[HN Gopher] Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines
___________________________________________________________________
Linus Torvalds on mRNA Vaccines
Author : blacktulip
Score : 373 points
Date : 2021-06-10 22:00 UTC (59 minutes ago)
(HTM) web link (lore.kernel.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (lore.kernel.org)
| piinbinary wrote:
| The way I like to think about it (not sure how accurate this is)
| is that mRNA is like a letter sent by your DNA. mRNA vaccines
| forge your DNA's handwriting and write a letter that looks like
| it came from your DNA, but didn't.
| outworlder wrote:
| And COVID is a printing press for scam letters.
| lalaland1125 wrote:
| > And if you insist on believing in the crazy conspiracy
| theories, at least SHUT THE HELL UP about it on Linux kernel
| discussion lists.
|
| I see Linus still hasn't changed much.
| moralestapia wrote:
| Yeah the anger management sessions didn't do much.
|
| Also, some of the things he states are wrong (or unverified) as
| well.
|
| I wish people had the maturity of being able to discuss
| sensitive topics without having it degenerate into a visceral
| fight. For instance, I'm not being rude or anything, I'm just
| sharing my knowledge from 10+ or so years doing science, not
| pushing an agenda and presenting arguments in a civilized
| manner. Yet, for some reason, some people don't like that, go
| figure.
|
| Similar to the chinese leak fiasco, it was a natural question
| to ask yet the agenda was to bury it as it if was wrong to
| question those things. A bit sad to be somebody who is just
| following the tides like some sort of insentient seaweed.
| lalaland1125 wrote:
| What did he say that you would consider to be wrong or
| unverified?
| panny wrote:
| I'll bite. He says it's crazy conspiracy theories. I have
| family hospitalized with blood clots after receiving the
| vax. She's out now, but that hospitalization will lead to a
| personal bankruptcy. It's not crazy conspiracy theory when
| your own family starts seeing negative effects. After
| watching what happened to her, nobody else in my family has
| any desire to get vaxxed. Nobody in my family is "anti-vax"
| as we've all gotten vaxed at birth, have voluntarily gotten
| flu vaccines in the past, etc. It's anti-this-vax, because
| it is not fully tested, and has caused real harm to people.
|
| What happened to "First, do no harm"?
| colinmhayes wrote:
| The vaccine has saved far more people than have died due
| to the blood clots.
| miloignis wrote:
| Linus is responding specifically to the allegations made
| that the mRNA vaccines change your genes "into a new
| humanoid race", which I think can reasonably count as a
| conspiracy theory.
|
| Additionally, I don't believe the mRNA vaccines are the
| ones linked to blood clots (a big part of mRNA vaccines
| is that they should be safer and more effective!), but
| I'm sorry to hear about your family member's
| hospitalization.
|
| I think vaccination is the best thing we can do
| cost/benefit wise and recommend it wholeheartedly, but I
| respect those waiting for more testing if they continue
| to take appropriate precautions. Good luck to you and
| yours!
| Nursie wrote:
| Do you recognise how rare a reaction that is? Compared to
| adverse effects of the disease itself?
| chipotle_coyote wrote:
| I'm sorry your family member had this serious but
| _exceedingly rare_ reaction to the vaccine, but here's
| the thing: when, exactly, do you propose making the call
| to go ahead and get your family vaccinated? When vaccines
| are provably 100% safe? Probably not. So how about five
| nines, 99.999% safe? Well, no, apparently that's not good
| enough for you, because that's roughly what we've got.
| When it comes to _fatal_ reactions to the vaccines, it's
| past six nines. And of course, that still means that out
| of 330 million Americans, we could expect 33 to die from
| the vaccine! That's dozens!
|
| Compared to over a half a million dead _and still
| counting_ from Covid-19.
