Live data from Hacker News

SARS-CoV-2 Lambda variant exhibits higher infectivity and immune resistance

biorxiv.org

91–100 of 101 posts

Re: SARS-CoV-2 Lambda variant exhibits higher infectivity and immune resistance

#91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool, you counter a news article backed by a study with a tweet backed by screenshots of headlines. Seems totally reasonable.

Not only that, but a tweet from someone who has earned the title, "the pandemic's wrongest man". ETA: And to critique the substance and not the messenger, I have tried to track down any publication of the Israeli Health Ministry that contains data supporting this claim, and have failed to do so. All traces lead to a story in the Israel National News, which gives no specifics about the source of the data, just lots of…

Thank you for recognizing the ad-hominem nature of your initial sentence and moving on to engaging on the argument. This is far more convincing and made your comment far more credible.

Re: SARS-CoV-2 Lambda variant exhibits higher infectivity and immune resistance

#92
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That's why we have 32 years of study on mRNA vaccines Yes, in which they were largely viewed as non-viable and a shelfed idea at least in part due to issues like ADE. The research here was not extremely active, nor was it done on humans to the extent it is now. >You have no basis for that. Correct, but I have no basis to believe that some unseen risk is not present too. Given that I'm not personally at risk for COVI…

Apologies if you found the comments rude, I was just joking around :) tone doesn't always carry well. I do appreciate your thoughts, and thank you for a vigorous debate!

touche, and apologies for being impatient.

Re: SARS-CoV-2 Lambda variant exhibits higher infectivity and immune resistance

#93
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are far less likely to get infected at all if you're fully vaccinated, and people who aren't infected can't transmit the virus. If you do get a breakthrough infection, the time window during which you're infectious is far shorter.[1] There's more and more data now on how much vaccination lowers transmission. For example, a recent study found that vaccinated people who caught the virus are 40-50% less likely to pa…

>You are far less likely to get infected at all if you're fully vaccinated This is what I'm asking about, transmission. The data on this is woefully limited however. Here's another Fauci quote: So far, the available Covid-19 vaccines have not been judged primarily on their ability to prevent transmission – though this is now being evaluated as a secondary endpoint for many of them. Instead, their efficacy was assesse…

> This is what I'm asking about, transmission. The data on this is woefully limited however.

The most effective way to not transmit is to not get infected in the first place. The vaccines drastically reduce chance of infection.

> For example, this is what you're study says:

>> The mRNA vaccines are highly effective at preventing symptomatic and severe COVID-19 associated with B.1.617.2 infection

The very next sentence states,

> Vaccination is associated with faster decline in viral RNA load and a robust serological response.

This means that infections in vaccinated people are typically much shorter-lived than infections in unvaccinated people. The time during which you have high viral load is drastically reduced.

> it's possible that vaccinated individuals were simply practicing better viral hygiene

Reducing infections of family members by 40-50% is a massive effect, especially when you consider that the vast majority of people in this study had only even received their first dose. There's an obvious explanation that fits with everything else we know about vaccination (e.g., that vaccinated people who get infected are far less symptomatic and that the time during which they have high viral load is much shorter).

Most vaccines do not confer sterilizing immunity. Nevertheless, many of them still produce herd immunity. Immunity is not an all-or-nothing thing. You're far less likely to get infected if you're vaccinated, and if you do get infected, you're far less likely to transmit the virus. Even if you don't care about dramatically reducing your own risk of getting seriously ill or dying, the vaccine significantly reduces your chance of ever transmitting the virus to others.

Re: SARS-CoV-2 Lambda variant exhibits higher infectivity and immune resistance

#94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's more than one type or way to describe immunity, as this discussion[1] by experts on the virus shows. [1] https://www.statnews.com/2020/08/25/four-scenarios-on-how-we...

I don't see how this article bears on my comment. This article was written before the vaccines came out. We now know fairly well how the vaccines perform, and they are vastly preferable to natural infection without vaccination.

You stated:

> The whole point of immunity is not to get infected/sick in the first place

That is a description of sterilising immunity, which none of the COVID-19 vaccines provide, they attempt to provide acquired immunity. You can't have a whole point where half of it is not true.

