the vaccine is safer than not taking it cannot be the false claim that the probabilities of each side effect are known, because they are not. Instead we should focus on the true claim that the virus is much more dangerous and also not completely characterized.
That’s absurd.
Yes, I still test my code.
But when I write it, I do it with the lessons I’ve learned over decades, and it’s usually close to working before the first test comes into the picture.
That’s where we are with vaccine production: we’ve been cranking them out for decades, and the process is so robust that failures at in the six plus nines range of outliers.
Yes, I still test my code.
But when I write it, I do it with the lessons I’ve learned over decades, and it’s usually close to working before the first test comes into the picture.
That’s where we are with vaccine production: we’ve been cranking them out for decades, and the process is so robust that failures at in the six plus nines range of outliers.
I think you might be overestimating the success rate of drug discovery and underestimating the complexity of the situation. Starting from 10,000 compounds chosen on the basis of reasonable mechanistic or chemical arguments, one or two working drugs are typically discovered.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Drug-discovery-and-devel...
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Drug-discovery-and-devel...
Like the rest of engineering, you very rarely start with a novel target.
You’re building things from a library of tested techniques.
Vaccines aren’t drugs.
They’re a method of delivering material to the immune system for it to do its thing.
We do that by finding the thing we want to present, finding a pipeline to extract that, and finding a delivery mechanism that is tested and compatible.
We don’t “discover” a new flu vaccine ever my season, we put together this seasons release.
That’s why it didn’t take years to design and release a new vaccine for covid: we have the technology already, we just needed to pick the payload and select the rocket best suited for the job.
You’re building things from a library of tested techniques.
Vaccines aren’t drugs.
They’re a method of delivering material to the immune system for it to do its thing.
We do that by finding the thing we want to present, finding a pipeline to extract that, and finding a delivery mechanism that is tested and compatible.
We don’t “discover” a new flu vaccine ever my season, we put together this seasons release.
That’s why it didn’t take years to design and release a new vaccine for covid: we have the technology already, we just needed to pick the payload and select the rocket best suited for the job.
[deleted]
I have actually seen that claim elsewhere. The issue is, almost all of them know about reverse-transcription enzymes and use that as part of their argument, while the people attempting to debunk them have never touched on it, instead treating them as if they don't know the difference between DNA and RNA.
> I'm genuinely curious to know why you feel the need to point it out.
I haven't seen it in this thread either, but it's been a very common [false] talking point in the conspiracy/anti-vax circles.
I haven't seen it in this thread either, but it's been a very common [false] talking point in the conspiracy/anti-vax circles.
What is this paper saying then?
SARS-CoV-2 RNA reverse-transcribed and integrated into the human genome
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33330870/
SARS-CoV-2 RNA reverse-transcribed and integrated into the human genome
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33330870/
You are contradicting yourself. You say this is about getting things under control, but then you say there is no way of controlling things.
Because vaccinated people can still spread infections vaccinations, just like lockdowns, do not help ‘getting things under control’. They only delay progression of the pandemic.
You say ‘it will probably be a common cold, once humans have enough antibodies’. Humans do not get permanent antibodies from the vaccines. They get antibodies from getting infected. Lockdowns and vaccines only delay the inevitable.
The only argument there is is that vaccinated people get less seriously ill than unvaccinated people. But then it affects only themselves so it’s pretty hard to argue for schemes that force people to get vaccinated against their will.
Because vaccinated people can still spread infections vaccinations, just like lockdowns, do not help ‘getting things under control’. They only delay progression of the pandemic.
You say ‘it will probably be a common cold, once humans have enough antibodies’. Humans do not get permanent antibodies from the vaccines. They get antibodies from getting infected. Lockdowns and vaccines only delay the inevitable.
The only argument there is is that vaccinated people get less seriously ill than unvaccinated people. But then it affects only themselves so it’s pretty hard to argue for schemes that force people to get vaccinated against their will.
> Humans do not get permanent antibodies from the vaccines. They get antibodies from getting infected.
Weird, I've yet to get chicken pox/shingles, mumps, polio etc despite being vaccinated against them as a child. And I still catch the flu regularly despite having already had it.
Weird, I've yet to get chicken pox/shingles, mumps, polio etc despite being vaccinated against them as a child. And I still catch the flu regularly despite having already had it.
Not the OP, but antibodies are just one part of a fairly complex immune system and it does not make too much sense to concentrate just on them. Antibodies are proteins and their level goes down over time naturally. What really interests you is the level of immune response on subsequent exposure to the pathogen, which may be pretty robust even if antibodies are low or undetectable at the moment of new exposure.
We obviously do not know yet whether we can get permanently robust immune response to SARS-CoV-2, either from vaccines or from natural infection; the virus is only two years old. We know that we can get permanently robust immune response to the viruses you mentioned in your post. But this cannot be easily generalized to any new virus that comes along.
We obviously do not know yet whether we can get permanently robust immune response to SARS-CoV-2, either from vaccines or from natural infection; the virus is only two years old. We know that we can get permanently robust immune response to the viruses you mentioned in your post. But this cannot be easily generalized to any new virus that comes along.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.19.21255739v... <- natural immunity is pretty long-lived
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...
<-- 6x better than fresh vaccine after a year or so, 13x better in a 4-6 month period after
We actually do know that we can not get permanent robust immune response to COVID-19 from the vaccines that are in use because the statistics are already there, immunity starts wearing off after about 6 months.
That’s why the new push is for ‘booster shots’.
That’s why the new push is for ‘booster shots’.
To which degree is this statistic confounded by the Delta mutation emerging?
The original strain upon which the current vaccines are based has basically died out and Delta carries a lot more viral load (400x or so?), which changes the game a bit.
In comparison, smallpox virus was pretty much the same across centuries, so it was comparably easy to target and eradicate. No animal hosts helped, too.
The original strain upon which the current vaccines are based has basically died out and Delta carries a lot more viral load (400x or so?), which changes the game a bit.
In comparison, smallpox virus was pretty much the same across centuries, so it was comparably easy to target and eradicate. No animal hosts helped, too.
Covid-19 is impossible to eradicate as it spreads through animals, forget that idea.
Pfizer themselves have performed studies that show immunity declining. I do know that they tell from the levels of antibodies seen in blood but I don’t know if the effect of variants has been measured (if it can be measured at all without unethical experiments).
Pfizer themselves have performed studies that show immunity declining. I do know that they tell from the levels of antibodies seen in blood but I don’t know if the effect of variants has been measured (if it can be measured at all without unethical experiments).
Now try getting the flu vaccine (it exists!) and see if you will ever catch it again.
[deleted]
You've made it abundantly clear here that you don't know what you're talking about, so you perhaps should just stop talking at all on the matter.
>Because vaccinated people can still spread infections vaccinations, just like lockdowns, do not help ‘getting things under control’. They only delay progression of the pandemic.
Delaying the progression DOES help get things under control.
>The only argument there is is that vaccinated people get less seriously ill
No it's not. Vaccinated people are less likely to get ill at all, get seriously ill, or spread the virus.
>Because vaccinated people can still spread infections vaccinations, just like lockdowns, do not help ‘getting things under control’. They only delay progression of the pandemic.
Delaying the progression DOES help get things under control.
>The only argument there is is that vaccinated people get less seriously ill
No it's not. Vaccinated people are less likely to get ill at all, get seriously ill, or spread the virus.
You were doing so well until the last sentence.
Vaccinated people are just as likely to spread the delta variant. If you disagree, please post your proof. Until then, please stop spreading misinformation.
Vaccinated people are just as likely to spread the delta variant. If you disagree, please post your proof. Until then, please stop spreading misinformation.
> The mRNA is only a piece of the spike protein
The mRNA produces a piece of the spike protein once inside the cell, it’s not the protein itself.
The mRNA produces a piece of the spike protein once inside the cell, it’s not the protein itself.
these are the kind of small detail slip-ups that bother me about the commenters (everywhere, not just HN) that decide to try to educate people in broad-strokes and general overviews.
it's hopeful and altruistic to try to educate the ignorant, but politically-charged topics have a characteristic that when misrepresented -- even accidentally -- someone may use that foul-up to reduce the efficacy of the advice by injecting the shadow of doubt.
(to be clear, issues with data should be corrected by others; my issue is with the grandparent poster getting the small details wrong while Speaking From On High and quoting scientist friends)
This not only hurts the credibility of 'scientist friends' by proxy, but it also just creates another foot-hold for the already suspicious to continue being suspicious; something that is trying to be remedied by the whole speech in the first place.
Please, if you feel the need to educate on something politically charged like this, gather the facts first and triple-check -- otherwise you will likely harm your base motivating premise incidentally through loss-of-trust.
it's hopeful and altruistic to try to educate the ignorant, but politically-charged topics have a characteristic that when misrepresented -- even accidentally -- someone may use that foul-up to reduce the efficacy of the advice by injecting the shadow of doubt.
(to be clear, issues with data should be corrected by others; my issue is with the grandparent poster getting the small details wrong while Speaking From On High and quoting scientist friends)
This not only hurts the credibility of 'scientist friends' by proxy, but it also just creates another foot-hold for the already suspicious to continue being suspicious; something that is trying to be remedied by the whole speech in the first place.
Please, if you feel the need to educate on something politically charged like this, gather the facts first and triple-check -- otherwise you will likely harm your base motivating premise incidentally through loss-of-trust.
[deleted]
Yes, thank you for correcting this.
Whatever is causing the severe side-effects, it's probably not the MRNA or the spike protein. With Pfizer/Moderna vaccines, it's likely the lipid nanoparticles causing Myocarditis. With the J&J vaccine, it's likely the viral vector that is causing TTS.
Both technologies have never been widely deployed before. The fact that we could not predict and still do not understand these side-effects is quite concerning. It also puts into question the "COVID infection is like the vaccine only worse" narrative.
Both technologies have never been widely deployed before. The fact that we could not predict and still do not understand these side-effects is quite concerning. It also puts into question the "COVID infection is like the vaccine only worse" narrative.
I've read that Myocarditis can happen with actual COVID cases as well [1]. To me that makes sense, considering that the mRNA-based vaccines generate a portion of the spike protein similar to the actual virus.
[1] https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/comment/myocarditis-covi...
[1] https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/comment/myocarditis-covi...
This doesn't explain that the viral-vector vaccines generally don't cause Myocarditis, or at least not anywhere near as much as the LNP vaccines.
Considerably greater risk of myocarditis and other heart issues from infection than the vaccine. See Fig 4 of [1] in particular.
When reading that chart, keep in mind that lymphadenopathy is just swelling of the lymph nodes, and is an expected and not-serious effect of the vaccine; it's a sign that an immune response is being triggered.
[1]: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475
When reading that chart, keep in mind that lymphadenopathy is just swelling of the lymph nodes, and is an expected and not-serious effect of the vaccine; it's a sign that an immune response is being triggered.
[1]: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475
> Considerably greater risk of myocarditis and other heart issues from infection than the vaccine.
Citing your source:
2.7 events per 100,000 persons (vaccinated)
11.0 events per 100,000 persons (SarS-COV2 positive)
This already doesn't look that great, considering that the risk of a PCR-confirmed infection is not 100%. More importantly, it doesn't take into account age.
The age group at highest risk from Myocarditis following vaccination is 16-17 year-old males, latest numbers from the CDC[1]:
5.1/71.5 events* per 100,000 first/second Pfizer doses administered (within 7 days)
This has a strong bias towards the second dose, it's not clear yet how booster shots fare here, which may need to be administered at 5 months intervals.
It stands to reason that the Myocarditis risk from COVID infection in that age group should also be higher, but it's not clear whether the benefit outweighs the risk in that age/sex group, considering that both infection count and side-effect cases tend to be under-reported.
*) It's not clear whether that number includes the cases "under investigation". If so, this would further raise the risk by up to 66%.
[1]: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-... (Page 13)
Citing your source:
2.7 events per 100,000 persons (vaccinated)
11.0 events per 100,000 persons (SarS-COV2 positive)
This already doesn't look that great, considering that the risk of a PCR-confirmed infection is not 100%. More importantly, it doesn't take into account age.
The age group at highest risk from Myocarditis following vaccination is 16-17 year-old males, latest numbers from the CDC[1]:
5.1/71.5 events* per 100,000 first/second Pfizer doses administered (within 7 days)
This has a strong bias towards the second dose, it's not clear yet how booster shots fare here, which may need to be administered at 5 months intervals.
It stands to reason that the Myocarditis risk from COVID infection in that age group should also be higher, but it's not clear whether the benefit outweighs the risk in that age/sex group, considering that both infection count and side-effect cases tend to be under-reported.
*) It's not clear whether that number includes the cases "under investigation". If so, this would further raise the risk by up to 66%.
[1]: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-... (Page 13)
>it's likely the lipid nanoparticles causing Myocarditis
What's this based on? Given the occurrence of myocarditis in actual COVID infections at a higher rate than with the vaccines, it seems more likely to be an immune-mediated response, at least partly to the spike fragments included in the mRNA vaccines.
What's this based on? Given the occurrence of myocarditis in actual COVID infections at a higher rate than with the vaccines, it seems more likely to be an immune-mediated response, at least partly to the spike fragments included in the mRNA vaccines.
> What's this based on?