|
| Again, it sucks that serious, life-threatening side
| effects from the vaccine are possible, and sucks more
| than you've been personally touched by them. But the
| chances are still _literally orders of magnitude greater_
| that you will suffer serious, life-threatening side
| effects if you get Covid-19. Including blood clots. More
| people have been hospitalized by or even died from blood
| clots caused by Covid than they have from the blood clots
| caused by the vaccines. By a lot.
| moralestapia wrote:
| Just curious, what are the safety numbers for other
| commonly deployed vaccines like the ones for influenza,
| etc...?
| moralestapia wrote:
| Well, there's a lot of evidence for mRNA transfer between
| species in other kingdoms; read on about _reverse
| transcriptase_ [1] that is literally how some viruses
| spread when they enter the human body. Whether that
| mechanism still goes on when some of the components are
| missing, well, we _presume_ it won 't happen but there's
| not enough and definite evidence for that.
|
| And for those who _love_ appealing to authority, I do have
| bachelor and master degrees in bioscience, unlike Linus and
| most of the readers here, so :^)
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcriptase
|
| Edit, happens all the time, in many different contexts:
|
| [2]:
| https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/23/4/735/620265
|
| [3]: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/193963607
| 018768...
|
| [4]:
| https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00294-018-0844-6
|
| [5]: https://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/19/5/1015
| <-- not sure about this one, I only skimmed it
|
| I could go on and on, but you get the idea, if there's
| something you learn (or should learn) in biology is that
| the exception is the rule.
| zamalek wrote:
| The mRNA in this case has chromosomes that cannot be
| replicated by nature. You might try researching the mRNA
| vaccine.
| moralestapia wrote:
| That's what you don't seem to get.
|
| I'm not saying it _does_ happen, neither am I saying it
| _does not_ happen. There 's not enough evidence, that's
| it. Why is that so hard to grasp?
|
| And there's evidence of it happening in plenty of other
| contexts, so one wouldn't be crazy to believe that at
| least, in principle, it could happen here as well.
| enb wrote:
| No, the anger has been adequately directed in this instance.
| daguava wrote:
| Sometimes people need to be yelled at and shut down - antivax
| is one of them.
| emilsedgh wrote:
| Good.
| marcodiego wrote:
| This is much more gentle than the old Torvalds.
| foxpurple wrote:
| He should bring back the "retroactively aborted" comment.
| swinnipeg wrote:
| And this...
|
| >But dammit, regardless of where you have gotten your mis-
| information from, any Linux kernel discussion list isn't going
| to have your idiotic drivel pass uncontested from me.
|
| He hasn't lost his fastball!
| losvedir wrote:
| I'm vaccinated but I think it's hindsight bias to say the mRNA
| vaccines are obviously safe. We had to wait for clinical trials
| to show that. There has been a great deal of research and
| development on the delivery of the mRNA, what kind of molecule to
| wrap it in, for example.
|
| Additionally, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but with e.g.
| the Spanish Flu, the morbidity was not from the flu, per se, but
| the immune response to it (cytokine storm, which I believe is
| implicated in Covid somewhat, too). If that's the case, could the
| proteins coded by the mRNA potentially have kicked off such a
| response? I know we see that it doesn't, but could it have?
| MikeKusold wrote:
| They are not "obviously safe". The mRNA vaccines just had an
| article show today that exposed a link to heart inflammation.
| The AstraZeneca vaccine also has some side effects that didn't
| show up in their abbreviated trials. I understand why someone
| would be hesitant to get a vaccine that only has Emergency Use
| Authorization.
|
| That said, I personally believe that the benefits outweigh the
| potential side-effects. If I weren't already vaccinated this
| news would not have have changed my decision to get a mRNA
| vaccine.
|
| "Heart inflammation in young men higher than expected after
| Pfizer, Moderna vaccines -U.S. CDC"
|
| https://www.reuters.com/world/us/cdc-heart-inflammation-case...
| radpl wrote:
| Not really, because your muscle where you got shot was mostly
| producing spike proteins. When you get the virus, it replicates
| in your lungs, immunity response happens there and if it's too
| strong, it can destroy your lung tissue and cause death.
