Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Current RNA vaccines protect against worrying coronavirus variants

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 324 posts

Re: Current RNA vaccines protect against worrying coronavirus variants

#171

Post by Johanx64 »

sigmaprimus wrote: post #63
reedjosh wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> acknowledge the geopolitical hurdles Each of those vaccines come from a UN/WHO member country. Geo politically power is wielded by globalist financial elites. These elites generally believe the world is overpopulated. Bill himself is well known for his this belief. Bill as an example runs a charitable foundation that only ever seems to make money. These conspiracies are not constituted of a flat earth and aliens. T…

I have a hard time buying into the over population argument, especially in the west. Most western nations have declining populations and although consumption is much higher there is still such a need for continued population growth in western nations that immigration is used to ensure there are enough younger workers to support the wealthier aging populations. Now you want to talk conspiracies to conceal or coverup h…

>although consumption is much higher there is still such a need for continued population growth in western nations that immigration is used to ensure there are enough younger workers to support the wealthier aging populations

It's because social-security/pension systems are a pyramid schemes that can't sustain themselves without ever growing population. I consider many Western EU countries overpopulated (UK, Italy, etc), Google Maps satellite images also do a pretty good job at portraying at just how overpopulated the earth is. Pop growth every decade is still insane.

Re: Current RNA vaccines protect against worrying coronavirus variants

#173

Post by sigmaprimus »

loxias wrote: post #100
sigmaprimus wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>>Putting aside the fact that not being vaccinated is a horrible selfish act that hastens the evolution of a more virulent strain and more death. Rhetoric like that is almost as bad as the conspiracies floating around. Brow beating someone with legitimate concerns is not right. Im social distancing, wearing a mask doing all the things necessary and successfully I might add to not aquire or transmit the virus. So ple…

> legitimate concerns FWIW, I didn't see any legitimate concerns. I would love to hear a legitimate concern. All I see is "but I don't know... I'm not sure...". And I just don't get it. facepalm I fully admit this could be due to a lack of imagination on my part. I often suffer from that, especially when it comes to empathy. > Thank you everyone for having this frank discussion and not canceling or censoring it(even…

A legitimate concern? Is not knowing or not understanding NOT a legitimate reason for concern? Would blind trust be better? I started my comments on this thread because I found much of the information I have been seeking is a direct result of an almost dogma being thrust upon society on what is OK to say and what is not regarding Vaccines, and when someone does say something wrong they are silenced by bans or deleted/moderated posts.

Cutting out a persons tongue doesn't make them wrong or prove You right, unless the argument is over who has a longer tongue.

Re: Current RNA vaccines protect against worrying coronavirus variants

#174

Post by brigandish »

greg5green wrote: post #142
petertodd wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The study itself says that the immune response to the vaccine is not as diverse as a natural infection. That's how the study tried to figure out who had been infected: "Natural exposure induces a dominant Ab response against the nucleocapsid protein (NP), but since NP is not in the vaccine, there is no vaccine induced response against it. In this way vaccinated people who had a prior natural exposure can be classifie…

>Natural exposure induces a dominant Ab response against the nucleocapsid protein (NP), but since NP is not in the vaccine, there is no vaccine induced response against it. In this way vaccinated people who had a prior natural exposure can be classified because they have Abs to NP." >Simply looking at one aspect of immunity - detectable antibodies in the blood - is a very incomplete way of looking at the overall leve…

They wrote:

> The immune response developed to our vaccines is quite specific - they only generate the spike protein - which leads to a much less diverse response than a natural infection.

Which tells me that your response of:

> You seem to have no idea what you are reading. Of course vaccines aren't going to have antibodies against the nucleocapsid -- they only generate antibodies against the spike!

is wholly inappropriate as they clearly know what you are using as a rebuttal and makes me wonder if you are the one with no idea of what you are reading!

Perhaps take a second to read the person's comment more thoroughly before being rude, which I see you've continued with in the rest of your comment. It's a discussion, not a fight, try to add your thoughts in a better way, please.