It's a common feature of the LNP-based vaccines, not the viral-vector-based ones.
It's a common feature of the LNP-based vaccines, not the viral-vector-based ones.
I have never ever on HN seen an argument about DNA and mRNA, but then again I don't follow the conversation too much.
As it seems like you know someone with correct background on the subject, so I wanted to ask you something I've always wanted to know as a young,(late 20s) healthy person with no existing risky precondition in this pandemic:
Why should I take a vaccine, when it is now known that vaccinated people can still spread the virus, there's an almost neglible chance of side effect, and with no information about possible long-term side effect. If the chance of me getting hospitalized is so low to begin with, what's the benefit of the vaccine to me.
It's an genuine question, as I soon have to travel (to a country that still force quarantine even with vaccine) and have vaccine session booked by next month.
With my limited info the risk vs benefits of vaccine seems to solely end on "we know too little about the vaccine".
Edit: thanks for all the thoughtful replies. It's a hard question to ask (without anonymity) these days so all the sincere replies are much appreciated. I'll read through the given links (and credibility of the link) when I wake up
As it seems like you know someone with correct background on the subject, so I wanted to ask you something I've always wanted to know as a young,(late 20s) healthy person with no existing risky precondition in this pandemic:
Why should I take a vaccine, when it is now known that vaccinated people can still spread the virus, there's an almost neglible chance of side effect, and with no information about possible long-term side effect. If the chance of me getting hospitalized is so low to begin with, what's the benefit of the vaccine to me.
It's an genuine question, as I soon have to travel (to a country that still force quarantine even with vaccine) and have vaccine session booked by next month.
With my limited info the risk vs benefits of vaccine seems to solely end on "we know too little about the vaccine".
Edit: thanks for all the thoughtful replies. It's a hard question to ask (without anonymity) these days so all the sincere replies are much appreciated. I'll read through the given links (and credibility of the link) when I wake up
> If the chance of me getting hospitalized is so low to begin with
I just don't think this is true. Again, look at the states in the US with the lowest levels of vaccination. They are running out of ICU beds due to the amount of cases.
I'm not sure where you're located. Maybe there's a low amount of cases there, but in general, the risk of being hospitalized (and maybe not having a bed to go to) is rather high. The delta variant is also affecting young people more than other variants before it. I personally think getting the COVID vaccine is a smart choice.
In terms of vaccinated people still spreading the virus, the idea with vaccination is to reduce the chance of being hospitalized. That still seems like a big benefit to me.
I just don't think this is true. Again, look at the states in the US with the lowest levels of vaccination. They are running out of ICU beds due to the amount of cases.
I'm not sure where you're located. Maybe there's a low amount of cases there, but in general, the risk of being hospitalized (and maybe not having a bed to go to) is rather high. The delta variant is also affecting young people more than other variants before it. I personally think getting the COVID vaccine is a smart choice.
In terms of vaccinated people still spreading the virus, the idea with vaccination is to reduce the chance of being hospitalized. That still seems like a big benefit to me.
It is true. There's an Oxford Covid risk calculator, and for an average 20 something person, the risk of hospitalization is ~0.002%.
https://qcovid.org/
https://qcovid.org/
That calculator isn't telling you the risk of hospitalisation per case, but the risk of hospitalisation over a 90 day period during the first peak of the pandemic.
The two are very different. The calculated risk includes the fact that not everyone (or even most people) will get covid during that 90 day window. It's also based on the statistics for the original covid variant - by all accounts Delta is both more transmissible and more likely to cause hospitalisation.
The likelihood on a per-case basis is significantly higher. The Economist has a tool here: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/covid-pandemic-mort...
For example, a 25 year old man with no co-morbidity who receives a positive covid test has a 1.6% chance of hospitalisation. Obviously not everyone with covid will receive a positive test (I've seen an estimate of 1 in 4 are tested) - so perhaps that rate is actually 0.4%. That's way, way higher than the 0.002% you said.
Ultimately if covid is endemic, you will get it. At that point, even as a 25 year old, you're risking hospitalisation.
The two are very different. The calculated risk includes the fact that not everyone (or even most people) will get covid during that 90 day window. It's also based on the statistics for the original covid variant - by all accounts Delta is both more transmissible and more likely to cause hospitalisation.
The likelihood on a per-case basis is significantly higher. The Economist has a tool here: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/covid-pandemic-mort...
For example, a 25 year old man with no co-morbidity who receives a positive covid test has a 1.6% chance of hospitalisation. Obviously not everyone with covid will receive a positive test (I've seen an estimate of 1 in 4 are tested) - so perhaps that rate is actually 0.4%. That's way, way higher than the 0.002% you said.
Ultimately if covid is endemic, you will get it. At that point, even as a 25 year old, you're risking hospitalisation.
Has this been updated for the delta variant which is estimated be twice as likely to cause hospitalization?
https://www.politico.eu/article/delta-coronavirus-variant-do...
https://www.politico.eu/article/delta-coronavirus-variant-do...
So ~0.004% then. Are you suggesting that is statistically significant?
That calculator includes an estimate of likelihood of catching covid - so the actual risk of hospitalisation for someone who does catch covid is way, way higher - for a 25 year old man in the US it's about 1.6%.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/covid-pandemic-mort...
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/covid-pandemic-mort...
I'll get downvoted, but people keep forgetting that covid spread is exponential, not linear.
Ok, 0.008% if you want. Sure feels like an argument for argument sake. I can find a list of odds of things that will hurt/kill a 20-something where the percentage is greater than 0.008 if you'd like.
Thank you for the rapid and informative reply. I appreciate it (esp when the topic is a bit politicized right now)
I'm not from US so I haven't checked the stats closely for those states. My current city of residence is Tokyo. Afaik right now hospitalization seems quite bad, and there's no strict lockdown. I'm trying to work from home and dodge rush hours as much as possible to reduce the risk for now.
Do you have any numbers of "old vs young" hospitalization in the majority unvacinated area? And stats such as "young vaccinated vs young unvacinated" would also be interesting to see I would guess.
I've heard about the delta variant being more dangerous to the young, so that's for sure a important point. But last I heard the vaccine is not that effective to Delta variant, and also the delta variant difference seems to not be that much bigger according to this[0] study I found Jeremy Howard link on Twitter (I've only read the summary so I might be wrong on this)
Edit: thanks for the link hackingforfun, I'll be sure to take a look at it (tomorrow as it's late night here right now)
[0] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
I'm not from US so I haven't checked the stats closely for those states. My current city of residence is Tokyo. Afaik right now hospitalization seems quite bad, and there's no strict lockdown. I'm trying to work from home and dodge rush hours as much as possible to reduce the risk for now.
Do you have any numbers of "old vs young" hospitalization in the majority unvacinated area? And stats such as "young vaccinated vs young unvacinated" would also be interesting to see I would guess.
I've heard about the delta variant being more dangerous to the young, so that's for sure a important point. But last I heard the vaccine is not that effective to Delta variant, and also the delta variant difference seems to not be that much bigger according to this[0] study I found Jeremy Howard link on Twitter (I've only read the summary so I might be wrong on this)
Edit: thanks for the link hackingforfun, I'll be sure to take a look at it (tomorrow as it's late night here right now)
[0] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
I don't have numbers on "old vs young" hospitalization. I'd have to do some more googling for that and I need to get back to work.
However, regarding efficacy on the delta variant, from here [1]: Data so far suggests efficacy rates of approximately 67 percent for the J&J vaccine, 66 to 95 percent for the Moderna vaccine, and 42 to 96 percent for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
Seems like pretty good efficacy to me.
[1] https://www.healthline.com/health-news/heres-how-well-covid-...
However, regarding efficacy on the delta variant, from here [1]: Data so far suggests efficacy rates of approximately 67 percent for the J&J vaccine, 66 to 95 percent for the Moderna vaccine, and 42 to 96 percent for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
Seems like pretty good efficacy to me.
[1] https://www.healthline.com/health-news/heres-how-well-covid-...
Indiana currently has about 44% of overall population vaccinated (3.0M out of 6.8M).
Since January the state has recorded the following numbers of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths: [1]
[1]: https://www.kpcnews.com/covid-19/article_f0e9bff4-a968-56b3-...
Since January the state has recorded the following numbers of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths: [1]
Unvaccinated Vaccinated
C 278,508 6,740
H 16,322 226
D 5,709 78
[1]: https://www.kpcnews.com/covid-19/article_f0e9bff4-a968-56b3-...
I'm not trying to deny that the vaccine has a positive effect, but this data as presented (aggregated across the entire year) is extremely misleading. Here's why:
1) The infection/hospitalization/death rates were highest last winter, and relatively few people were vaccinated during the peak of the infection
2) A large proportion of the people in the Unvaccinated column here were infected long before we reached the current vaccination rate.
3) Therefore, suggesting that the numbers in this table represent the outcome of vaccination is simply not correct. This data is aggregated across the entire vaccination campaign and is completely confounded by the timing of waves vs that of vaccination rates.
If the goal is to build trust and present data transparently and fairly, why not show the same data with aggregation starting in July or starting AFTER reaching 40% vaccination rate?
1) The infection/hospitalization/death rates were highest last winter, and relatively few people were vaccinated during the peak of the infection
2) A large proportion of the people in the Unvaccinated column here were infected long before we reached the current vaccination rate.
3) Therefore, suggesting that the numbers in this table represent the outcome of vaccination is simply not correct. This data is aggregated across the entire vaccination campaign and is completely confounded by the timing of waves vs that of vaccination rates.
If the goal is to build trust and present data transparently and fairly, why not show the same data with aggregation starting in July or starting AFTER reaching 40% vaccination rate?
More recent data would also be good for reflecting any impact from delta becoming the predominant variant.
That article only provides cases from the week of August 15:
That article only provides cases from the week of August 15:
Unvaccinated Vaccinated
C 13,990 1,417> But last I heard the vaccine is not that effective to Delta variant.
It is not as effective as it was against earlier variants when it comes to preventing you from getting infected with COVID, but it is still very effective at preventing you from getting seriously ill or dying from COVID.
COVID is likely heading to endemic status where it is something we all get now and then, but we all have immunity from previous infections or vaccinations that largely protects us from serious illness when we do get it. In that world it is only your first infection that is dangerous for most people.
Vaccination essentially makes your first infection count as a second infection.
It is not as effective as it was against earlier variants when it comes to preventing you from getting infected with COVID, but it is still very effective at preventing you from getting seriously ill or dying from COVID.
COVID is likely heading to endemic status where it is something we all get now and then, but we all have immunity from previous infections or vaccinations that largely protects us from serious illness when we do get it. In that world it is only your first infection that is dangerous for most people.
Vaccination essentially makes your first infection count as a second infection.
As someone going through a second infection now, I hope that’s not the case. It isn’t as bad as the first time so far but it’s still no fun. I’m a healthy 33 year old.
>But last I heard the vaccine is not that effective to Delta variant.
That's not exactly the case. Neutralizing antibodies created from the vaccines work about as well against delta as they did against alpha. The main differences are that delta:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2783797
That's not exactly the case. Neutralizing antibodies created from the vaccines work about as well against delta as they did against alpha. The main differences are that delta:
* Spreads more efficiently
* Has a shorter incubation period
* Produces a higher viral load in those infected
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2783797
We should not consider the US to be a good sample, given the sky-high obesity rates.
> when it is now known that vaccinated people can still spread the virus
I imagine this is not binary but you are likely to be less sick and less contagious.
I imagine this is not binary but you are likely to be less sick and less contagious.
That's a good point. The article that mentioned it (I think it was based on study in Boston or Manhattan?) did mention that vaccinated people carried/spread it for _shorter amount of time_
Exactly. Getting vaccinated is not just about you, but everyone you come in contact with - especially those who may be at higher risk than you are. Maybe even people you care about?
I'm in my 30s and in good health. I've not been particularly concerned about dying myself from covid[0]. But I do have a mom and grandparents. I do have immunocompromised friends and family. How could I live with myself if I got one of them sick and hadn't taken even that simple step of a shot in the arm?
[0] though long-covid is another story, or even short-term "being sick for days/weeks" doesn't sound like a particularly good time.
I'm in my 30s and in good health. I've not been particularly concerned about dying myself from covid[0]. But I do have a mom and grandparents. I do have immunocompromised friends and family. How could I live with myself if I got one of them sick and hadn't taken even that simple step of a shot in the arm?
[0] though long-covid is another story, or even short-term "being sick for days/weeks" doesn't sound like a particularly good time.
Please circle back and post that article. That would be the first that I've heard of any difference in time between the two. Honestly it sounds suspicious.
Less likely to be sick and.. That's it. Equally as likely to spread the Delta variant if we're considering viral load as the metric. That's only compared to an unvaccinated person who has not previously had an infection (i.e. no natural immunity).
I lack the background on biology, just a layperson take.
> Why should I take a vaccine, when it is now known that vaccinated people can still spread the virus, there's an almost neglible chance of side effect, and with no information about possible long-term side effect.
There's unknowns about the long-term effects of infection, too. Several viral infections result in prolonged symptoms or decades-later re-emergence.
Bottom line IMO - there's little/no treatment for the infection resulting from this virus. So the best solution medicine can offer is the vaccine. Safe vaccines have been designed and administered before, so I hope this is among the many safe vaccines. We know it's effective at mitigating symptoms and we know it's effective at reducing the spread.