| outworlder wrote:
| > If that's the case, could the proteins coded by the mRNA
| potentially have kicked off such a response?
|
| Why would they?
|
| And more specifically, why would they cause lung issues?
| Because that's the main problem with COVID. The virus like to
| bind to cells that have a specific receptors, with the vast
| majority contained in lung tissue.
|
| You would expect to see major damage near the injection site if
| your cytokine storm theory had weight, but not much else.
|
| If there is a mechanism that will cause side effects on mRNA
| vaccines, then such mechanism will also be presented in the
| virus. Except it's a localized, self-limited amount, as mRNA
| cannot replicate. Viruses can.
| deadite wrote:
| >Get vaccinated. Stop believing the anti-vax lies.
|
| Thanks Linus. I think I'll pass.
|
| Edit: Keep the downvotes coming lads, don't let off the gas pedal
| now.
| the-dude wrote:
| But Linus is not a doctor or biologist, so no expertise to speak
| of. And the infection rate dropped to almost zero last summer as
| well, no vaccine in sight at the time.
| mnouquet wrote:
| He's not a doctor, but considered as a God by a certain crowd,
| which allow his to spread the Gospel.
| premium-komodo wrote:
| If you think it might be a little inappropriate to care much
| about a programmer's endorsement of a vaccine, here's an actual
| famous doctor saying "for God's sake don't take this thing".
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IBv3A8-ShI
| weatherlight wrote:
| I cant +1 this enough. Thank you, Linus for standing up to the
| wealth of misinformation out there and holding his ground.
| dvt wrote:
| > Thank you, Linus for standing up to the wealth of
| misinformation out there and holding his ground.
|
| Being a pompous ass might feel good, especially when you think
| you are (or you _actually_ are) smarter than your opponent, but
| it won 't sway anyone. In fact, it does quite the opposite. If
| you're seriously trying to convince someone they're wrong, you
| need to be kind, be patient, and have a calm, productive
| discussion -- explaining how traditional vaccines work, how
| mRNA works, how DNA works, and so on.
|
| Yelling at someone on a mailing list will undoubtedly push them
| further into their comfortable anti-vax bubble. Linus is
| absolutely wrong to behave this way, but then again, emotional
| intelligence isn't really his (or HN's for that matter) forte.
| qpwoeirut wrote:
| I agreed with you until the last paragraph, where it seems to
| me like you just fell into the trap you were warning us
| about. Not sure if that was your intention, but that's what
| it looks like.
|
| The first part is definitely true though. Calling somebody an
| idiot is probably one of the worst ways to get them to agree
| with you, even if they are spouting idiocy. I won't pretend I
| have a solution to anti-vax beliefs, but simply calling them
| stupid won't make them disappear.
| seattle_spring wrote:
| Maybe so, but I've observed that attitude to be far more
| prevalent on the anti-vax side than the pro-science side. You
| don't really see people who advocate for the vaccine calling
| anyone who disagrees "sheeple," "NPCs," etc., nor do they
| whine about downvotes or "being silenced," or misattribute
| moderation to first amendment violations.
| AndrewBissell wrote:
| > _You don 't really see people who advocate for the
| vaccine calling anyone who disagrees "sheeple," "NPCs,"
| etc_
|
| No, the rough equivalents are "anti-vaxxer" or "crazy,"
| there's even an "insane" right at the top of the Torvalds
| email. And they don't tend to complain about being silenced
| because that's a treatment they are often advocating for
| others and rarely if ever see applied to themselves.
| mandmandam wrote:
| Not all vaccines are the same, so pro science and anti vaxx
| are not always opposed.
|
| I am pro science, but science doesn't claim that all
| vaccines are safe.
|
| And let's not forget that pharma co's have tried very hard
| to make vaccines mandatory, to the point of bribing
| academics and officials, forming unaccountable PR groups,
| and in the not so distant past they've done truly horrific
| and inhuman things.
|
| After the lab-leak theory has gained traction recently,
| after being told for a year by Lancet and politicians and
| academics that it was "impossible", I would have thought
| that the idea of there being some "pro-science" monolith
| would have lost ground.
| weatherlight wrote:
| Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable
| from malice. (Greys Law.)
|
| At this point in the pandemic, people really ought to know
| better, it's assumed they are bad actors. knowing that, It's
| hard to "be kind, be patient, and have a calm, productive
| discussion."