The efficacy of the vaccines is measured in several ways, basically on how well they prevent severity of symptoms, e.g. death, needing ICU, hospitalisation, mild symptoms, asymptomatic.

As to this:

> they are vastly preferable to natural infection without vaccination.

that is not settled science, there is still much debate and research going on regarding this point with outcomes that support both "sides" (probably because different people have different immune responses, both could be true in different people), and you've overstated the case by a long way anyway.

Re: SARS-CoV-2 Lambda variant exhibits higher infectivity and immune resistance

#95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how this article bears on my comment. This article was written before the vaccines came out. We now know fairly well how the vaccines perform, and they are vastly preferable to natural infection without vaccination.

You stated: > The whole point of immunity is not to get infected/sick in the first place That is a description of sterilising immunity, which none of the COVID-19 vaccines provide, they attempt to provide acquired immunity. You can't have a whole point where half of it is not true. The efficacy of the vaccines is measured in several ways, basically on how well they prevent severity of symptoms, e.g. death, needing IC…

> That is a description of sterilising immunity

No, it's a description of both sterilising and non-sterilising immunity. Note that I wrote "infected/sick," not just "infected." The vaccines significantly reduce your chances of both.

> that is not settled science

Are you seriously suggesting that the science isn't settled on whether getting vaccinated is preferable to contracting SARS-CoV-2 as an unvaccinated person? The rates of severe disease and death are orders of magnitude higher for unvaccinated people. If you have a choice of how to acquire immunity, vaccination is always preferable to infection, because infection carries significant risks. If you haven't yet been infected, the science is absolutely settled that you should get vaccinated.

I really don't know what's happened to HN, and how anti-vaxxers became so vocal here.

Re: SARS-CoV-2 Lambda variant exhibits higher infectivity and immune resistance

#96
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You are far less likely to get infected at all if you're fully vaccinated This is what I'm asking about, transmission. The data on this is woefully limited however. Here's another Fauci quote: So far, the available Covid-19 vaccines have not been judged primarily on their ability to prevent transmission – though this is now being evaluated as a secondary endpoint for many of them. Instead, their efficacy was assesse…

> This is what I'm asking about, transmission. The data on this is woefully limited however. The most effective way to not transmit is to not get infected in the first place. The vaccines drastically reduce chance of infection. > For example, this is what you're study says: >> The mRNA vaccines are highly effective at preventing symptomatic and severe COVID-19 associated with B.1.617.2 infection The very next sentenc…

>Reducing infections of family members by 40-50% is a massive effect

The point is that you're attributing this to vaccine effectiveness, when it may have been viral hygiene. The authors of the study did not attribute this reduction to the vaccine directly as you are.

Re: SARS-CoV-2 Lambda variant exhibits higher infectivity and immune resistance

#97
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is what I'm asking about, transmission. The data on this is woefully limited however. The most effective way to not transmit is to not get infected in the first place. The vaccines drastically reduce chance of infection. > For example, this is what you're study says: >> The mRNA vaccines are highly effective at preventing symptomatic and severe COVID-19 associated with B.1.617.2 infection The very next sentenc…

>Reducing infections of family members by 40-50% is a massive effect The point is that you're attributing this to vaccine effectiveness, when it may have been viral hygiene. The authors of the study did not attribute this reduction to the vaccine directly as you are.

Vaccination is the most likely explanation, and there's a very good biological reason to expect it to be the reason: viral load decreases much more rapidly in vaccinated people, meaning they're likely infectious for a much shorter time window.

There's more more and more research that strongly points to transmission by vaccinated people who get infected (which, remember, is much less likely) being substantially lower than transmission by unvaccinated people. This study [1] came out just last week, for example:

> Our study showed that the COVID-19 vaccines not only protect the vaccinee against SARS-CoV-2 infection, but also offer protection against transmission to close contacts after completing the full schedule.

This study finds an even stronger reduction (70%) in transmission by fully vaccinated people. The first study that I posted primarily studied partially vaccinated people.

1. https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.E...