I think taking the vaccine is the net least risk, but you're right that there's stuff that we just don't know.
> Why should I take a vaccine, when it is now known that vaccinated people can still spread the virus, there's an almost neglible chance of side effect, and with no information about possible long-term side effect.
There's unknowns about the long-term effects of infection, too. Several viral infections result in prolonged symptoms or decades-later re-emergence.
Bottom line IMO - there's little/no treatment for the infection resulting from this virus. So the best solution medicine can offer is the vaccine. Safe vaccines have been designed and administered before, so I hope this is among the many safe vaccines. We know it's effective at mitigating symptoms and we know it's effective at reducing the spread.
I think taking the vaccine is the net least risk, but you're right that there's stuff that we just don't know.
So it just doesn't give any benefit. Reducing the risk of something which is already close to zero, is still 0. If we follow your argument, why not take the vaccine ten times ?
The excess mortality of people under 49 years in a country like france is zero in 2020 [0].
About long term effects of infections. Well the same can be said of the vaccine. In both case we have no idea
[0] https://www.insee.fr/en/statistiques/4493806?sommaire=449384...
The excess mortality of people under 49 years in a country like france is zero in 2020 [0].
About long term effects of infections. Well the same can be said of the vaccine. In both case we have no idea
[0] https://www.insee.fr/en/statistiques/4493806?sommaire=449384...
>Well the same can be said of the vaccine. In both case we have no idea.
See https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/how-do-we-know-covid-19...
See https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/how-do-we-know-covid-19...
* History tells us that severe side effects are extremely rare, and if they if do occur, they usually happen within the first two months.
* COVID-19 vaccine technologies have been studied for years and used in other treatments without issue.
* The vaccine development process, from clinical trials to ongoing monitoring, helps to uncover and understand side effects.The same can be said of unknown longterm side effects of covid
Not really. There are multiple instances of viruses, such as HIV, Chickenpox, and HPV, which are known to cause increased health risks or outright disease years and often decades after the initial infection appears to fade.
There are also many instances of "long" Covid we are already seeing in which people struggle with lingering symptoms, sometimes severe, for months after initially getting ill.
And in children, the rare but serious phenomenon that's been called MISC, usually occurs weeks or months after the initial Covid infection has subsided.
You are right that we don't know the long term side-effects of Covid, or of vaccination, and won't for quite some time. But what evidence we do have based on previous experiences with vaccines and viruses, as well as what we have already observed in Covid infections and vaccinations, makes it clear that vaccines are a far less risky prospect than the disease is.
There are also many instances of "long" Covid we are already seeing in which people struggle with lingering symptoms, sometimes severe, for months after initially getting ill.
And in children, the rare but serious phenomenon that's been called MISC, usually occurs weeks or months after the initial Covid infection has subsided.
You are right that we don't know the long term side-effects of Covid, or of vaccination, and won't for quite some time. But what evidence we do have based on previous experiences with vaccines and viruses, as well as what we have already observed in Covid infections and vaccinations, makes it clear that vaccines are a far less risky prospect than the disease is.
Covid is a virus, the effects of which are not comparable to a vaccine. There's a lot of past evidence (as mentioned in the article) for < 2 month indications of long-term side effects based on historical vaccine development. We aren't seeing any of those indicators for the covid vaccines.
Moreover, we already have clinical evidence that covid causes long-term side effects in up to a third of people infected. There is no such evidence for any covid vaccine.
Moreover, we already have clinical evidence that covid causes long-term side effects in up to a third of people infected. There is no such evidence for any covid vaccine.
If I were in your shoes, the main thing I'd look into is not hospitalized/death, but "long covid".
Huge quality of life impact, way less understood. Estimates range from 6%-20%+ of people who get covid are still having symptoms 2 months or longer post infection. People who have symptoms two months after infection usually still are having side-effects one year later. Neurological, blood or organ impacts, but all very different and still not well understood.
So I both don't want to seem like I'm hyping it up either because again a lot is unknown it might not be a serious issue / concern.
The main point I'd say is if you're going to make a judgement based on risk make sure you're evaluating the situation completely. And for anyone looking at covid risks, they shouldn't be focused on solely death, but understand long covid as well. Current speculative thinking essentially believes it parallels either triggering auto-immune type issues, or dormant/re-emergent viruses (like chicken pox / shingles type of behavior).
A not very good article on it, but don't have time to find a better one:
https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/619941/
Huge quality of life impact, way less understood. Estimates range from 6%-20%+ of people who get covid are still having symptoms 2 months or longer post infection. People who have symptoms two months after infection usually still are having side-effects one year later. Neurological, blood or organ impacts, but all very different and still not well understood.
So I both don't want to seem like I'm hyping it up either because again a lot is unknown it might not be a serious issue / concern.
The main point I'd say is if you're going to make a judgement based on risk make sure you're evaluating the situation completely. And for anyone looking at covid risks, they shouldn't be focused on solely death, but understand long covid as well. Current speculative thinking essentially believes it parallels either triggering auto-immune type issues, or dormant/re-emergent viruses (like chicken pox / shingles type of behavior).
A not very good article on it, but don't have time to find a better one:
https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/619941/
Thanks for the informative reply. Yes, I think my demographic group are way more concerned about the side effects/long term effects of vaccine/covid than hospitalizations or death. And covid is not "risk free" after a influenza like symptoms for weeks.
I know same age group friends that have had covid and "loss of taste" have been the most common experience I've heard. It's anecdotal, but also a good data point to me since I know these people's lifestyle / demographic a bit better than sweeping big stats.
I'll check out the link you gave regarding this specific topic about covid long term effects and compare it to what we know about the vaccine
I know same age group friends that have had covid and "loss of taste" have been the most common experience I've heard. It's anecdotal, but also a good data point to me since I know these people's lifestyle / demographic a bit better than sweeping big stats.
I'll check out the link you gave regarding this specific topic about covid long term effects and compare it to what we know about the vaccine
> there's little/no treatment for the infection resulting from this virus.
This is not true. Since the beginning of the pandemic front line doctors have been successfully reducing hospitalization and death through early treatment with antivirals, corticosteriods, and antithrombotics.
[1] Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) https://scholarlycommons.henryford.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...
[2] Timing of Antiviral Treatment Initiation is Critical to Reduce SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/psp4.1...
[3] Clinical outcomes after early ambulatory multidrug therapy for high-risk SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection https://rcm.imrpress.com/EN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?a...
[4] Early multidrug treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) and reduced mortality among nursing home (or outpatient/ambulatory) residents https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03069...
[5] Multidrug treatment for COVID-19 https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ddt/advpub/0/advpub_202...
This is not true. Since the beginning of the pandemic front line doctors have been successfully reducing hospitalization and death through early treatment with antivirals, corticosteriods, and antithrombotics.
[1] Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) https://scholarlycommons.henryford.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...
[2] Timing of Antiviral Treatment Initiation is Critical to Reduce SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/psp4.1...
[3] Clinical outcomes after early ambulatory multidrug therapy for high-risk SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection https://rcm.imrpress.com/EN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?a...
[4] Early multidrug treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) and reduced mortality among nursing home (or outpatient/ambulatory) residents https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03069...
[5] Multidrug treatment for COVID-19 https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ddt/advpub/0/advpub_202...
I guess a better way to phrase it is that there's no over-the-counter cure, and if you're at the point where a front line doctor is giving you steroids, things are already going worse than most people's vaccine side effects.
> there's no over-the-counter cure
All of those medications can be prescribed prophylactically (early in the symptomatic phase) by just about any clinic.
I'm not advocating against vaccination, just pointing out that early treatment with widely available and existing medicines has also proven to be effective in reducing severe outcomes.
All of those medications can be prescribed prophylactically (early in the symptomatic phase) by just about any clinic.
I'm not advocating against vaccination, just pointing out that early treatment with widely available and existing medicines has also proven to be effective in reducing severe outcomes.
[1] is an interesting lit review on what drug strategies have been tried where in the world.
None of these papers seem to present strong clinical evidence that these drugs have actually been effective, vs some hidden covariate or something. A couple include interesting small-sample observational studies, but as I understand it those haven’t panned out in follow-on randomized controlled trials that have been done.
There are also a couple essentially viewpoint articles that are interesting. [2] is basically a pharmacokinetic calculation motivating further study, but no clinical data.
[4] is a hypothesis piece about hydroxychloroquine that draws on nine other studies. Haven’t been able to evaluate those because [4] is not open access, but this is one of the drugs that has not lived up to expectations in various RCTs that have been completed…
None of these papers seem to present strong clinical evidence that these drugs have actually been effective, vs some hidden covariate or something. A couple include interesting small-sample observational studies, but as I understand it those haven’t panned out in follow-on randomized controlled trials that have been done.
There are also a couple essentially viewpoint articles that are interesting. [2] is basically a pharmacokinetic calculation motivating further study, but no clinical data.
[4] is a hypothesis piece about hydroxychloroquine that draws on nine other studies. Haven’t been able to evaluate those because [4] is not open access, but this is one of the drugs that has not lived up to expectations in various RCTs that have been completed…
Fair enough, here are some high quality RCTs that provide the strong clinical evidence you're looking for.
[1] Ivermectin in combination with doxycycline for treating COVID-19 symptoms: a randomized trial https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33983065/
[2] Fluvoxamine: A Review of Its Mechanism of Action and Its Role in COVID-19 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2021.6526...
[3] Baricitinib plus Remdesivir for Hospitalized Adults with Covid-19 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33306283/
[4] Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 - Final Report https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32445440/
[1] Ivermectin in combination with doxycycline for treating COVID-19 symptoms: a randomized trial https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33983065/
[2] Fluvoxamine: A Review of Its Mechanism of Action and Its Role in COVID-19 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2021.6526...
[3] Baricitinib plus Remdesivir for Hospitalized Adults with Covid-19 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33306283/
[4] Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 - Final Report https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32445440/
I think he is talking more about long-covid and not the actual hospitalization. Since he is talking about symptoms and not hospitalization explicitly.
Even persons who don't end up in the hospital can have symptoms. I'm leaving up to the reader of these are ok or not.
Even persons who don't end up in the hospital can have symptoms. I'm leaving up to the reader of these are ok or not.
> when it is now known that vaccinated people can still spread the virus
Why wear your seatbelt if you can still die in a collision? Why bother with refrigeration when cold food can still rot?
You can't think of risk in terms of binaries; bad things are still possible with the best safety technologies, but that doesn't mean those technologies aren't worthwhile.
As an aside, the virus is actively changing over time, and delta variant is putting a lot more young people in the hospital.
Why wear your seatbelt if you can still die in a collision? Why bother with refrigeration when cold food can still rot?
You can't think of risk in terms of binaries; bad things are still possible with the best safety technologies, but that doesn't mean those technologies aren't worthwhile.
As an aside, the virus is actively changing over time, and delta variant is putting a lot more young people in the hospital.
> As an aside, the virus is actively changing over time, and delta variant is putting a lot more young people in the hospital.
If this is the case, this is not hugely more than the previous variants as we can't see it on hospitalizations charts
> Why wear your seatbelt if you can still die in a collision?
Why not wear a helmet in a car I'm sure it would help in some cases ?
If this is the case, this is not hugely more than the previous variants as we can't see it on hospitalizations charts
> Why wear your seatbelt if you can still die in a collision?
Why not wear a helmet in a car I'm sure it would help in some cases ?
Wearing a helmet in a car is a PITA. Getting vaccinated causes literally no ongoing inconvenience 24-36 hours later. It's effectively a cost-free intervention with enormous upside in terms of protection from death and hospitalization. Helmets are better compared to interventions like masks and social distancing, as they must be used constantly.
Edit: taking your analogy less literally, it seems the issue here is the socially acceptable level of risk. The health risks of covid are demonstrable and apparent. If we can mitigate those risks by ~90% with no ongoing cost, then that intervention makes sense. On the other hand, if additional interventions mitigate it by only an additional 5%, then those may not be worth the trouble.
Edit: taking your analogy less literally, it seems the issue here is the socially acceptable level of risk. The health risks of covid are demonstrable and apparent. If we can mitigate those risks by ~90% with no ongoing cost, then that intervention makes sense. On the other hand, if additional interventions mitigate it by only an additional 5%, then those may not be worth the trouble.
I think this is a good of example of why Scott Adams says this about analogies:
Analogies: Analogies are good tools for explaining a concept to someone for the first time. But because analogies are imperfect they are the worst way to persuade. All discussions that involve analogies devolve into arguments about the quality of the analogy, not the underlying situation.
https://www.scottadamssays.com/2016/12/21/how-to-be-unpersua...
Analogies: Analogies are good tools for explaining a concept to someone for the first time. But because analogies are imperfect they are the worst way to persuade. All discussions that involve analogies devolve into arguments about the quality of the analogy, not the underlying situation.
https://www.scottadamssays.com/2016/12/21/how-to-be-unpersua...
> Why not wear a helmet in a car I'm sure it would help in some cases ?
Race car drivers do wear helmets!
Risk-benefit is a simple matter of considering the relative downsides (costs) vs benefit (safety) of available options, and making some rational choices.