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _If you 're seriously trying to convince someone they're
| wrong, you need to be kind, be patient, and have a calm,
| productive discussion_
|
| I am doubtful someone spreading anti-vax nonsense can be
| convinced they're wrong. (Emphasis on spreading, not just
| believing or questioning.)
|
| What one _can_ do is inhibit the spread of their
| misinformation. For that purpose, given the stakes, being
| direct to the point of roughness can be warranted.
| aantix wrote:
| He just screamed at them.
|
| Getting angry is easy.
|
| Persuasion is the hard part.
| m0llusk wrote:
| You would need to consult with the original poster to be
| certain of that. What Linus posted included important
| facts such as the large number of lives saved and the
| shared nature of viral immunity. You are reacting
| primarily to tone as if health in a social context is
| purely about good feelings.
| moraziel wrote:
| What other options does Linus have by your logic, then?
|
| 1) remove the person's comments 2) let the person's comments
| stand unchallenged 3) engage in a lengthy, potentially
| endless discussion with this person who is highly unlikely to
| change their mind
|
| None of these seem like great options.
|
| Linus probably recognizes that he has virtually zero chance
| of persuading this person's opinion. He probably also
| recognizes that a reader who comes across these outlandish
| claims unchallenged may get the wrong impression that these
| views are somehow being embraced by the community. As such he
| is absolutely correct in briefly explaining that the vaccines
| are safe and effective.
|
| And being a pompous ass is kinda Linus' thing. :shrug:
| tux3 wrote:
| > Social IQ isn't really HN's forte.
|
| Rude and uncalled for, even after your edit.
|
| Patient discussion is ineffective on people who are acting in
| bad faith. It is counterproductive.
|
| There is no debate to be had. No one is genuinely trying to
| learn anything here.
|
| By giving con artists and dangerous vaccine conspiracies a
| space, you legitimize their line of questionning.
|
| LKML is not a place to send anti-vax emails or to be "just
| asking questions". Deplatforming works.
| Nursie wrote:
| So what is the right way to deal with people using a
| technical mailing list to spread misinformation about
| vaccines in the midst of a pandemic?
|
| Kittens and sweet tea?
| outworlder wrote:
| Linus is not in the wrong here. You have an anti-vax spouting
| BS on the Linux Kernel dev list of all places. It's
| absolutely not the right venue for that. He could have just
| expelled the idiot from the list. He chose not to do that.
|
| Some people will listen to (perceived) authority. Linus has a
| large following. It's fair to say that a non-zero number of
| individuals may be persuaded by his strong stance. I doubt
| the person that he was replying to will listen to anything,
| but if anyone else does, it's a win.
|
| If someone is claiming that a person is "shedding" mRNA, the
| point of education is gone. It's ok if someone says they are
| unsure about this 'new' technology - you can then sit down
| with them calmly and explain how all of this works.
|
| However, if they are just parroting anti-vax talking points,
| they should be shutdown and quick. They have long stopped
| listening to reason, and are on the "vaccines cause
| magnetism" territory. They are actively trying to spread even
| more misinformation. This should be contained just like we
| contain viruses.
|
| It's not really up for debate. Don't like a particular
| vaccine? Try to get another one if you can. Don't try to
| prevent others from getting it based on superstition.
| version_five wrote:
| This is a good point. Such comments (Linus') are much more
| for preaching to the choir than to try and change people's
| minds.