Re: Current RNA vaccines protect against worrying coronavirus variants

#175

Post by Spare_account »

garmaine wrote: post #79
Clewza313 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

India is by and large not using Pfizer. Evidence to date points to AstraZeneca (which they are using) being quite effective in preventing serious illness.

So far ALL vaccines are effective against serious illness with all variants.

This has me wondering: Are there any events in history (with any other viruses) where this hasn't proven to be the case?

Viruses that we've developed vaccines for, that have eventually been rendered inneffective due to a mutation? Is it a common occurence?

Re: Current RNA vaccines protect against worrying coronavirus variants

#176

Post by CorrectHorseBat »

miked85 wrote: post #159
loxias wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we should respect their choices Honestly, why should I do that? I would if their choices only affected themselves. People have a right to control their own destiny. But their choices affect me, and, more importantly, those I care about. So no, I don't respect anyone's "choice" to be an unvaccinated asshole, increasing the chance that people I care about will die. I don't respect the "choice" to aide a foreign micro…

> But their choices affect me If you and your family get vaccinated, how do their choices affect you?

Vaccines are not 100% effective, some people cannot take the vaccine (known allergic reactions, immunocompromised, ...) and continued spread of the virus can create new mutations.

Re: Current RNA vaccines protect against worrying coronavirus variants

#177

Post by mxcrossb »

Spare_account wrote: post #175
garmaine wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So far ALL vaccines are effective against serious illness with all variants.

This has me wondering: Are there any events in history (with any other viruses) where this hasn't proven to be the case? Viruses that we've developed vaccines for, that have eventually been rendered inneffective due to a mutation? Is it a common occurence?

It seems like the flu virus is the example you want right? Every year the vaccines delivered is a cocktail based on the predicted most common variants, because no one vaccine can protect against them all.

Re: Current RNA vaccines protect against worrying coronavirus variants

#178

Post by j4yav »

brigandish wrote: post #170
randomsearch wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Authority is constantly used as an effective source of trust in science.

As an effective shortcut but it's still the wrong thing, ultimately, to trust .

What is the alternative? Everyone grabs postdoctorate degrees in everything that might come up?

Re: Current RNA vaccines protect against worrying coronavirus variants

#179

Post by reissbaker »

Spare_account wrote: post #175
garmaine wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So far ALL vaccines are effective against serious illness with all variants.

This has me wondering: Are there any events in history (with any other viruses) where this hasn't proven to be the case? Viruses that we've developed vaccines for, that have eventually been rendered inneffective due to a mutation? Is it a common occurence?

Not rendered ineffective per se, but it's part of why you need a flu shot every year. There are a lot of strains and they mutate a lot, so we do a best guess of which current strains will be the most infectious in a given year and develop vaccines targeting those strains.

Generally the vaccines are moderately effective, but it's because we update them every year. If we didn't, they wouldn't be.

That being said there are efforts underway to make vaccines that would be more broadly effective against the flu and will be less susceptible to variants escaping ("universal flu vaccines"), and so this may not always be true in the future.

In the meantime, mRNA vaccines will likely be a huge aid for fighting the flu, because they can be manufactured rapidly for specific strains. Currently there's a six-month or longer lead time for inactivated- or attenuated-virus vaccines — which is what flu shots generally are — and sometimes new variants pop up or are discovered to be more infectious in between the manufacturing start date and that year's flu season.

Moderna apparently plans to make COVID booster shots that are also flu shots, although they may not be ready this year.

Re: Current RNA vaccines protect against worrying coronavirus variants

#180

Post by majewsky »

raducu wrote: post #169
greg5green wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The popular media has done a huge disservice by naming this the "Indian double mutant." It's two changes that have been seen in other variants and have been studied already. The "double mutation" is L452R and E484Q. L452R is the defining feature of the B.1.429 variant (California). E484Q has been seen in derivatives of B.1.429 and in bunches of other variants in the US. It has some antibody evasive properties, but no…

Isn't the fact that those two mutations pop up in Brazil, South Africa and now India a good thing? That could mean it's likely the virus is running out of useful mutations?

Yes. I've heard this argument being made by Christian Drosten (a German virologist specializing in coronaviruses) in his podcast a few months back.
Post reply on HN