COVID is insanely dangerous. Even for young people, the dangers of COVID are directly comparable to professional car racing, base jumping, or similarly high-risk activities. For older people, it's comparable to being an astronaut. For people with co-morbidities, it's more risky than climbing Mount Everest!
Everybody undertaking all of those activities wears a ton of safety equipment. Did you notice?
Unfortunately, this kind of thinking has never worked for the general public, they always have to be dragged, kicking and screaming the whole way, every time.
My cousin drives his car with one hand past every traffic light with a safety camera, so that he can use the other hand to hold his seat belt near the buckle. This makes it look like it's clicked in securely, but obviously provide no safety beneft. This is insanely dangerous and much less comfortable than simply clicking in the seatbelt. (He drives a manual car, so he has to switch back and forth between the gear shift knob and the steering wheel rapidly!)
Why does he do this? Because "the man" is forcing him to wear the seatbelt, so it's a point of personal pride to refuse. "Gaming" the system by holding the seatbelt in the closed position without actually providing safety fills him with a sense of small accomplishment for having resisted the authorities.
I really wish I was kidding, but these are the kinds of thoughts that drive people to refuse to get vaccinated as well.
"No, I won't! The gubb'ment can fuck right off! I'd rather risk it and take Invermectin!" -- literally two of my friends, almost verbatim.
Race car drivers do wear helmets!
Risk-benefit is a simple matter of considering the relative downsides (costs) vs benefit (safety) of available options, and making some rational choices.
COVID is insanely dangerous. Even for young people, the dangers of COVID are directly comparable to professional car racing, base jumping, or similarly high-risk activities. For older people, it's comparable to being an astronaut. For people with co-morbidities, it's more risky than climbing Mount Everest!
Everybody undertaking all of those activities wears a ton of safety equipment. Did you notice?
Unfortunately, this kind of thinking has never worked for the general public, they always have to be dragged, kicking and screaming the whole way, every time.
My cousin drives his car with one hand past every traffic light with a safety camera, so that he can use the other hand to hold his seat belt near the buckle. This makes it look like it's clicked in securely, but obviously provide no safety beneft. This is insanely dangerous and much less comfortable than simply clicking in the seatbelt. (He drives a manual car, so he has to switch back and forth between the gear shift knob and the steering wheel rapidly!)
Why does he do this? Because "the man" is forcing him to wear the seatbelt, so it's a point of personal pride to refuse. "Gaming" the system by holding the seatbelt in the closed position without actually providing safety fills him with a sense of small accomplishment for having resisted the authorities.
I really wish I was kidding, but these are the kinds of thoughts that drive people to refuse to get vaccinated as well.
"No, I won't! The gubb'ment can fuck right off! I'd rather risk it and take Invermectin!" -- literally two of my friends, almost verbatim.
You are posting misinformation. I would encourage everyone to get vaccinated if they can. But according to the CDC the fatality rate for people in the 18-49 age group is only 0.06%. And the deaths are mostly people with serious co-morbid conditions. The risk is nowhere near as high as BASE jumping.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2020.11.002
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2020.11.002
If you literally Google "base jumping risk statistics" it helpfully says, right at the top: "BASE jumping carries a 0.2-0.4% injury rate per jump, and a fatality rate of 0.04% per jump."
I'm saying 0.06% risk of death is comparable to 0.04% risk of death.
How exactly am I spreading "misinformation"?
Googling "everest climbers death rate" yields: "Interestingly, the death rate has decreased a bit, from 1.6 percent in the earlier period to 1.0 percent in the more recent period. That said, since the number of climbers has quadrupled, the actual number of deaths has increased."
Remind me what the CFR/IFR is for COVID for over-70s with co-morbidities again? I don't want to post "misinformation" here, so I'll let you do your own research.
I'm saying 0.06% risk of death is comparable to 0.04% risk of death.
How exactly am I spreading "misinformation"?
Googling "everest climbers death rate" yields: "Interestingly, the death rate has decreased a bit, from 1.6 percent in the earlier period to 1.0 percent in the more recent period. That said, since the number of climbers has quadrupled, the actual number of deaths has increased."
Remind me what the CFR/IFR is for COVID for over-70s with co-morbidities again? I don't want to post "misinformation" here, so I'll let you do your own research.
Let's put it another way: with Delta, the chances of you getting COVID are pretty high. If you do, the chances of you getting bad side effects may be low, but they're a few orders of magnitude higher than the vaccine.
In this case, why not take the vaccine?
In this case, why not take the vaccine?
> Why should I take a vaccine
> when it is now known that vaccinated people can still spread the virus
Because just because you "can" doesn't mean that you're as likely to[1]:
> Fully vaccinated people with Delta variant breakthrough infections can spread the virus to others. However, vaccinated people appear to spread the virus for a shorter time […] This means fully vaccinated people will likely spread the virus for less time than unvaccinated people.
(—the CDC)
> If the chance of me getting hospitalized is so low to begin with, what's the benefit of the vaccine to me.
With what data exists, the chance of side-effects from the vaccine is many orders of magnitude less than the chances of any of suffering from COVID or even death from COVID.
[1]: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-var...
I also don't think it is worth putting stock into fear of the unknown with this vaccine: scientists have developed vaccines before. If anything, the structure of this particular vaccine — an mRNA strand inside a lipid bubble — seems a lot safer and much less ad-hoc than what I understand of earlier vaccines; in fact, it seems like downright engineering, and to me, it is exciting that we've gotten tech for that at such a crucial time. My high-school level biology knowledge of how mRNA interacts with a cell makes me feel that part should be pretty safe; what side-effects the spike protein might have are, I suppose, an unknown, but without the virus, your chances of not getting infected, are, IMO, not good, and the virus will generate far more than just spike proteins, and in far greater numbers. We also know just as little about the long-term side effects of the virus, but thus far, the reports on side-effects from the virus are much worse than reports on side-effects from the vaccine.
That's also just assessing it from the standpoint of "me", but part of the other reason I got the vaccine is that, while I might be young and healthy and might be able to give COVID a run for its money (though honestly, the idea of a respirator scares me far more than anything about the vaccine) I have people around me who are not so young or not so healthy; while I might live, I do not want to transmit a a virus that could be potentially lethal to them.
The good outweighs the bad. (Very clearly, IMO.) Yes, there are some unknowns, but nothing in life is certain.
> when it is now known that vaccinated people can still spread the virus
Because just because you "can" doesn't mean that you're as likely to[1]:
> Fully vaccinated people with Delta variant breakthrough infections can spread the virus to others. However, vaccinated people appear to spread the virus for a shorter time […] This means fully vaccinated people will likely spread the virus for less time than unvaccinated people.
(—the CDC)
> If the chance of me getting hospitalized is so low to begin with, what's the benefit of the vaccine to me.
With what data exists, the chance of side-effects from the vaccine is many orders of magnitude less than the chances of any of suffering from COVID or even death from COVID.
[1]: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-var...
I also don't think it is worth putting stock into fear of the unknown with this vaccine: scientists have developed vaccines before. If anything, the structure of this particular vaccine — an mRNA strand inside a lipid bubble — seems a lot safer and much less ad-hoc than what I understand of earlier vaccines; in fact, it seems like downright engineering, and to me, it is exciting that we've gotten tech for that at such a crucial time. My high-school level biology knowledge of how mRNA interacts with a cell makes me feel that part should be pretty safe; what side-effects the spike protein might have are, I suppose, an unknown, but without the virus, your chances of not getting infected, are, IMO, not good, and the virus will generate far more than just spike proteins, and in far greater numbers. We also know just as little about the long-term side effects of the virus, but thus far, the reports on side-effects from the virus are much worse than reports on side-effects from the vaccine.
That's also just assessing it from the standpoint of "me", but part of the other reason I got the vaccine is that, while I might be young and healthy and might be able to give COVID a run for its money (though honestly, the idea of a respirator scares me far more than anything about the vaccine) I have people around me who are not so young or not so healthy; while I might live, I do not want to transmit a a virus that could be potentially lethal to them.
The good outweighs the bad. (Very clearly, IMO.) Yes, there are some unknowns, but nothing in life is certain.
Hi thanks for the reply and the perspective.
>I have people around me who are not so young or not so healthy; while I might live, I do not want to transmit a a virus that could be potentially lethal to them.
This is also the reason I did sign up for vaccination,(traveling with work and all) but it also put a dent in the reasoning that the people I'll meet will highly likely be vaccinated due to their age.
>I also don't think it is worth putting stock into fear of the unknown with this vaccine
You have a valid point and I do trust the scientist to do their work well(although after entering research this year my trust for science have been slightly jaded), but trusting the vaccine means I have to trust not just the scientists but all entities involved along the line (mass production, distribution, quality control, government logistics, safe storage and transportation).
With the entire vaccine thing being so highly politicized and tribalized, having the (healthy) level of scepticism and trying to express it to inform myself through dialogue have been very hard, so I appreciate your comment a lot. I'll ponder a bit where my doubts are valid/not valid and what action is reasonable based on that
>I have people around me who are not so young or not so healthy; while I might live, I do not want to transmit a a virus that could be potentially lethal to them.
This is also the reason I did sign up for vaccination,(traveling with work and all) but it also put a dent in the reasoning that the people I'll meet will highly likely be vaccinated due to their age.
>I also don't think it is worth putting stock into fear of the unknown with this vaccine
You have a valid point and I do trust the scientist to do their work well(although after entering research this year my trust for science have been slightly jaded), but trusting the vaccine means I have to trust not just the scientists but all entities involved along the line (mass production, distribution, quality control, government logistics, safe storage and transportation).
With the entire vaccine thing being so highly politicized and tribalized, having the (healthy) level of scepticism and trying to express it to inform myself through dialogue have been very hard, so I appreciate your comment a lot. I'll ponder a bit where my doubts are valid/not valid and what action is reasonable based on that
> but it also put a dent in the reasoning that the people I'll meet will highly likely be vaccinated due to their age.
Gotta stop thinking in binary terms.
Breakthrough cases happen though. So even if the people you're seeing are vaccinated, if they are unlucky they can still pick up the virus from you, and if they are even more unlucky they can still have a pretty bad infection from it.
Vaccination reduces spread, and reduces severity, but it doesn't just flip those from 1 to 0.
Vaxed you + vaxed them is less risk to them than unvaxed you + vaxed them.
Gotta stop thinking in binary terms.
Breakthrough cases happen though. So even if the people you're seeing are vaccinated, if they are unlucky they can still pick up the virus from you, and if they are even more unlucky they can still have a pretty bad infection from it.
Vaccination reduces spread, and reduces severity, but it doesn't just flip those from 1 to 0.
Vaxed you + vaxed them is less risk to them than unvaxed you + vaxed them.
1. even in your 20s, there's still risk to be sick in an unpleasant way
2. we've been using vaccines forever. I've been vaccinated maybe 10 times in my life. Why suddenly should I worry. RNA vaccines may be newer, but 100s of millions of people have been vaccinated, and side effects happen usually soon after the injection. You can also use the AZ vaccine which is more conventional.
3. you prevent other people from getting sick. Even though the vaccine doesn't totally prevent spreading the disease, it does to some extent.
4. Consensus about doctors is that ratio benefit/risk is favorable toward the vaccine for all age classes. I trust my family doctor with my health and follow his recommendation.
The risk of suffering long-term damage from getting covid unvaccinated is way higher than the risk of any long-term side effects from the vaccine or getting Covid vaccinated. Even if the former is low, there's no downside to getting the vaccine anyways.
I can kind of understand if someone is avoiding the vaccine and also isolating themselves to protect against the virus, but I really just don't understand the risk-benefit analysis where the vaccine is too risky but catching Covid isn't.
Also, the risk of catching Covid unvaccinated may not be that low. But, the risk of any serious vaccine side-effects, or catching Covid vaccinated, is super low. IIRC Israel did a study and, the amount of breakthrough cases requiring hospitalization for under 40 was 0.3 per 100k, and the amount of people suffering myocarditis and other vaccine complications is in the double-digits, despite vaccinations being in the billions.
We know little about the vaccine, but we also know little about the effects of social media, random pollutants, etc. And that stuff is applied without your consent, and unlike the vaccine that stuff probably is harmful long-term.
I can kind of understand if someone is avoiding the vaccine and also isolating themselves to protect against the virus, but I really just don't understand the risk-benefit analysis where the vaccine is too risky but catching Covid isn't.
Also, the risk of catching Covid unvaccinated may not be that low. But, the risk of any serious vaccine side-effects, or catching Covid vaccinated, is super low. IIRC Israel did a study and, the amount of breakthrough cases requiring hospitalization for under 40 was 0.3 per 100k, and the amount of people suffering myocarditis and other vaccine complications is in the double-digits, despite vaccinations being in the billions.
We know little about the vaccine, but we also know little about the effects of social media, random pollutants, etc. And that stuff is applied without your consent, and unlike the vaccine that stuff probably is harmful long-term.
> the amount of people suffering myocarditis and other vaccine complications is in the double-digits
This is not true, according to the CDC (as of August 18th) there at least 742 cases of myocarditis and myopericarditis associated with vaccination, potentially upwards of ~1,300 [1].
For males age 16-17 the reporting rate of myopericarditis after 2 doses of Pfizer is 71.5 per 1 million doses administered (0.0071%) [1].