|
| One thing I'd add (or hypothesize anyway) is that in these
| kind of debates, I don't believe the crux of the disagreement
| is a misunderstanding of the technical points of why it
| works. It's more a natural reaction to people being told they
| have to do something, that causes an adverse reaction in many
| people (for clarity, being told causes the reaction, I'm not
| talking about the vaccine). So people end up pushing back,
| which includes aggressively and sometimes even ridiculously
| questioning the underlying facts.
|
| The same holds for climate change for example. People get
| caught, often untenably, in the minutia of the technical
| arguments, when it has much more to do imo with a debate over
| wealth redistribution or rolling back standard of living.
| Decoupling the political aspects about what we should do as a
| response, from the scientific aspects of cause and effect
| would go a long way. The problem though would be in that
| case, politicians would lose the "science tells us"
| rhetorical device, and actually have to have an adult
| conversation with their constituents about how we move
| forward
| faitswulff wrote:
| Actually, deplatforming, shaming trolls, and shifting the
| Overton window back probably works [0]
|
| [0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/16/mis
| info...
| ttt0 wrote:
| Yes, and don't forget about gaslighting that this isn't
| actually happening.
| bsder wrote:
| > explaining how traditional vaccines work, how mRNA works,
| how DNA works, and so on.
|
| 1) You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't
| reason themselves into.
|
| 2) Lots of people do not have the brain power to understand
| vaccines and they will simply follow the herd.
|
| Part of the reason anti-vax gets such a boost is because it
| is considered an "acceptable" position to follow by
| "respectable" people like the "natural is the only good
| stuff" dipshits in Marin county (who regularly give us
| Measles and Pertussis outbreaks).
|
| Yes, you can try to reason with individuals. However, you
| _also_ need to make stupid positions socially unacceptable so
| that the part of the herd who don 't have the capacity to
| understand don't go following people willing to lead them off
| a cliff.
| jasonhansel wrote:
| Finally, a Linus Torvalds rant that seems both justified and
| proportionate!
| swader999 wrote:
| Ivermectin and HCQ sure got shut down hard even though recent
| studies are giving them some credit. If they had been a valid
| option, emergency use authorisation wouldn't have been granted.
|
| I honestly don't know what to think about all of this. I've seen
| a lot of censorship and stifling of speech. Reading Fauci's
| emails also makes me hesitate. I think trust in the experts will
| really take a hit going forward.
|
| I did get the AZ vaccine a few weeks ago. Yesterday I had a flame
| heme show up on a retina scan at the eye doc. Was it the vax?
| Perhaps, the Oxford UK study said these kinds of events are
| slightly more likely from what they've seen.
| drew-y wrote:
| Can you point to a specific email that makes you hesitant?
| threeseed wrote:
| Ivermectin and HCQ were shut down because people were promoting
| as an alternative to a vaccine.
|
| It's not. It is a supplement to the vaccine for people who are
| already hospitalised.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Reading Fauci's emails also makes me hesitate.
|
| Which ones, specifically?
|
| I keep seeing people say this. There are thousands of pages in
| the PDF and no one seems to be able to quote anything actually
| concerning.
| swader999 wrote:
| They are all over the web. But clearly if you take them all
| in, you come away from it with the impression that he really
| pushed gain of function research and hid the fact once this
| took off last spring. Most of what he said in hind sight and
| with these emails seems to be more about politics and less
| about science and educating the masses.
|
| The messaging on masks should have been that only n95 or
| better are worth the time. One email to a friend pretty much
| said that.
| carbocation wrote:
| Will you share your sources re: "recent studies giving [HCQ and
| ivermectin] credit"?
|
| I haven't seen anything positive about those drugs in COVID-19
| in human patients. For example, the RECOVERY trial showed no
| benefit (and non-significant numerical harm) for HCQ:
| https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2022926
| swader999 wrote:
| Here's a pre print from today. Credible authors so I do
| expect it to go the distance: https://www.medrxiv.org/content
| /10.1101/2021.05.28.21258012v...