Re: SARS-CoV-2 Lambda variant exhibits higher infectivity and immune resistance

#98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You stated: > The whole point of immunity is not to get infected/sick in the first place That is a description of sterilising immunity, which none of the COVID-19 vaccines provide, they attempt to provide acquired immunity. You can't have a whole point where half of it is not true. The efficacy of the vaccines is measured in several ways, basically on how well they prevent severity of symptoms, e.g. death, needing IC…

> That is a description of sterilising immunity No, it's a description of both sterilising and non-sterilising immunity. Note that I wrote "infected/sick," not just "infected." The vaccines significantly reduce your chances of both. > that is not settled science Are you seriously suggesting that the science isn't settled on whether getting vaccinated is preferable to contracting SARS-CoV-2 as an unvaccinated person?…

Firstly, I'm not an anti-vaxxer and I think you should apologise. You've gone overboard in every comment and now you've landed on personal attacks. If you can't make a persuasive and well-reasoned argument don't look at anyone but yourself.

> No, it's a description of both sterilising and non- sterilising immunity.

I know, that's why I wrote "You can't have a whole point where half of it is not true." The sterilising part isn't correct, the vaccines do not act to produce neutralising antibodies, they work to produce acquired immunity. That is why we have this[1] via the CDC:

> "High viral loads suggest an increased risk of transmission and raised concern that, unlike with other variants, vaccinated people infected with Delta can transmit the virus," Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the CDC's director, said in a statement Friday.

and this[2] from Public Health England (PHE):

> The Technical Briefing also includes some initial findings which indicate that levels of virus in those who become infected with Delta but have already been vaccinated may be similar to levels found in unvaccinated people. This may have implications for people’s infectiousness, whether they have been vaccinated or not. However, this is early exploratory analysis and further targeted studies are needed to confirm whether this is the case.

So your statement:

> The vaccines significantly reduce your chances of both.

is factually wrong.

The vaccines *do not* provide sterilising immunity. Rates of transmission are not the same thing, sterilising immunity is a type of immune response[3], transmission can be lowered by any part of the immune response simply because it shortens the period that a carrier is infectious to others, they are not synonyms, so stating "The rates of severe disease and death are orders of magnitude higher for unvaccinated people" - which is to compare efficacy and severity with infectiousness is beside the point and only goes to show your lack of understanding or ability to hold a good faith argument.

> “The Delta variant will still infect people who have been vaccinated. And that does mean that anyone who’s still unvaccinated at some point will meet the virus … and we don’t have anything that will [completely] stop that transmission.”

Those are the words[4] of professor Andrew Pollard[5], an immunologist, and Chief Investigator on the University of Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine (ChAdOx-1 n-CoV-19) trials.

Again:

> “The Delta variant will still infect people who have been vaccinated”

That is not the case with sterilising immunity. Is he anti-vaxx? Do behave.

As to the second half of your comment:

> Are you seriously suggesting that the science isn't settled on whether getting vaccinated is preferable to contracting SARS-CoV-2 as an unvaccinated person?

If it's settled then why are experts saying things like this[6], from last week:

> “It appears that natural immunity is better against the Delta variant. When you get infected with COVID, your body’s immune system develops antibodies to the entire surface of the virus,” Makary said. “Not just the slight protein that the vaccines gives you, but the entire surface. And so you get a more diverse antibody portfolio in your system.”

That is from, as the article points out, "Dr. Marty Makary, a professor at John Hopkins School of Medicine", but he has a Wikipedia page too[7] where you can check out his credentials, long list of awards, and try to find some kind of controversy section (or even start one).

He's quoting evidence from Israel's health ministry (via a news report[8], if you finally overcome your aversion to challenging information then you might find me the data from the ministry itself, I'd appreciate that):

> With a total of 835,792 Israelis known to have recovered from the virus, the 72 instances of reinfection amount to 0.0086% of people who were already infected with COVID.

>By contrast, Israelis who were vaccinated were 6.72 times more likely to get infected after the shot than after natural infection, with over 3,000 of the 5,193,499, or 0.0578%, of Israelis who were vaccinated getting infected in the latest wave.

and he's not anti-vaccine either:

> Makary has still encouraged those who are not vaccinated and not immune to get the vaccine.

and I remind you of the end of the quote above by PHE:

> However, this is early exploratory analysis and further targeted studies are needed to confirm whether this is the case

When was it published? 6th of August, 2021.