Compared to natural infection, vaccination is likely still a favorable tradeoff for most people. However the tradeoffs are highly dependent on age, health, and gender. Stratifying by these factors is essential for any scientifically accurate discussion of risks.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-...
This is not true, according to the CDC (as of August 18th) there at least 742 cases of myocarditis and myopericarditis associated with vaccination, potentially upwards of ~1,300 [1].
For males age 16-17 the reporting rate of myopericarditis after 2 doses of Pfizer is 71.5 per 1 million doses administered (0.0071%) [1].
Compared to natural infection, vaccination is likely still a favorable tradeoff for most people. However the tradeoffs are highly dependent on age, health, and gender. Stratifying by these factors is essential for any scientifically accurate discussion of risks.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-...
Personally, my heart & chest are still recovering from the second Pfizer shot, after having ECG, bloodwork and nearly going to the ER. Wont be getting a booster, thats for damned certain.
I suspect the number to be significantly higher than whats reported.
I suspect the number to be significantly higher than whats reported.
Literally billions of people around the world have been vaccinated against Coronavirus now. How high can the chance of serious short-term side effects be?
Again, depends on age, condition.
I'm currently fighting long COVID symptoms that have showed up after vaccination. I never had COVID, but the vaccine has given me - chronic fatigue - chronic headaches - brain fog. From JJ vaccine.
If you look into the Australia, Canada and Norway data you see that the numbers are higher than initially expected. Serious side effects like TTS were thought to happen around 1 in 100k, but they now think it would be something like 1 in 20 000. Perhaps less, if you account for people that don't even realise they're getting it.
The vaccine are something like 5x reduction in mortality, but they are not perfect.
If you look into the Australia, Canada and Norway data you see that the numbers are higher than initially expected. Serious side effects like TTS were thought to happen around 1 in 100k, but they now think it would be something like 1 in 20 000. Perhaps less, if you account for people that don't even realise they're getting it.
The vaccine are something like 5x reduction in mortality, but they are not perfect.
lol that's the same logic that resulted in 100M passwords and credentials being leaked....again and again and again.....
mistakes are normal, to assume none is truly unfathomably dense....
mistakes are normal, to assume none is truly unfathomably dense....
A large sample size provides more conclusive results than does a small sample size.
In the case of Coronavirus vaccines, the sample size is 1/3 the population of Earth.
If hundreds of millions of vaccinated people were developing heart problems it would be noticeable.
In the case of Coronavirus vaccines, the sample size is 1/3 the population of Earth.
If hundreds of millions of vaccinated people were developing heart problems it would be noticeable.
I note you conveniently left out "reported" cases from your sentence. You are citing numbers reported by VAERS which is not at all the same as confirmed cases. Please don't fear-monger on HN.
I cited numbers reported by the CDC who reviewed VAERS reports and determined that a subset met the CDC’s own criteria.
I accurately transcribed facts from an official CDC document, and even linked the source, nothing more. Do you really think that is fear-mongering?
The CDC is actively investigating many of the reports, dismissing them as not confirmed is a bit disingenuous at the very least.
I accurately transcribed facts from an official CDC document, and even linked the source, nothing more. Do you really think that is fear-mongering?
The CDC is actively investigating many of the reports, dismissing them as not confirmed is a bit disingenuous at the very least.
I think parent is commenting here that the CDC is talking about self-reported data. We're not talking about a diagnosis from a doctor. Calling them "confirmed" is just as disingenuous, if I'm understanding the explanations in the slides you link.
Slide 11 appears to say that a large number of cases were hospitalized. If this interpretation is correct, we are talking about a diagnosis from a doctor, not self-reported data.
All the slides say is that there were 700ish reports that met case criteria as reported through VAERS, a self-reporting system. We are not told any information about which case criteria were met (objective vs subjective), comorbidities, reason for presentation (all vital information for a true diagnosis not report). We are not told about degree of hospitalisation or reason for hospitalisation. We are most certainly not given confirmed cases as GP claims, the stringent criteria for which are listed one link deep from the presentation. We are left with a misleading link to a scary-sounding number that is being posted by multiple accounts across HN with nebulous intent and in some cases history of posting blatant misinformation. I feel that calling this practice out when I see it helps if just a little bit.
In this case a look through GP's recent comment history reveals many comments with disinformation and fear-mongering.
In this case a look through GP's recent comment history reveals many comments with disinformation and fear-mongering.
Does the link https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7027e2-H.pdf on the same page 11 answer your concerns? That paper (from June) explains in some details what the CDC did, and I would assume that the slides are just an update of the numbers on the paper to a later date. At least the author of the slides was an author of the paper, so I would infer that they kept doing whatever they were doing in June.
One thing that the paper is pretty clear about is that in order to proclaim a "case", the CDC reviewed medical records and interviewed the healthcare provider looking for specific criteria. It seems like all criteria include at least one test, e.g. EKG, in addition to symptoms reported by the patient. It's not like they ran a SQL query over a bunch of dudes reporting chest pain---the CDC did their homework. If anything, I have more confidence in the CDC and the vaccines now than I had before reading these documents.
One thing that the paper is pretty clear about is that in order to proclaim a "case", the CDC reviewed medical records and interviewed the healthcare provider looking for specific criteria. It seems like all criteria include at least one test, e.g. EKG, in addition to symptoms reported by the patient. It's not like they ran a SQL query over a bunch of dudes reporting chest pain---the CDC did their homework. If anything, I have more confidence in the CDC and the vaccines now than I had before reading these documents.
Of course I read through the link. It did not alter my reading of the slides in the slightest. The simpler tests recommended in the paper are not as objective as you might think. Again, the slides do not give us the information used and the interviews you mention did not happen for entire age categories. I'm glad you have confidence in the CDC and vaccines; GP does not and is actively trying to mislead users of HN. Appreciate the downvotes instead of discussion.
> The risk of suffering long-term damage from getting covid unvaccinated is way higher than the risk of any long-term side effects from the vaccine or getting Covid vaccinated
Honest question, there were studies about the effect of the vaccine on hospitalizations. But is there any studies about the effect on long covid ? And especially is there studies showing that people under the age of 40 in healthy condition have any benefit regarding long covid by taking the vaccine ?
> I really just don't understand the risk-benefit analysis where the vaccine is too risky but catching Covid isn't.
Well, some people don't like to take drugs, so if they know that their immune system can cope with it (even if that means difficult time for a short time) they would prefer it. It is not risk-benefit positive. It is just more aligned with some people feelings. Some people make preventing death as the almost most important things in their life, so they will take drugs, be careful in life and so on. While some people are just ok dying in certain conditions, and are not willing to engage in risk-free life
Honest question, there were studies about the effect of the vaccine on hospitalizations. But is there any studies about the effect on long covid ? And especially is there studies showing that people under the age of 40 in healthy condition have any benefit regarding long covid by taking the vaccine ?
> I really just don't understand the risk-benefit analysis where the vaccine is too risky but catching Covid isn't.
Well, some people don't like to take drugs, so if they know that their immune system can cope with it (even if that means difficult time for a short time) they would prefer it. It is not risk-benefit positive. It is just more aligned with some people feelings. Some people make preventing death as the almost most important things in their life, so they will take drugs, be careful in life and so on. While some people are just ok dying in certain conditions, and are not willing to engage in risk-free life
> And especially is there studies showing that people under the age of 40 in healthy condition have any benefit regarding long covid by taking the vaccine ?
If you mean risk of long-covid after getting covid with vs. without the vaccine: of course we don't know, but it's pretty likely the vaccine significantly decreases the chance of long covid. Since long-covid correlates well with infection severity, and the vaccine is particularly good at preventing severe infections.
If you mean the chance of people who already have long-covid recovering after getting vaccinated - it's pretty low.
> Well, some people don't like to take drugs, so if they know that their immune system can cope with it (even if that means difficult time for a short time) they would prefer it.
Ok. But still, "drug" is an arbitrary label, the vaccine consists of mRNA and other compounds which are in your body. I get taking risks and not being over-careful, like I definitely get why lockdowns / even masking in some situations is a bad idea. But the risk of not getting vaccinated is an unnecessary risk, kind of like driving without a seatbelt or riding without a helmet, except you only have to wear the helmet initially (idk I can't think of a better analogy).
If you mean risk of long-covid after getting covid with vs. without the vaccine: of course we don't know, but it's pretty likely the vaccine significantly decreases the chance of long covid. Since long-covid correlates well with infection severity, and the vaccine is particularly good at preventing severe infections.
If you mean the chance of people who already have long-covid recovering after getting vaccinated - it's pretty low.
> Well, some people don't like to take drugs, so if they know that their immune system can cope with it (even if that means difficult time for a short time) they would prefer it.
Ok. But still, "drug" is an arbitrary label, the vaccine consists of mRNA and other compounds which are in your body. I get taking risks and not being over-careful, like I definitely get why lockdowns / even masking in some situations is a bad idea. But the risk of not getting vaccinated is an unnecessary risk, kind of like driving without a seatbelt or riding without a helmet, except you only have to wear the helmet initially (idk I can't think of a better analogy).
I don't know of studies directly studying the vaccine for prevention of long covid, but most of the studies coming out seem to indicate that long covid is more likely in severe infections. So since we know the vaccine is good at preventing severe infections, it makes sense that the vaccine would be good at preventing long covid.
I get where you are coming from on the default being not taking medicine. But to me, I just don't see a vaccine as quite the same as medicine. It's basically a training program for your immune system. It tells your immune system what to look for and then when covid does enter your system, it is prepared and your immune system naturally fights it off the same way it always would. It just has a headstart in creating antibodies.
I get where you are coming from on the default being not taking medicine. But to me, I just don't see a vaccine as quite the same as medicine. It's basically a training program for your immune system. It tells your immune system what to look for and then when covid does enter your system, it is prepared and your immune system naturally fights it off the same way it always would. It just has a headstart in creating antibodies.
People have a right to take that risk!
The govt has the right to protect public health.
The government does not have rights. In the United States the power resides in the individual citizens. The "government" are individual citizens selected to do the paperwork. When their corruption exceeds our disinterest, they're done.
Umm.. this is why we need civics classes because people
Don’t actually understand what the purpose of government is and what we rights we give up to be governed.
We do need much better civics and history classes. We don't "give up rights," and we're not "governed" in this country. Look at the wording of the bill of rights. It's a list of limits on the government.
I think the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-04-20/government-...
And yet the majority of those citizens agree with vaccine mandates among other public health measures https://news.uchicago.edu/story/most-americans-support-vacci...
It’s almost like the government is still fulfilling the will of the people!
It’s almost like the government is still fulfilling the will of the people!
The government is not meant to be majority rule.
It was explicitly created to prevent majority rule. The Senate acted as a longer term, more stable body to counteract the more popularist House. Originally citizens didn't even vote for Senators, they were appointed by the states themselves.
An entire set of explicit rules restrained what the majority could do (Constitution and Bill of Rights).
Majority rule has a long history of abuses. We shouldn't abandon our system of limiting majority power because of a virus.
It was explicitly created to prevent majority rule. The Senate acted as a longer term, more stable body to counteract the more popularist House. Originally citizens didn't even vote for Senators, they were appointed by the states themselves.
An entire set of explicit rules restrained what the majority could do (Constitution and Bill of Rights).
Majority rule has a long history of abuses. We shouldn't abandon our system of limiting majority power because of a virus.
lemmie guess... “America isn’t a democracy, it’s a republic” https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/yes-consti...
“The government wasn’t meant to fulfill the will of the people... it was meant to fulfill the will of my people!”
Minority rule has a much longer and more gruesome history of abuses, and it never ends well for the rulers.
“The government wasn’t meant to fulfill the will of the people... it was meant to fulfill the will of my people!”
Minority rule has a much longer and more gruesome history of abuses, and it never ends well for the rulers.
What a straw man argument in that article. "not a democracy" simply refers to avoiding decisions based on the public opinion that sways in the wind, sometimes dramatically. See vaccine and mask mandates.
Think of it this way, you have two choices:
1. You have a 0.0001% risk of death, and a 0.001% risk of hospitalization, and will maybe spread covid to 5-8 people. Long term effects unknown.
2. You have a 0.00001% risk of death, and a 0.0001% risk of hospitalization, and will maybe spread covid to 1-2 people. Long term effects unknown.
Which choice would you take?
(note the 2nd option is a conservative estimate of the effects of the vaccine, and the odds are probably less than what I wrote)
1. You have a 0.0001% risk of death, and a 0.001% risk of hospitalization, and will maybe spread covid to 5-8 people. Long term effects unknown.
2. You have a 0.00001% risk of death, and a 0.0001% risk of hospitalization, and will maybe spread covid to 1-2 people. Long term effects unknown.
Which choice would you take?
(note the 2nd option is a conservative estimate of the effects of the vaccine, and the odds are probably less than what I wrote)
you forgot to add an important argument:
You forget to say that probably both are manmade.
Who do you trust more? 1) something probably created in a chinese lab? 2) something created by a list of different corporations and tested independently by at least 50 countries?
Who do you trust more? 1) something probably created in a chinese lab? 2) something created by a list of different corporations and tested independently by at least 50 countries?