| w0de0 wrote:
| This is not an example of stifling dissent or censorship. You
| read it, didn't you?
| swayvil wrote:
| I'm with Linus. The vaccine is bad news.
|
| The fellow replying to him is strawmanning and handwaving.
| alkonaut wrote:
| Read the post again, but slower. Finnish accent on the second
| (not quoted) part.
| swayvil wrote:
| ok my bad. Linus is pro vax.
|
| Ya I gotta read slower.
| eindiran wrote:
| Linus is the guy replying.
| swayvil wrote:
| Ya I got alerted to that already.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| > The half-life of mRNA is a few hours. Any injected mRNA will be
| all gone from your body in a day or two.
|
| Can someone with more knowledge comment on whether this is true
| for components of the vaccine that aren't just the mRNA bits? I
| am not sure, but I assume there are various other components that
| form the delivery vehicle for the vaccine, stabilize it for
| storage, and so on. What are the actual mechanisms for those to
| be 'gone from the body'?
| OptionX wrote:
| Why are people talking about this in Linux Kernel Mailing list?
|
| This trend of social and political issues having to be discussed
| absolutely everywhere ad nauseam is the most deranged thing.
| lalaland1125 wrote:
| It's because they are discussing the plans for their next in-
| person Linux conference and whether they should require
| vaccinations.
| viraptor wrote:
| It's just an impression that things are different. Newsgroups
| couple of decades ago had just as much off-topic or purely
| trolly politics.
| krastanov wrote:
| If you click on the two previous messages and the two followup
| messages it is pretty clear that the discussion makes total
| sense (organizing in-person conferences), and that a moderator
| stepped in to stop the conspiracy-theory tangent before it
| devolves into a flamewar.
| lsllc wrote:
| Related discussion:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27466344
| miked85 wrote:
| I am not sure why one would care about what Linus, or the person
| he is talking to says, Neither is an expert in the field.
| pyuser583 wrote:
| I agree with you.
|
| Too many people have opinions about too many things.
|
| In regards to COVID the folks managing the response are
| encouraging it. They're using influencers and celebrities to
| "echo" their messages.
|
| Heaven forbid we leave the influencers out of the loop and just
| go to the CDCs website.
|
| Some people care about what Linus thinks about COVID. That
| terrifies me.
| mkw2k wrote:
| It doesn't really take a rocket scientist to understand why
| people care about what Linus says on 'Hacker News'
| hsbauauvhabzb wrote:
| Asshole or not, Linus is a role model for many. I bet a
| throwaway comment he makes about $EDITOR would change the
| preferred value for tens of people.
|
| How many people who have never touched kernel source vaguely
| follow his antics?
| macksd wrote:
| Absolutely agree with everything Linus says here. But I'm almost
| equally concerned that there's an awful lot of people on the pro-
| science bandwagon who don't actually support science, but simply
| don't tolerate dissent or questioning, and that's unscientific
| and potentially harmful too.
|
| I scanned most of the Pfizer trial and was wondering why we
| expected the immunity after the vaccine to last longer than
| natural immunity. A typical infection can last for several weeks,
| so your immune system is presumably exposed to the virus for a
| similar period of time. And after a natural infection I hear 6
| months being thrown around as a typical window of immunity. But I
| was hearing claims of vaccines lasting for years, when they were
| only in the trials for less than 6 months. Why is this?
|
| Fortunately I know a lot of people in the medical field. I asked
| a nurse who had been in a COVID ICU ward since this began. No
| idea, he said. Good question. I asked a few others: same answer.
| I asked several anesthesiologist friends: they did more med-
| school after all. Mostly no idea. One suggested that the vaccine
| might be more targeted and get a more potent response, maybe?
