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

41–50 of 241 posts

Re: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta

#41

Post by hcknwscommenter »

graderjs wrote: post #30
berkut wrote: post #27

There seems to be some evidence that having a longer duration between the first and second doses provides better long-term protection, i.e. gaps of 7+ weeks, compared to the 3+ weeks the US and Israel have generally done. NZ is currently thinking about increasing the gap to > 6 weeks because of this. I wonder how much that would affect things.

I heard that as well. My feeling is that with all the treatments we are deploying against the virus, one thing we are doing is creating a selective pressure, forcing it to evolve to promote more resistant and transmissible variants. Whether those transmissible variants also contain higher mortality might be a crapshoot game of chance, but I don't hear this sort of idea spouted a lot and I think it's worth considering…

Vaccines are very different from antibiotics. Antibiotics are single molecules that bind a very specific target. A single mutation of a single protein can render an antibiotic useless. Vaccines induce the immune system to generate a repertoire of antibodies, each of which binds in a different way and each of which is then selected and "evolved" (hypermutation) for increased efficacy. And each individual person creates a different starting and ending repertoire of antibodies. A single mutation, or even a large group of mutations, does not so easily side step all this diversity of antibody types/binding modes. Moreover, we have evidence that the idea that vaccines increase the likelihood of variants is just wrong. We do not see that effect for mumps, polio, smallpox, or any other virus. Moreover, delta appears to have arisen in India, which at the time had vaccination rates very close to zero. Again, providing strong evidence that vaccines are not applying selective pressure for more virulent strains.

Re: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta

#42

Post by AndrewBissell »

suchire wrote: post #16
MisterBastahrd wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This isn't really true. For instance, it's been shown that mutations are far more common in immunocompromised people (many of whom cannot even take the vaccines) where the virus can just camp out for months and train itself against the human immune system. So one particular host might serve as a more fertile environment for variants than thousands of others combined.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/03/11/immunocompr...

Re: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta

#43

Post by addicted »

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.

The virus will not mutate because of the high level of vaccinations.

The virus will mutate because of the high level of unvaccinated people.

The risk is when the high level of unvaccinated are in the same population with a high level of vaccinated, of the many mutations in the unvaccinated there is a greater chance that a mutation that randomly has greater tolerance to the vaccines will be naturally selected and flourish.

Vaccination does not lead to more mutations, but in the absence of vaccination, resistance to vaccines does not give a mutation any advantage, so whether it flourishes or not is based entirely on other attributes. It’s only when you do have a significant population of vaccinated does the mutations created in the unvax population benefit from resistance to vaccines.

Re: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta

#44

Post by thatguy0900 »

graderjs wrote: post #37
danielodievich wrote: post #4

I am good friends with 3 doctors, and talk to them a lot about the amazing science behind the vaccines and the incredible speed with which those were designed and developed. All agree it was done at pretty much the software speed - custom designed on the computer in weeks and then built to order - and both them and I think it's pretty neat. It is very refreshing to talk to them because they, being good doctors, deal…

I don't know if we have this, but it would be good if we had a technology that enhanced your body's immune system to identify and kill viruses, rather than prime it to respond to a particular viral signal, that then may need to be updated as the virus changes (that's how I understand how vaccines work, but that could be false). You might think it's a subtle difference, but I think the former technology would be leani…

Beefing up the immune system without garunteeing it something to do seems like a recipe for autoimmune disorders, no?

Re: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta

#45

Post by hcknwscommenter »

brodouevencode wrote: post #24
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.

The pretense all along as far as I can tell from most countries has been one of "zero COVID". Meaning a total removal/extermination of the virus. Whether or not this was ever realistic is really the underlying debate that hasn't yet fully surfaced.

Of course it was realistic. China basically achieved it (I am not a China fan or defender), but the rest of the world failed. The whole world achieved it for the first SARS. However, that ship sailed a long time ago. Probably before the first surge in Italy of COVID-19.

Re: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta

#46

Post by stirfish »

morpheos137 wrote: post #26
pizza wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well let's talk about infantilization then: I don't mind fearing or being at peace with death. Our society could use that. It's just that we're in a global plague right now and a large chunk of people just want to do whatever they want no matter if others are affected by their actions. Basically a stage of development such as children before they realize others are also people. It's like ten people walking a tightrop…

I would respectfully submit that the death rate of covid does not justify the scale of the response. It is unreasonable to shut down society for a disease whose median age victim is about 80 and whose whole population case fatality rate is in the low single digit percent at worse. The elderly and well off want to minimize their risk at the expense of the young and the poor. Who do you think delivered your Amazon pack…

What death rate would cause you to reconsider a lockdown?

Re: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta

#47

Post by jfoster »

anyfoo wrote: post #3
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.

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…

Is it analogous to flu? Do flu vaccines cause mutations as well?

One interesting thing about covid is that it seems to be the first time humanity has collected so much data (eg. contact tracing, phylogenetics through genome sequencing, etc.) about this kind of virus, and applied modern medical knowledge in trying to combat it.

It's very apparent that the overall response hasn't been nearly good enough, but it's probably also the best response there's ever been. (perhaps not the best ROI, though?)

Re: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta

#48

Post by iammisc »

brodouevencode wrote: post #32
landemva wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I havent (needed) a flu shot in a couple decades. I'm not interested in yearly jabs. Better to lose the waist inches and high BMI. Few want the self-responsibility of healthy living. And I don't agree with headline of "grim", as it was obvious a year ago this was coming. Who lost any excess weight in the past year?

Not sure why you're getting downvoted. Comorbidity is a fundamental driving factor in whether or not you survive this virus. We've not heard any recommendations from any health agency suggesting a healthier lifestyle would help - it most certainly would statistically speaking. And 18 months in I doubt we'll see anything like that because it has proven to not be politically expedient. (FWIW Ive been intermittent fasti…

Yup... it's beeen 18 month. WE'd have been better off with a run a mile a day mandate than any of the lockdowns.

Re: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta

#49

Post by [deleted] »

pizza wrote: post #38
morpheos137 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would respectfully submit that the death rate of covid does not justify the scale of the response. It is unreasonable to shut down society for a disease whose median age victim is about 80 and whose whole population case fatality rate is in the low single digit percent at worse. The elderly and well off want to minimize their risk at the expense of the young and the poor. Who do you think delivered your Amazon pack…

Wuhan has been reopened for a long time now. We had every piece of information to make a good decision at the time in February 2020. Now we are thrashed about in a sea of half-measures, societal tension, and the total closing up of public life. We were so lost even by the time the CDC was encouraging people to not wear masks because it'll give you higher risk of contracting covid . Now our future's truly new.

[deleted]

Re: Vaccination blunts, but does not defeat Delta

#50

Post by ModernMech »

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

> Not to go full scaremonger but we don't know that much about long covid at this point.

My sister had a very mild case of Covid last year after lockdowns started lifting and she went to the hairdresser (masked, obviously not vaccinated). She had the telltale loss of taste, but really no other symptom, and she recovered.

I saw her yesterday in person for the first time in a number of months and she looked so skinny I had to say something, it was worrying to me. She told me she has trouble eating anymore because everything tastes like shit. She says that things she used to love now taste the way cigarettes smell, and she simply can't stomach it.

Her words: "People need to realize that even if you don't die from Covid, it can change your life. I wish I never got this."

Post reply on HN