Lab released, maybe. Lab created, seems unlikely, although the line between lab released and created gets blurry. Genetically engineered (rather than created via "husbandry"), seems very unlikely given that nobody has noticed anything to suggest that it might be. So either it isn't, or China has gotten so good at it that we can't tell when they do it, which is terrifying!
The risk of hospitalisation for most people who get covid is way higher than 0.01% - it's about 1% for a 21 year old man, 2.7% for a 30 year old man and 8.5% for a 50 year old man - and only goes up from there.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/covid-pandemic-mort...
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/covid-pandemic-mort...
I should've posted where I got the values for Covid risk, my bad. I used this: https://qcovid.org/Calculation and did it for a healthy 25 year old, and then rounded. I don't know exactly what the different between what I used and what the Economist used, but I'm guessing the Economist is using a dataset of people that skewed more symptomatic?
I wrote more in another comment - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28391526
Basically the qcovid calculator tells you the overall risk during a specific period of the pandemic . Most people didn't get covid during that period, which makes the overall risk appear very low.
However, if you do contract covid (which seems inevitable if it becomes endemic) then the individual risk of hospitalisation is much higher - 1%+ for even young adults.
Basically the qcovid calculator tells you the overall risk during a specific period of the pandemic . Most people didn't get covid during that period, which makes the overall risk appear very low.
However, if you do contract covid (which seems inevitable if it becomes endemic) then the individual risk of hospitalisation is much higher - 1%+ for even young adults.
This is a false dichotomy: low risk hospitalization vs unknown long term side effects of the vaccine. The correct choice is unknown long term side effects of COVID-19 vs unknown long term side effects of vaccine.
In other words: you will get your immunity either by becoming sick (and maybe get well known short term side effects of being sick, including hospitalization and death) or by getting vaccinated, with other set of short and long term known and unknown side effects. In the first case you will put more pressure to public health system (even by staying home and consuming self-prescripted basic drugs). Otherwise the choice is yours.
In other words: you will get your immunity either by becoming sick (and maybe get well known short term side effects of being sick, including hospitalization and death) or by getting vaccinated, with other set of short and long term known and unknown side effects. In the first case you will put more pressure to public health system (even by staying home and consuming self-prescripted basic drugs). Otherwise the choice is yours.
The vaccine has an extremely low risk of side effects short term. There is no scientific reason to think there will be long term effects. What exactly are you concerned about? In terms of "we know too little about the vaccine", we know even less about "covid" itself.
The vaccine reduces the likelihood you will get severe covid and require hospitalization. It's like a 22x reduction in risk.
The vaccine reduces your infectious period if you do catch covid, this reduces R0 (R-naught) will help shorten the pandemic.
The delta variant is hospitalizing healthy and young people with no preexisting conditions. Future variants are likely to do so as well.
The vaccine reduces the likelihood you will get severe covid and require hospitalization. It's like a 22x reduction in risk.
The vaccine reduces your infectious period if you do catch covid, this reduces R0 (R-naught) will help shorten the pandemic.
The delta variant is hospitalizing healthy and young people with no preexisting conditions. Future variants are likely to do so as well.
> Look at the states with the highest amount of unvaccinated individuals in the US. They are running out of hospital beds [1]. This is not about taking our freedoms, this is about getting this under control.
> [1] https://fortune.com/2021/08/25/states-icu-beds-covid-cases-d...
I can't see the article due to paywall, but based on how you're presenting I have to say: Due to the phrasing it isn't a straight lie, but it's definitely not true either and is meant to be misleading. Hospitals are not being overrun by covid patients, most of the capacity is being used by things from last year that people were putting off.
For example in the least vaccinated state, Idaho [0], most hospitals are running at around 50% capacity [1], and even then only around 10% of beds are covid-19 cases.
On top of this you have to remember that hospitals are for-profit institutions, and beds are counted not just by physical beds but by having nurses to attend to them. Empty beds cost the hospital money, so they try to run fairly full anyway. I remember reading 80-90% in the past, but have found a source [2] that says 60-70% is the average across all hospitals, and another that gets into the 80-90% range for only large hospitals [3].
[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2021-07-27/...
[1] https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity...
[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/185904/hospital-occupanc...
[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4191350/
> [1] https://fortune.com/2021/08/25/states-icu-beds-covid-cases-d...
I can't see the article due to paywall, but based on how you're presenting I have to say: Due to the phrasing it isn't a straight lie, but it's definitely not true either and is meant to be misleading. Hospitals are not being overrun by covid patients, most of the capacity is being used by things from last year that people were putting off.
For example in the least vaccinated state, Idaho [0], most hospitals are running at around 50% capacity [1], and even then only around 10% of beds are covid-19 cases.
On top of this you have to remember that hospitals are for-profit institutions, and beds are counted not just by physical beds but by having nurses to attend to them. Empty beds cost the hospital money, so they try to run fairly full anyway. I remember reading 80-90% in the past, but have found a source [2] that says 60-70% is the average across all hospitals, and another that gets into the 80-90% range for only large hospitals [3].
[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2021-07-27/...
[1] https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity...
[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/185904/hospital-occupanc...
[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4191350/
From the article: As of Tuesday Aug. 24, six states—Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas—had less than 10% of ICU beds available according to data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
I'm happy to hear Idaho is fine. It doesn't sound like these other states are.
I'm happy to hear Idaho is fine. It doesn't sound like these other states are.
Alabama: https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity... - Scrolling through these, it still looks like only 20-30% are covid.
Arkansas: https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity... - Mostly not being overrun, and again covid is only like 20-30%.
Florida: https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity... - Similar to Alabama, and like Alabama, mostly not covid.
Georgia: https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity... - Only a handful are out of beds, with the covid patients looking like an even smaller proportion, around 15-20% in most of them.
Mississippi - https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity... - Only the smallest hospitals are out of beds, with covid again looking like the 20-30% range for most of them.
Texas - https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity... - About half of them are on the high end; Texas looks like it's in much better shape than the other five states. Again covid cases are on the low end, 15-20%.
If there's something overrunning these hospitals, it's still most likely deferred treatments from last year. (Edit: And as the comment sibling to yours points out, they're currently doing elective surgeries that can probably be postponed to open up more capacity if really needed)
Arkansas: https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity... - Mostly not being overrun, and again covid is only like 20-30%.
Florida: https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity... - Similar to Alabama, and like Alabama, mostly not covid.
Georgia: https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity... - Only a handful are out of beds, with the covid patients looking like an even smaller proportion, around 15-20% in most of them.
Mississippi - https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity... - Only the smallest hospitals are out of beds, with covid again looking like the 20-30% range for most of them.
Texas - https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity... - About half of them are on the high end; Texas looks like it's in much better shape than the other five states. Again covid cases are on the low end, 15-20%.
If there's something overrunning these hospitals, it's still most likely deferred treatments from last year. (Edit: And as the comment sibling to yours points out, they're currently doing elective surgeries that can probably be postponed to open up more capacity if really needed)
So why, in your opinion, are elective surgeries and deferred treatments only overrunning hospitals in states with lower vaccination rates? That's an especially strange assumption to make, given that said states also generally had the least restrictive lockdown measures from last year, meaning that if anything they would likely have fewer deferred treatments to perform now than states taking more intensive steps to halt the spread of the disease.
You also seem to think that somehow 20-30% of hospital beds being occupied solely by people sick with Covid is somehow not significant. Hospitals aren't designed to have so much capacity that they run on empty. Nor are they meant to be running at near max capacity at all times. But if a hospital is generally running on having 50-60% of beds occupied normally, and there is a surge like we've seen over the last 6 weeks that adds 20-30% on top of that solely because of Covid, then yes, its Covid that is causing hospitals to be overrun.
You also seem to think that somehow 20-30% of hospital beds being occupied solely by people sick with Covid is somehow not significant. Hospitals aren't designed to have so much capacity that they run on empty. Nor are they meant to be running at near max capacity at all times. But if a hospital is generally running on having 50-60% of beds occupied normally, and there is a surge like we've seen over the last 6 weeks that adds 20-30% on top of that solely because of Covid, then yes, its Covid that is causing hospitals to be overrun.
> in states with lower vaccination rates?
Come to think of it, two of those states aren't near the bottom, so that's also just wrong: Texas and Florida are around the halfway point when the states are ranked by vaccination rate, Texas just below and Florida just above. [0]
So yeah, I definitely think there's something else going on.
[0] https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-st...
Come to think of it, two of those states aren't near the bottom, so that's also just wrong: Texas and Florida are around the halfway point when the states are ranked by vaccination rate, Texas just below and Florida just above. [0]
So yeah, I definitely think there's something else going on.
[0] https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-st...
That "80-90%" might have been a thing before COVID, but now more and more facilities are running at capacity.
Even in Washington (70+% with one shot) and Seattle (83% one dose, 77% complete series) a number of hospitals are full enough to be cancelling elective surgeries again.
Even in Washington (70+% with one shot) and Seattle (83% one dose, 77% complete series) a number of hospitals are full enough to be cancelling elective surgeries again.
I live in South Carolina, where the pandemic is especially bad now, and where vaccine uptake has been low. A friend told me that ambulances were being turned away at the front door of a local hospital.
It is true that there are many possible factors for this, that planning at that hospital might have been questionable and/or very profit-oriented. Also, I've read that a lot of medical staff have gotten fed up with the situation, and in some cases quit their jobs.
But matter the underlying causes, it's a scary picture.
It is true that there are many possible factors for this, that planning at that hospital might have been questionable and/or very profit-oriented. Also, I've read that a lot of medical staff have gotten fed up with the situation, and in some cases quit their jobs.
But matter the underlying causes, it's a scary picture.
Interestingly enough, in Idaho, 92.3% of people over 65 have at least one dose.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/coronavirus-covid-19/vaccine-trac...
https://www.mayoclinic.org/coronavirus-covid-19/vaccine-trac...
> They are running out of hospital beds
I find that hard to believe, considering that these states didn't run out of hospital beds in any of the previous waves that also had higher incidence and far higher mortality.
I quote:
> "Another nine states have less than 20% of their ICU beds available."
This is still on the high end, by international standards. Optimal occupancy rate is estimated at 70-75%:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24373914/
Running near capacity doesn't mean there isn't emergency capacity that can be made available, otherwise ICUs wouldn't be able to run above 100% capacity.
I find that hard to believe, considering that these states didn't run out of hospital beds in any of the previous waves that also had higher incidence and far higher mortality.
I quote:
> "Another nine states have less than 20% of their ICU beds available."
This is still on the high end, by international standards. Optimal occupancy rate is estimated at 70-75%:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24373914/
Running near capacity doesn't mean there isn't emergency capacity that can be made available, otherwise ICUs wouldn't be able to run above 100% capacity.
[deleted]
> I'm pretty surprised to still see some misinformation in some of the posts here.
Continues with anecdote of conversation with anonymous molecular biology PhD.
-
Isn't that the optimal breeding ground for misinformation?
Continues with anecdote of conversation with anonymous molecular biology PhD.
-
Isn't that the optimal breeding ground for misinformation?
[deleted]
Certain virus do in fact modify the DNA in cells[1].
From the article:
> Some types of virus, such as retroviruses, integrate their genetic material (including the new gene) into a chromosome in the human cell.
Therefore the claim that an injection of RNA could modify your DNA is possible. Whether the COVID injections do this is a different story, and seems unlikely.
[1] https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/therapy/proce...
From the article:
> Some types of virus, such as retroviruses, integrate their genetic material (including the new gene) into a chromosome in the human cell.
Therefore the claim that an injection of RNA could modify your DNA is possible. Whether the COVID injections do this is a different story, and seems unlikely.
[1] https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/therapy/proce...
> Therefore the claim that an injection of RNA could modify your DNA is possible.
Absolutely not. This is like saying water is a neurotoxin because a tiny subset of neurotoxins contain water. Or that almost any food can modify your dna, since mRNA, RNA and DNA are in any cells you eat.
reverse transcription doesn't just happen. Retroviruses work because they carry reverse transcriptase: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcriptase
No reverse transcriptase, no DNA integration. The vaccine leaves out any other parts of the virus besides the spike coding. That makes it SAFER in that respect than conventional or monoclonal vaccines, which include tons of other viral parts! You know what might do reverse transcription? Covid: https://www.pnas.org/content/118/21/e2105968118
Good thing the mrna vaccine leaves out all those parts that could be activating LINE1 retrotransposons!
Absolutely not. This is like saying water is a neurotoxin because a tiny subset of neurotoxins contain water. Or that almost any food can modify your dna, since mRNA, RNA and DNA are in any cells you eat.
reverse transcription doesn't just happen. Retroviruses work because they carry reverse transcriptase: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcriptase
No reverse transcriptase, no DNA integration. The vaccine leaves out any other parts of the virus besides the spike coding. That makes it SAFER in that respect than conventional or monoclonal vaccines, which include tons of other viral parts! You know what might do reverse transcription? Covid: https://www.pnas.org/content/118/21/e2105968118
Good thing the mrna vaccine leaves out all those parts that could be activating LINE1 retrotransposons!
I’m not saying the vaccines do this, just that it’s theoretically possible to make a gene therapy that does modify DNA.
A gene therapy, sure. After all, that is the basis of CRISPR gene editing [0].