|
| I tried casting a wider net on Facebook, and got a few nastygrams
| about how I was spreading uneducated FUD. I asked if they knew
| the answer but I was told to listen to the experts and read the
| science, whatever that means to these people. One friend did send
| me a link to a quote by the Moderna CEO that implied they have
| machines that can count antibody concentrations and they tracked
| it over time - I had no idea about that, so that was cool.
|
| Eventually someone referred me to their cousin in nursing school
| who referred me to their brother-in-law who is actually an
| epidemiologist, and he told me it was a good question and
| explained all sorts of things about the various types of cells
| involved in the immune response and how the vaccine delivery
| invokes a very specific response that is, as one of the doctors
| suspected, much more targeted at something less likely to change,
| and how those immune cell types produce longer-lasting immunity.
| Now I was satisfied and learned something.
|
| But those people in the middle think of themselves as being pro-
| science but they're really not. And the more they engage with
| anti-vaxxers the more ammunition anti-vaxxers will think they
| have and the more they'll dig into their beliefs. It's not good.
| signal11 wrote:
| As far as I'm aware, there is no direct experimental evidence
| over a long duration as the virus is novel and the vaccines
| new, but for now we have this: Antibody Persistence through 6
| Months after the Second Dose of mRNA-1273 Vaccine for
| Covid-19[1]
|
| And I think it's okay to ask questions, that's how science
| progresses. I suspect a lot of people on social media are just
| super wary of vaccine trolls and sea-lioning[2], so
| unfortunately good-faith questions suffer.
|
| [1] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2103916
|
| [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
| azinman2 wrote:
| It's also not like this is the first vaccine, or even the
| first mRNA vaccine. So we have analogs and precedents we can
| use. My understanding is that was heavily used in the
| clinical trials before roll out -- an understanding from
| previous vaccines that if someone majority were to go wrong
| it would go wrong in the first few months, and not 5+ years
| later.
| IvyMike wrote:
| There are a LOT of anti-vaxxers who disingenuously couch their
| advocacy as "I'm only asking questions". It's no surprise when
| you've seen a 10:1 ratio of bad actors to good (or worse), one
| might get a little exasperated.
|
| In any case, I've recently been reading Lauren Sompayrac's "How
| the Immune System Works", and it's a technical overview of the
| immune system. It's not going to make you into a full blown
| immunologist, but it will give you the answers to most the
| questions you ask above, and a framework and vocabulary to
| begin to understand deeper academic immunology works.
|
| P.S. The immune system is FUCKING AWESOME. There's rarely a
| page where my mind is not blown.
|
| Edit: I misspelled "Sompayrac"; it is now correct.
| chris_wot wrote:
| Is that a book?
| cwt137 wrote:
| Yes. https://www.amazon.com/How-Immune-System-Works-
| dp-111954212X...
| IvyMike wrote:
| Yes: https://www.wiley.com/en-
| us/How+the+Immune+System+Works%2C+6...
| newsbinator wrote:
| That's fine- whether or not their question is disingenuous,
| it's almost always a reasonable question that has been asked
| and answered by researchers, or that has been asked and not
| been able to be answered (e.g. what are the long term effects
| of mRNA vaccines?).
|
| It's perfectly fine to say, "we don't know what are the long
| term effects of mRNA vaccines but we can guess they're
| unlikely to be worse than the long term effects of the thing
| they're vaccinating against, which you're almost certain to
| catch sooner or later".
| walrus01 wrote:
| > There are a LOT of anti-vaxxers who disingenuously couch
| their advocacy as "I'm only asking questions"
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
| canadianfella wrote:
| I've been accused of this before and it's fucking bullshit.
| _ph_ wrote:
| You are right, not tolerating questioning is unscientific and
| harmfull. Asking questions is the one way how you can learn
| things and also, I find it extremely useful for myself to
| answer scientific questions. Becauses it forces yourself to
| review the matter at hand, sort out your own thoughts about the
| problem and refine them to a point where you can deliver a
| satisfying answer. Often enough that leads to deeper insights.