And at the end of that Israeli news report:

> According to a report by Channel 13, the disparity has confounded – and divided – Health Ministry experts, with some saying the data proves the higher level of immunity provided by natural infection versus vaccination, while others remained unconvinced.

When was it published? July the 13th, 2021. That is not settled science.

On the other hand - and as I am so very anti-vaxx I don't know why I'd share this - this is from PHE's technical briefing[9]:

> - sera from vaccinees shows decreased ability to neutralize B.1.621 compared to first wave virus and Alpha, with a magnitude of change similar to Beta - sera from individuals who have been infected with Delta does not have strong neutralising activity against either Beta or B.1.621 - sera from individuals who have been vaccinated and have had subsequent recent Delta infection have a high level of neutralising activity against all variants tested (including beta and B.1.621)

So it looks like those who have been vaccinated and were subsequently infected (where were those neutralising antibodies?;) are then given some neutralising immunity.

As professor Makary stresses wherever he seems to be quoted, the different populations to be considered should be the immune and the not-immune, not the vaccinated and unvaccinated.

Those without immunity who are at risk should get vaccinated - this is my view. Is that an anti-vaxx message? Again, behave.

Take it down a notch, read more widely and with much more attention, please.

[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0...

[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/confirmed-cases-of-covid-...

[3] https://www.accessscience.com/content/neutralizing-antibody/...

[4] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/10/delta-variant-...

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Pollard_(biologist)

[6] https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/dr-makary-says-natu...

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marty_Makary

[8] https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/309762

[9] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

Re: SARS-CoV-2 Lambda variant exhibits higher infectivity and immune resistance

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is a description of sterilising immunity No, it's a description of both sterilising and non-sterilising immunity. Note that I wrote "infected/sick," not just "infected." The vaccines significantly reduce your chances of both. > that is not settled science Are you seriously suggesting that the science isn't settled on whether getting vaccinated is preferable to contracting SARS-CoV-2 as an unvaccinated person?…

Firstly, I'm not an anti-vaxxer and I think you should apologise. You've gone overboard in every comment and now you've landed on personal attacks. If you can't make a persuasive and well-reasoned argument don't look at anyone but yourself. > No, it's a description of both sterilising and non- sterilising immunity. I know, that's why I wrote "You can't have a whole point where half of it is not true." The sterilising…

The vaccines all induce production of neutralizing antibodies. For example, this is the title of a Nature paper from May: "BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans."[1]

You cite a bunch of people saying that vaccinated people can transmit the virus. They can, but they're far less likely to, as multiple studies have now shown. If they get infected, fully vaccinated people are about 70% less likely to transmit the virus,[2] and even partially vaccinated people are 40-50% less likely to transmit the virus.[3] There are some obvious reasons why this should be the case (e.g., vaccinated people clear the virus much more rapidly, meaning that they're infectious for a shorter span of time - see the recent study from Singapore: [4]).

This is on top of the fact that vaccinated people are far less likely to get infected (even with Delta) in the first place. Uninfected people don't transmit, of course. Overall, the effectiveness of the vaccine in reducing transmission in a population is high. Recall that most vaccines do not confer sterilizing immunity, but many still generate herd immunity, regardless.

You also argue that people who get infected are less likely to get infected later than people who acquire immunity through vaccination. This does not mean that getting immunity through infection is preferable to getting immunity through vaccination. If I can use a rather crude analogy, imagine the following argument: "People who jaywalk and get run over by cars are less likely to get run over a second time than people who use the crosswalk." The whole point of vaccination is to avoid the negative effects that come from getting infected without pre-existing immunity. Getting infected so that you can avoid getting infected just makes no sense. The worst case with vaccination is that you later get infected, probably have very mild disease, and get a boost to your immune response.

1. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03653-6

2. https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.E...

3. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2107717

4. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v...

Re: SARS-CoV-2 Lambda variant exhibits higher infectivity and immune resistance

#100

Why the nomenclature jump from delta to lambda? not kidding: were there uninteresting variants in alphabetical order between them? (i.e, what of epsilon, zeta, eta, theta, iota, and kappa?)

There are "variants of interest", "variants of concern" and "variants of high consequence", in order of possible impact. The first are labelled, the latter "make headlines".
Post reply on HN