One of the key differences is the mRNA vaccines are not delivered with the necessary enzymes to actually cleave and splice DNA, e.g. [1].
0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR_gene_editing 1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cas9
One of the key differences is the mRNA vaccines are not delivered with the necessary enzymes to actually cleave and splice DNA, e.g. [1].
0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR_gene_editing 1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cas9
"The mRNA is only a piece of the spike protein, and does not enter the cell's nucleus."
and with the AZ vaccine, due to the vector chosen, supposedly it (spike protein) does enter the nucleus. Oops.
(note I'm not suggesting the AZ vaccine causes any alteration of our DNA)
and with the AZ vaccine, due to the vector chosen, supposedly it (spike protein) does enter the nucleus. Oops.
(note I'm not suggesting the AZ vaccine causes any alteration of our DNA)
Just to clarify I was talking about the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines.
AstraZeneca’s vaccine uses adenovirus-vectored technology, which is different [1].
[1] https://www.prevention.com/health/a35118263/astrazeneca-vs-p...
AstraZeneca’s vaccine uses adenovirus-vectored technology, which is different [1].
[1] https://www.prevention.com/health/a35118263/astrazeneca-vs-p...
I was aware of that.
From what I read, the mRNA vaccines manages to get the spike in to the cytoplasm, just like the real virus, so it to that extent mimics what is desired.
Whereas the viral vector (a different delivery technology) used for the AZ vaccine manages to get the spike in to the nucleus, due to picking the "wrong" vector, so to that extents it could be said not to mimic what is desired.
There was speculation that if it had used a different vector which delivered to the cytoplasm, then some of the low probability issues may have been avoided. So one could argue that the choice of vector was/is a bug with the AZ vaccine. Despite that, it does seem to be having the desired effect - reduced hospitalisations.
Mind, I've had the AZ vaccine, and so far have survived.
:-)
From what I read, the mRNA vaccines manages to get the spike in to the cytoplasm, just like the real virus, so it to that extent mimics what is desired.
Whereas the viral vector (a different delivery technology) used for the AZ vaccine manages to get the spike in to the nucleus, due to picking the "wrong" vector, so to that extents it could be said not to mimic what is desired.
There was speculation that if it had used a different vector which delivered to the cytoplasm, then some of the low probability issues may have been avoided. So one could argue that the choice of vector was/is a bug with the AZ vaccine. Despite that, it does seem to be having the desired effect - reduced hospitalisations.
Mind, I've had the AZ vaccine, and so far have survived.
:-)
mRNA vaccines deliver mRNA to the target cell, via merging a lipid bubble into the cell membrane and dumping the contents into the cytoplasm. The mRNA is then translated into a specially designed variant of the spike protein that is embedded facing out of the cell membrane. As it happens, the physical details of embedded protein translation means that the spike proteins never see the cytoplasm at all, being restricted to the endoplasmic reticulum.
Thanks.
That is what I read, just that I couldn't remember the term "endoplasmic reticulum", and so used "cytoplasm" as a hand wavy stand in.
:-)
That is what I read, just that I couldn't remember the term "endoplasmic reticulum", and so used "cytoplasm" as a hand wavy stand in.
:-)
>The mRNA is only a piece of the spike protein, and does not enter the cell's nucleus. It only interacts with the cytoplasm.
>it would also invade the actual cell.
Before complaining about misinformation, you might want to freshen up on your basic microbiology.
I get that this has become more about the narrative than the facts, but this comment gets quite a few fundamentals very very wrong for it to be up top with the HN crowd.
>it would also invade the actual cell.
Before complaining about misinformation, you might want to freshen up on your basic microbiology.
I get that this has become more about the narrative than the facts, but this comment gets quite a few fundamentals very very wrong for it to be up top with the HN crowd.
You're right, and I agree about reviewing basic microbiology, thanks for that suggestion.
In terms of the quote about the spike protein, someone else thankfully corrected that (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28382167). In terms of the quote about invading the cell, I meant that the SARS-CoV-2 virus would also invade the cell nucleus (yes, saying just cell was not correct because the cytoplasm is part of the cell). Those two quotes were the two specific things that were incorrect about my post, that I'm aware of, and I'm happy that others corrected those.
I posted what I did to counter some of the more ridiculous claims I've seen made, not just on HN, but also elsewhere. I consider HN to be a great source of information and I wanted to contribute to that. My intention was to pass on information that I was happy to learn and which helped me understand what was in the mRNA vaccines and how they work (at least at a high level). I would hope that anyone would evaluate and research for themselves, whether they hear it on HN or elsewhere.
If you would care to elaborate any further, I'd be happy to listen, so that I can learn more myself.
In terms of the quote about the spike protein, someone else thankfully corrected that (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28382167). In terms of the quote about invading the cell, I meant that the SARS-CoV-2 virus would also invade the cell nucleus (yes, saying just cell was not correct because the cytoplasm is part of the cell). Those two quotes were the two specific things that were incorrect about my post, that I'm aware of, and I'm happy that others corrected those.
I posted what I did to counter some of the more ridiculous claims I've seen made, not just on HN, but also elsewhere. I consider HN to be a great source of information and I wanted to contribute to that. My intention was to pass on information that I was happy to learn and which helped me understand what was in the mRNA vaccines and how they work (at least at a high level). I would hope that anyone would evaluate and research for themselves, whether they hear it on HN or elsewhere.
If you would care to elaborate any further, I'd be happy to listen, so that I can learn more myself.
I see a lot of presumptions that Covid will "become like a common cold," but what separates this from dangerous wishful thinking?
Humanity suffered from smallpox for centuries before it was finally eradicated. It's not clear that it was becoming meaningfully less severe.
Dengue is endemic in tropical regions. A reinfection often leads to severe disease.
Yellow fever did not get better over time.
We vaccinated actual measles in children somewhere close to oblivion. Pockets of vaccine resistance still lead to localized outbreaks in the US. Measles is, according to most estimates, significantly more infectious that Delta, and yet we still managed to reach crowd immunity instead of throwing up our hands and relying on hopes and prayers.
Finally, HIV is perhaps our most recent experience with a viral epidemic. If we expect Covid to turn into a cold, maybe we should expect AIDS to turn into a cold first. It has a 40-year lead!
Humanity suffered from smallpox for centuries before it was finally eradicated. It's not clear that it was becoming meaningfully less severe.
Dengue is endemic in tropical regions. A reinfection often leads to severe disease.
Yellow fever did not get better over time.
We vaccinated actual measles in children somewhere close to oblivion. Pockets of vaccine resistance still lead to localized outbreaks in the US. Measles is, according to most estimates, significantly more infectious that Delta, and yet we still managed to reach crowd immunity instead of throwing up our hands and relying on hopes and prayers.
Finally, HIV is perhaps our most recent experience with a viral epidemic. If we expect Covid to turn into a cold, maybe we should expect AIDS to turn into a cold first. It has a 40-year lead!
There are several arguments supporting the idea that covid will become like the common cold, it is not a generic "all viruses turn into the common cold".
We already have 4 endemic coronaviruses that cause common colds, and we suspect that they started as deadly pandemics too, which were historically reported as the flu. Many specialists suspect that the OC43 coronavirus caused the 1889 "Russian flu".
Covid seems to follow the same path: a disease that is mostly harmless to the young but potentially deadly to older adults with no acquired immunity. It is likely that in a generation or two, everyone will be infected at a very young age, building immunity and occasionally get breakthrough colds. Breakthrough cases already look a lot like colds.
We already have 4 endemic coronaviruses that cause common colds, and we suspect that they started as deadly pandemics too, which were historically reported as the flu. Many specialists suspect that the OC43 coronavirus caused the 1889 "Russian flu".
Covid seems to follow the same path: a disease that is mostly harmless to the young but potentially deadly to older adults with no acquired immunity. It is likely that in a generation or two, everyone will be infected at a very young age, building immunity and occasionally get breakthrough colds. Breakthrough cases already look a lot like colds.
You give two arguments. One is that some colds in humans are caused by coronaviruses. But on the other hand, coronaviruses cause severe and fatal illness in livestock and are not getting attenuated.
The second argument is that over a century ago, an epidemic might have possibly been caused by a coronavirus, and might have possibly become a common strain of the flu. This tenuous and unprovable line of reasoning is exactly what I see as wishful thinking.
The second argument is that over a century ago, an epidemic might have possibly been caused by a coronavirus, and might have possibly become a common strain of the flu. This tenuous and unprovable line of reasoning is exactly what I see as wishful thinking.
And speaking of breakthrough cases, I am literally writing a condolence note to a colleague whose mother passed away yesterday.
COVID-19 already is like a common cold for the vast majority of younger patients. Over the long run most people will get infected as youths and build up immunity which protects them later in life. There will be no significant herd immunity effect, but fortunately the vaccines are very effective at preventing deaths.
https://sfamjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/175...
https://sfamjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/175...
Some common cold is caused by coronavirus (not covid-19) or other virus, but HIV/smallpox are far from cold virus.
I see a lot of presumptions that Covid will "become like a common cold,"
Could do, yeah. I'm no evolutionary biologist, but I guess that for this to happen, it needs to mutate in various directions, and the strains to feel selection pressure to become non-lethal to humans. Which I guess means that a lot of people need to die of more lethal strains faster than they spread it, and that way the surviving strains will become the dominant strains while the people-killing strains wipe themselves out by killing their hosts quickly.
This does not feel like a great solution; using human deaths as a way to select for the less lethal variants. Feels like that involves a lot of humans dying, which people have a strong bias against.
Could do, yeah. I'm no evolutionary biologist, but I guess that for this to happen, it needs to mutate in various directions, and the strains to feel selection pressure to become non-lethal to humans. Which I guess means that a lot of people need to die of more lethal strains faster than they spread it, and that way the surviving strains will become the dominant strains while the people-killing strains wipe themselves out by killing their hosts quickly.
This does not feel like a great solution; using human deaths as a way to select for the less lethal variants. Feels like that involves a lot of humans dying, which people have a strong bias against.
Since you are describing the ingredients of an mRNA vaccines, here is an illustration by David Goodsell.
https://pdb101.rcsb.org/sci-art/goodsell-gallery/sars-cov-2-...
Check the rest of the site, he does awesome watercolor illustrations of microbiology. Including of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself ( https://pdb101.rcsb.org/sci-art/goodsell-gallery/sars-cov-2-... )
https://pdb101.rcsb.org/sci-art/goodsell-gallery/sars-cov-2-...
Check the rest of the site, he does awesome watercolor illustrations of microbiology. Including of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself ( https://pdb101.rcsb.org/sci-art/goodsell-gallery/sars-cov-2-... )
> lipids
These "nano"-bubbles of fat were advertised as nano-particles. It was just this old doctor that wanted to be cool for once but it has become a grave mistake...
That said, I don't see the current concern in that regard. People believe they will be lied to when there are counter-indications for the efficiency, that side-effects won't be reported on, that they need to provide vaccination and medical passes. And to be honest, these fears are 100% valid. It is very likely there will be media blackouts about such issues. Especially if you know a bit about politics and how people build a profile. Safety sells better than sex in politics.
And the hysteria about misinformation isn't at all conductive for real scientific debate. On the contrary, it is far more disruptive than conspiracies of any form. The self-imposed defenders of science are fools in their approach to contain information.
While there are no cures yet, there was a political campaign against substances that helped, even if the benefit was small. This should be a scandal on its own.
These "nano"-bubbles of fat were advertised as nano-particles. It was just this old doctor that wanted to be cool for once but it has become a grave mistake...
That said, I don't see the current concern in that regard. People believe they will be lied to when there are counter-indications for the efficiency, that side-effects won't be reported on, that they need to provide vaccination and medical passes. And to be honest, these fears are 100% valid. It is very likely there will be media blackouts about such issues. Especially if you know a bit about politics and how people build a profile. Safety sells better than sex in politics.
And the hysteria about misinformation isn't at all conductive for real scientific debate. On the contrary, it is far more disruptive than conspiracies of any form. The self-imposed defenders of science are fools in their approach to contain information.
While there are no cures yet, there was a political campaign against substances that helped, even if the benefit was small. This should be a scandal on its own.
What is this paper saying then?
SARS-CoV-2 RNA reverse-transcribed and integrated into the human genome
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33330870/
SARS-CoV-2 RNA reverse-transcribed and integrated into the human genome
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33330870/
xyzzy21(2)
I was unaware Isreal repaired their relationship with Pfizer.
Last I saw Israel was trying to stiff Pfizer for 2.5 million doses and Pfizer execs were calling Israel a 'banana republic' and were going to cut them off entirely.
Last I saw Israel was trying to stiff Pfizer for 2.5 million doses and Pfizer execs were calling Israel a 'banana republic' and were going to cut them off entirely.
Perhaps the new government fixed things?
I’m curious if we have data wrt to safety and approval process length. How fast (in terms of trial - size and duration) - can we go on approvals without compromising safety? Maybe a progressive approval is best. Approve for x% of population for next n months then study the data and lift limits. What if it was dangerous that we went from 0-100 with the current round of vaccines?
> I'm pretty surprised to still see some misinformation in some of the posts here.
“Anything I don’t agree with is misinformation”
The data on COVID related subjects has been murky, inconsistent, and poorly collected. The label of misinformation should be used with care.
