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

Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta

sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 241 posts

Re: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta

#11

Post by jdhn »

pizza wrote: post #7
jdhn wrote: post #2

Is this necessarily a bad thing? If it protects the vast majoriy of people from going into the hospital and they gain additional immunity from covid, then I don't really see a downside.

People are still dying from breakthrough cases. Children (w/o vaccine) are dying of delta. Not to go full scaremonger but we don't know that much about long covid at this point. Plus the CDC admits that there is likely an undercount of people who got COVID post-vaccination https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/bre... It's an "ounce of prevention, pound of cure" type of situation

>Children (w/o vaccine) are dying of delta

The number of children who are dying of covid has been ridiculously low for a virus that spreads so easily. Hasn't covid deaths for children under the age of 12 been under 1000 since the pandemic started?

Re: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta

#12

Post by tunesmith »

jdhn wrote: post #5
anyfoo wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A less effective vaccination keeps COVID around longer and farther than a more effective one, though, giving the virus more time and population surface to mutate into further variants. (But still less than no vaccination.) I'm not an expert in this, so I cannot say how significant that issue is, but this is at least one potential downside that I am seeing to the vaccination being weaker for that variant. EDIT: To cla…

That's a fair critique. I feel like I've heard concerns about the potential for the virus to mutate because of the high level of vaccinations, but like you, I don't know how significant of an issue that is.

I think the parent was talking about the lack of vaccinations yielding more time to mutate, not the vaccinations themselves. Viruses aren't like bacteria; they don't mutate in direct response to vaccines.

Re: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta

#13

Post by anyfoo »

pizza wrote: post #7
jdhn wrote: post #2

Is this necessarily a bad thing? If it protects the vast majoriy of people from going into the hospital and they gain additional immunity from covid, then I don't really see a downside.

People are still dying from breakthrough cases. Children (w/o vaccine) are dying of delta. Not to go full scaremonger but we don't know that much about long covid at this point. Plus the CDC admits that there is likely an undercount of people who got COVID post-vaccination https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/bre... It's an "ounce of prevention, pound of cure" type of situation

Long COVID and the unknowns around that are why my wife and me have become very careful again despite having received both shots. It's good that the vaccine apparently means that less people will die, but avoiding to live with, for example, brain fog for an unknown (possibly lifelong) amount of time seems worth the precautions.

Re: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta

#14

Post by listless »

jdhn wrote: post #5
anyfoo wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A less effective vaccination keeps COVID around longer and farther than a more effective one, though, giving the virus more time and population surface to mutate into further variants. (But still less than no vaccination.) I'm not an expert in this, so I cannot say how significant that issue is, but this is at least one potential downside that I am seeing to the vaccination being weaker for that variant. EDIT: To cla…

That's a fair critique. I feel like I've heard concerns about the potential for the virus to mutate because of the high level of vaccinations, but like you, I don't know how significant of an issue that is.

I also have this concern. I haven’t seen it addressed anywhere and I am but a mere layperson.

Re: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta

#15

Post by anyfoo »

tunesmith wrote: post #12
jdhn wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a fair critique. I feel like I've heard concerns about the potential for the virus to mutate because of the high level of vaccinations, but like you, I don't know how significant of an issue that is.

I think the parent was talking about the lack of vaccinations yielding more time to mutate, not the vaccinations themselves. Viruses aren't like bacteria; they don't mutate in direct response to vaccines.

That is correct. My premise was that the more virus exists in absolute numbers (if the vaccine is weaker for the Delta variant), the more virus has the opportunity to mutate.

Re: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta

#16

Post by suchire »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #6
anyfoo wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A less effective vaccination keeps COVID around longer and farther than a more effective one, though, giving the virus more time and population surface to mutate into further variants. (But still less than no vaccination.) I'm not an expert in this, so I cannot say how significant that issue is, but this is at least one potential downside that I am seeing to the vaccination being weaker for that variant. EDIT: To cla…

It's going to mutate regardless of how many people are vaccinated. The entire point is to make it so that people don't have the runaway immune system responses that are melting lungs and brains.

The likelihood of mutation is directly proportional to how widespread a virus is multiplied by the amount of time it stays that way (more specifically, the area under the curve for infections over time). Vaccination and control of spread is critical to preventing further variants

Re: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta

#17

Post by smt88 »

jdhn wrote: post #5
anyfoo wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A less effective vaccination keeps COVID around longer and farther than a more effective one, though, giving the virus more time and population surface to mutate into further variants. (But still less than no vaccination.) I'm not an expert in this, so I cannot say how significant that issue is, but this is at least one potential downside that I am seeing to the vaccination being weaker for that variant. EDIT: To cla…

That's a fair critique. I feel like I've heard concerns about the potential for the virus to mutate because of the high level of vaccinations, but like you, I don't know how significant of an issue that is.

What you've heard is misinformation. Vaccines reduce potential for mutation, which is both intuitive and borne out by data.

Re: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta

#18

Post by morpheos137 »

pizza wrote: post #7
jdhn wrote: post #2

Is this necessarily a bad thing? If it protects the vast majoriy of people from going into the hospital and they gain additional immunity from covid, then I don't really see a downside.

People are still dying from breakthrough cases. Children (w/o vaccine) are dying of delta. Not to go full scaremonger but we don't know that much about long covid at this point. Plus the CDC admits that there is likely an undercount of people who got COVID post-vaccination https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/bre... It's an "ounce of prevention, pound of cure" type of situation

Every human that ever lives will die someday. A good life involves a prudent balancing of risks and costs. Nobody alive can ever be 100% safe before or after the advent of covid. Covid maybe a good thing if it forces mature adults to deal with their inevitable mortality like mature adults. Instead we have been seeing pervasive infantilisation of society. Safety has a cost. The world is not black and white. Disclaimer: the above is my opinion. Not flaming.

Re: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta

#19

Post by smt88 »

refurb wrote: post #9

There were several prominent epidemiologists who said early on “Covid will end up like the flu, you’ll need a yearly vaccine, we’ll have new variants and we’ll get waves of infections through out the year”. And here we are.

Except that it is still much more dangerous for unvaccinated people than the flu, which is an important distinction.

Re: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta

#20

Post by smt88 »

loteck wrote: post #10

If we had effective treatments and OTC therapies for this illness, the pressure to vaccinate against every resurgence and new mutation would basically disappear. With so much social difficulty with vaccines, this seems like the most likely long term path. Where's my cherry flavored Covidquil?

This is absolutely wrong.

A vaccine is a fraction of the cost of treatment, and it has no long-term side effects. Even better, a vaccine reduces the chance for a virus to mutate.

Treatments, even if they work, are going to have side effects, and there are still unknown risks from a severe (unvaccinated) infection anyway.

Vaccines are a miracle of proactivity, and there's no reason to try to replace them with something expensive, risky, and reactive.

Post reply on HN