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?
Current RNA vaccines protect against worrying coronavirus variants
211–220 of 324 posts
Re: Current RNA vaccines protect against worrying coronavirus variants
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
"which from my understanding is a form of gene therapy" You're the one who is asking SOCIAL MEDIA companies (i.e. Facebook and twitter) to educate you more. "I wish the social media giants would just stop all the censorship and allow the discussions to take place." Maybe that's the issue all along. Shouldn't have random people and nefarious state actors provide your education, but maybe go out there and read reputabl…
Nice try, don't try to argue that silencing information is helping because I should educate myself through approved sources rather than conversations with community. Whats next re education camps? Dont be a bully dude!
Re: Current RNA vaccines protect against worrying coronavirus variants
#213I literally saw the opposite headline about Pzifer versus a strain in India today The actual article said "modest antibody evading capabilities“ I hate that the internet has become this way
It’s just a glass half full or half empty statement.
Re: Current RNA vaccines protect against worrying coronavirus variants
#214Earlier 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…
> Im social distancing, wearing a mask doing all the things necessary Those things are emergency measures, that are important, but not anywhere near as effective as vaccines are. They stop things from rapidly spiraling out of control so instead they just slowly spiral. Its a holding action, one with a pretty high cost, not a solution. > that has been rushed through trials They've had the same amount of safety testing…
Re: Current RNA vaccines protect against worrying coronavirus variants
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
This article doesn't seem to address any of the strains originating in India, fwiw. My guess is that they haven't known of them long enough to understand their reaction in vaccinated people.
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…
I've actually seen it referenced as the "triple mutant"!
Re: Current RNA vaccines protect against worrying coronavirus variants
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
No. Because trustworthy information is easy to find and because "I don't understand X" can be used to argue against doing literally everything, including completely ridiculous things like insisting that wifi towers be taken down due to "wifi allergies". Making a decision that harms other people because of your own personal ignorance is not free from criticism.
> and when someone does say something wrong they are silenced by bans or deleted/moderated posts
You've got dozens of posts in this thread that are not deleted and have dozens of people trying to provide you with accurate information to help. There is no conspiracy here. You aren't being silenced.
Re: Current RNA vaccines protect against worrying coronavirus variants
#217https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/11/india-covid-explainer-what-w...
Re: Current RNA vaccines protect against worrying coronavirus variants
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
"modest antibody evading capabilities“ This generally means that a pseudovirus built with the mutated spike escapes some monoclonal antibodies and has reduced neutralization titers against convalescent sera, which is fairly normal and doesn't add up to an escape mutation. When it mutates enough to form an actual escape mutation that will probably come at a cost to the virus for transmissibility/virulence/viral load b…
I’m curious, what is your education background in? Do you have some sort of medical education or this is a regurgitation of some sources you’ve read as a hobbyist? I ask this because you seem to talk from a place of authority and fact and i respect that but typically thought of Ycomb as a place comp sci folks usually congregate.
I'm sure it's not your intention, but this phrase might be mistaken for an offensive, negative critique of the OP's abilities, which may make the OP hesitate to respond, or respond defensively.
If you are purely seeking information, without prejudice, then your question would be more effective if you ended it before the 'or'.
Re: Current RNA vaccines protect against worrying coronavirus variants
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe you should ask for sources instead. Authority is the wrong thing to trust in science
However, isn't this how Bayesian thinking works? You give a higher prior to your believe depending of the source.
Re: Current RNA vaccines protect against worrying coronavirus variants
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
> [1] A glaring counterexample to your hypothesis is Brazil (Manuas) where prior infections (as high as 60%) didn't stop the P1 variant from ripping through. The prior infection estimates for Manaus were simply wrong . They were based on a paper that "adjusted" the observed seroprevalence rates upward by a factor of ~3x. The parsimonious conclusion is that these corrections were too aggressive and ended up over-estim…
Conversely, we can make the same argument in the opposite direction with the example of Seychelles, which in spite of the highest vaccination level in the world, is still seeing significant growth in cases: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-56992121 Apparently they're using 40% Astra Zeneca, 60% Sinopharm; hopefully the issue is simply the latter being ineffective. But as all the success stories with vaccination…
The Seychelles is still 40% unvaccinated. Even people who are vaccinated have some chance of getting infected, though if they get infected, their chance of showing symptoms is lower, and their chance of ending up in the hospital is much lower. It looks like the people testing positive in the Seychelles are mostly unvaccinated, and that the people ending up in the hospital are even more likely to be unvaccinated. But there's not enough information in the BBC article to judge just how effective the vaccines have been in the Seychelles.
The BBC article does contain one falsehood:
> In April, China's top disease control official said the efficacy of the country's Covid vaccines was low, although he later insisted his comments had been misinterpreted.
George Gao did not say this. He gave a talk at a conference on vaccines which was blatantly misconstrued by a "researcher" at an American think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations. That misrepresentation then got spread by the media. All George Gao actually said was that researchers should consider ways of increasing the efficacy of vaccines that have lower efficacy. He didn't name any specific vaccine or any specific country. He proposed the same sorts of measures that are being considered for other vaccines, such as the AstraZeneca shot: delaying the second dose, mixing vaccine doses, etc. This got twisted into an "admission" that Chinese vaccines have low efficacy. It's too bad to see that the BBC is still repeating this false claim, weeks later.