> It's also worth noting that the mRNA does not interact with a person's actual DNA. Like this gem. This is false. RNA can burn back into DNA via reverse transcriptase(sp) Making assumptions on something so important, like your DNA is foolish. Anyone remember Viox? https://www.jefferson.edu/about/news-and-events/2021/6/disco...
“Anything I don’t agree with is misinformation”
The data on COVID related subjects has been murky, inconsistent, and poorly collected. The label of misinformation should be used with care.
> It's also worth noting that the mRNA does not interact with a person's actual DNA. Like this gem. This is false. RNA can burn back into DNA via reverse transcriptase(sp) Making assumptions on something so important, like your DNA is foolish. Anyone remember Viox? https://www.jefferson.edu/about/news-and-events/2021/6/disco...
>> It's also worth noting that the mRNA does not interact with a person's actual DNA.
> Like this gem. This is false. RNA can burn back into DNA via reverse transcriptase(sp)
Irrelevant. The vaccine mRNA cannot interact with your DNA, because it doesn't enter the nucleus at all. It is used to produce spike proteins within the cell, outside of the nucleus.
The mRNA vaccine is not as exotic or unnatural as people seem to think. Cells have ribosomes. Ribosomes process mRNA instructions to build proteins. All the time.
> Like this gem. This is false. RNA can burn back into DNA via reverse transcriptase(sp)
Irrelevant. The vaccine mRNA cannot interact with your DNA, because it doesn't enter the nucleus at all. It is used to produce spike proteins within the cell, outside of the nucleus.
The mRNA vaccine is not as exotic or unnatural as people seem to think. Cells have ribosomes. Ribosomes process mRNA instructions to build proteins. All the time.
This is false. We don’t know this for a fact currently. Best assumption at best.
47 boosters later…
Since the daily cases are now up to where they were before the vaccine. Its pretty clear the original promise of the vaccine has been a giant failure. And serious erosion of trust with major medical and political implications.
A more sensible approach would be have the at risk group vaccinate. And let the young and strong opt for natural immunity, which it turns out is superior and much more longer lasting anyway.
In any case, since, viruses prey on the weak with compromised immune systems. This should be compared to a nation wide weight loss program. Eating healthy, proper sleep and dental health, and managing stress levels.
Instead we got lockdowns with gyms shutdown, and people forced to sit inside away from the sun, scared and stressed.
A more sensible approach would be have the at risk group vaccinate. And let the young and strong opt for natural immunity, which it turns out is superior and much more longer lasting anyway.
In any case, since, viruses prey on the weak with compromised immune systems. This should be compared to a nation wide weight loss program. Eating healthy, proper sleep and dental health, and managing stress levels.
Instead we got lockdowns with gyms shutdown, and people forced to sit inside away from the sun, scared and stressed.
I don't think the vaccines have been a failure at all, they still prevent hospitalization and deaths from COVID quite well, and breakthroughs were predicted to be fairly common from the start. I think what has been a failure is the public messaging about the vaccines and COVID in general. That said, I do agree that we need to move on from the fear based approach to life many have held on to even after getting vaccinated.
>natural immunity, which it turns out is superior and much more longer lasting anyway
where are you getting this from?
where are you getting this from?
I don't know, but lots of people seem to claim this (without citations).
"This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger
protection against infection"
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...
Ah, I was thinking it was that paper.
This is the conclusion, pasted:
>This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.
So two things:
1) The vaccine still helps those even with acquired natural immunity. 2) The study is comparing the vaccine targeted towards the original Wuhan variant against a moving target.
So I don't see why we should discount vaccines and rely on natural immunity when we can still update the vaccines to join the fight against new strains and collect more data.
Obviously there's still great value in this study in perhaps justifying delaying doses for people who've had a previous infection in order to get more equitable distribution of vaccines.
This is the conclusion, pasted:
>This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.
So two things:
1) The vaccine still helps those even with acquired natural immunity. 2) The study is comparing the vaccine targeted towards the original Wuhan variant against a moving target.
So I don't see why we should discount vaccines and rely on natural immunity when we can still update the vaccines to join the fight against new strains and collect more data.
Obviously there's still great value in this study in perhaps justifying delaying doses for people who've had a previous infection in order to get more equitable distribution of vaccines.
Thanks!
That paper is really weird, just from the abstract. The conclusion "natural immunity etc" kinda comes out of nowhere.
It'll be interesting to see the quality of it when I read the whole thing.
That paper is really weird, just from the abstract. The conclusion "natural immunity etc" kinda comes out of nowhere.
It'll be interesting to see the quality of it when I read the whole thing.
I am absolutely pro-vaccine, but can someone help me work through the relative risk calculations here?
Vaccine: -?% reduction in likelihood of infection (there is currently no monitored control group and no transparent dataset that accurately accounts for baseline infection rates, geographical and demographic variation, etc.)
-?% chance of ?% reduction in severity of disease (there is no empirical evidence that has been consistent across time and location, especially as the virus mutates. All the data I've seen is aggregated across the entire vaccination campaign, never accounting for changing rate of vaccinated vs changes in baseline infection rate in each location)
-?% chance of acute vaccine side effects (VAERS unreliable, no transparent alternative dataset accessible to the public)
-?% risk of future unknown long-term effects of vaccination (including unpredictable outcomes like ADE)
-100% chance of assuming above risk of unknown long-term vaccine side effects (simply no data available by definition)
-?% chance of getting breakthrough infected with COVID-19 if exposed (I haven't seen any challenge studies, probably not possible for ethical reasons)
-?% risk of future long-term effects for recovered breakthrough infections (again, no data available. only time will tell whether breakthrough infections are less likely to lead to potential long-term effects than unvaccinated recovered infections)
-each additional vaccine booster dose adds ?% cumulative risk of both acute and long-term side effects, with no indication that boosters will ever end.
No Vaccine: -0% chance of reduction in severity of disease
-0% chance of acute vaccine side effects
-0% chance of long-term vaccine side effects
-?% chance of getting infected and assuming a ?% risk of future long-term effects of recovered infection (my risk of getting infected is low and partially under my own control since I don't travel, work from home, self-isolate, etc)
Am I missing anything?
Even if I am relatively confident that the vaccine reduces the likelihood of infection and the severity of infection significantly and will continue to do so for variants (the data suggests this, though it less transparent than I would like, since there is no publicly accessible unaggregated dataset (e.g. infection rates for vaxxed vs unvaxxed starting AFTER 50% vaccination rate in a given region, there is no longer a control group and all "natural" control groups suffer from inherent geographical and demographic biases)
It seems to me that the number of unknowns makes the risk calculation much harder than people are making it out to be, but I would be very happy to to hear considered, thoughtful counterpoints to the above.
Vaccine: -?% reduction in likelihood of infection (there is currently no monitored control group and no transparent dataset that accurately accounts for baseline infection rates, geographical and demographic variation, etc.)
-?% chance of ?% reduction in severity of disease (there is no empirical evidence that has been consistent across time and location, especially as the virus mutates. All the data I've seen is aggregated across the entire vaccination campaign, never accounting for changing rate of vaccinated vs changes in baseline infection rate in each location)
-?% chance of acute vaccine side effects (VAERS unreliable, no transparent alternative dataset accessible to the public)
-?% risk of future unknown long-term effects of vaccination (including unpredictable outcomes like ADE)
-100% chance of assuming above risk of unknown long-term vaccine side effects (simply no data available by definition)
-?% chance of getting breakthrough infected with COVID-19 if exposed (I haven't seen any challenge studies, probably not possible for ethical reasons)
-?% risk of future long-term effects for recovered breakthrough infections (again, no data available. only time will tell whether breakthrough infections are less likely to lead to potential long-term effects than unvaccinated recovered infections)
-each additional vaccine booster dose adds ?% cumulative risk of both acute and long-term side effects, with no indication that boosters will ever end.
No Vaccine: -0% chance of reduction in severity of disease
-0% chance of acute vaccine side effects
-0% chance of long-term vaccine side effects
-?% chance of getting infected and assuming a ?% risk of future long-term effects of recovered infection (my risk of getting infected is low and partially under my own control since I don't travel, work from home, self-isolate, etc)
Am I missing anything?
Even if I am relatively confident that the vaccine reduces the likelihood of infection and the severity of infection significantly and will continue to do so for variants (the data suggests this, though it less transparent than I would like, since there is no publicly accessible unaggregated dataset (e.g. infection rates for vaxxed vs unvaxxed starting AFTER 50% vaccination rate in a given region, there is no longer a control group and all "natural" control groups suffer from inherent geographical and demographic biases)
It seems to me that the number of unknowns makes the risk calculation much harder than people are making it out to be, but I would be very happy to to hear considered, thoughtful counterpoints to the above.
Poll: I just would like to get a “hands up” if anyone else got significant chest and heart pain from the mRNA vaccines, please comment. Thanks
When will we stop seeing this vague click-baity titles?
"new studies suggest" - not conclusive.
"Protection increases in the weeks following a third dose, but it’s unclear how long the effect will last"
"by more than 10-fold 2 weeks later."
After the first paragraph, it was only established that it provides short term immunity against Delta variant. How long will it last? How well will it do against other variants? Also, the demographic receiving booster shot in Israel are mostly elderly. So this impressive infection rate drop was observed only in older demographic. The effect probably won't be as good among younger generations. Repeated vaccination adds more risk, even if it is small per dose, it is being accumulated. Can we keep up with booster shots every six months? Even flu shot is only once a year and choosing next year flu shot strain is a year long challenge.
"Protection increases in the weeks following a third dose, but it’s unclear how long the effect will last"
"by more than 10-fold 2 weeks later."
After the first paragraph, it was only established that it provides short term immunity against Delta variant. How long will it last? How well will it do against other variants? Also, the demographic receiving booster shot in Israel are mostly elderly. So this impressive infection rate drop was observed only in older demographic. The effect probably won't be as good among younger generations. Repeated vaccination adds more risk, even if it is small per dose, it is being accumulated. Can we keep up with booster shots every six months? Even flu shot is only once a year and choosing next year flu shot strain is a year long challenge.
How much time before this flawed study is retracted ? Who pays for it ? Who gets the money when booster after booster is inefective ? Most grave cases in Israel are vaccinated people. Number of cases exploded since population is mostly vaccinated. Wake up people. You're being lied to in a major way. Don't let your intelligence be insulted any more.
I'm starting to feel that when people protest things they disagree with that it has less to do with the actual issue than with a desire to voice a contrary opinion in general.
I suspect that the opposition—even anger sometimes—is a lot less about vaccines, or abortion than some other unmet need that finds expression though this kind of opposition.
And I also think that even discussing these issues with the intent to persuade is futile and giving the protesters exactly what they are seeking.
I think it's deeply ironic that an army of well intentioned people fan out on the internet to 'educate' people who are against X actually end up giving the protesters what they actually want, free therapy for some sort of frustrated need to be heard.¹
Even funnier is that both sides are playing out this psychodrama while being completely ignorant of the actual motivations behind their behaviour.
1. Or maybe the need to exercise the power expressed by holding an entire state or country hostage via a virus...?
I suspect that the opposition—even anger sometimes—is a lot less about vaccines, or abortion than some other unmet need that finds expression though this kind of opposition.
And I also think that even discussing these issues with the intent to persuade is futile and giving the protesters exactly what they are seeking.
I think it's deeply ironic that an army of well intentioned people fan out on the internet to 'educate' people who are against X actually end up giving the protesters what they actually want, free therapy for some sort of frustrated need to be heard.¹
Even funnier is that both sides are playing out this psychodrama while being completely ignorant of the actual motivations behind their behaviour.
1. Or maybe the need to exercise the power expressed by holding an entire state or country hostage via a virus...?
It is reactionary for the most part and certainly the animosity towards those advertising vaccines is more important than the vaccine itself.
The people more actively trying to educate others are in it for their own form of therapy. Their fear lets them ride the soothing assurance of authoritarianism. They are safe if everyone is one the right level. I wouldn't call that well intentioned for the most part.
I fear irrationality isn't vaccine-able. It is a serious disease and people should take care. It is actually quite a privilege if you could get a free vaccine, other people might be glad about that.
On the other hand, people that got the disease just plainly shouldn't take it and business requiring me to be vaccinate and identify myself can search for other customers. People have to accept that others are less fearful than themselves.
The people more actively trying to educate others are in it for their own form of therapy. Their fear lets them ride the soothing assurance of authoritarianism. They are safe if everyone is one the right level. I wouldn't call that well intentioned for the most part.
I fear irrationality isn't vaccine-able. It is a serious disease and people should take care. It is actually quite a privilege if you could get a free vaccine, other people might be glad about that.
On the other hand, people that got the disease just plainly shouldn't take it and business requiring me to be vaccinate and identify myself can search for other customers. People have to accept that others are less fearful than themselves.
Congratulations, you have discovered reactionary politics. When people feel like society is not going right and that they're missing something that abstractly they had at some point in the past, you get mindsets like these.
Chronic vaccine overdoses are so exotic, as access to vaccines had been historically so tightly controlled, and it’s unlikely that someone would routinely subject themselves to daily/weekly IM injections.
Edit: After seeing a few responses, I meant to say that my curiosity is for vaccine doses way over and above what might be comparable to current practices with annual vaccinations.