|
| I am not a doctor, but some observations from my side, what
| _might_ be reasons for a different behavior of vaccinations vs.
| an actual infection. One point, that the vaccine is very
| targetted, you already listed. Then, the vaccine doesn 't make
| you sick. Suffering through the infection might impact the
| ability of your immune system to build up long-term immunity. I
| read some article which claims that getting sick of measels
| does give you good immunity, but lowers your immunity against
| other diseases for up to two years. Also, the numbers of the
| time span of acquired immunity of both the vaccinations and
| getting infected by Covid are varying a lot. Recently I saw
| some claims that the infection does give you some reasonable
| long-term immunity.
| gameswithgo wrote:
| 9 out of 10 times when someone claims people have been
| dogmatically unwilling to consider ideas that run counter to
| scientific establishment, those people were just responding to
| profoundly insane anti-science ideas (earth is flat, covid is
| fake,global warming is just the sun etc). Their responses may
| seem glib, because they don't feel the ideas are deserving of
| serious discussion, but usually they understand things just
| fine.
| CompMan411 wrote:
| Let's not forget microchip tracking and Jewish globalist
| overlords.
| amelius wrote:
| If you read Linus's post then it seems that no mRNA sequence
| (not necessarily a vaccine) can ever do harm when injected into
| the body, but I doubt that is the case. I hope someone who is
| knowledgeable about the subject can explain whether that is
| true or not.
| smolder wrote:
| I only got that he was arguing it won't make permanent
| changes to our genome, which was the claim he was replying
| to, and he's correct. The spike protein is damaging to cells
| when present at all, but still very apparently much less
| dangerous when exposed via vaccine than an actual infection.
| And, as you know, cells die and get replaced all the time. I
| think people who are aware of it sometimes gloss over how the
| spike protein does some damage simply because they don't want
| to stoke unreasonable fears.
| papa_bear wrote:
| Sure there is potential for harm. Most mRNAs just tell your
| cells how to make certain proteins, and there are tons of
| harmful proteins. You could be instructing your cells to make
| potent poisons, or instructing them to make all of the
| proteins necessary for an entire functional virus.
|
| But the person he's responding to is citing methods of harm
| that aren't realistic.
| klyrs wrote:
| No, he said that mRNA is flushed from your system within days
| and that these vaccines don't permanently alter your DNA.
| That's nowhere near claiming that "mRNA can't ever do harm."
| [deleted]
| Netcob wrote:
| Ever since the pandemic started, useful information was few and
| far between. I know that numbers scare people, but so much of
| this is basic risk assessment. The facts are extremely pro-
| vaccination, but good luck finding them!
|
| For example, the whole thrombosis / Astra-Zeneca issue, which
| was a big deal here in Germany. Lots of articles and
| discussions. Everyone was saying "don't use it on young
| people", but I don't even remember if they came to that
| conclusion because only young people got thrombosis or because
| the risk of dying of COVID was so much higher in old people
| that it trumped all other concerns.
|
| And that's because nobody bothered to even estimate those
| risks. Given your age, what's your likelihood of catching COVID
| and getting lasting damage (including death) vs. getting
| thrombosis from AZ? I'm guessing that based on that, it was
| probably still a no-brainer to get vaccinated no matter your
| age.
|
| But I think one of the central issues is the trolley problem.
| Somehow dying from a virus is okay because it's "natural",
| while having any sort of potential complication from a vaccine
| (no matter how unlikely) is much worse because it follows a
| human decision. If I'm a politician and I pass some law that
| indirectly (but predictably) kills tens of thousands of people,
| I'll be fine. If I go out and strangle a single person with my
| bare hands, I'm in trouble.
| bitL wrote:
| Typically a vaccine is aborted if it kills just a single
| person during its clinical trial.
| tptacek wrote:
| Why would you expect a nurse in a COVID ward and an
| anesthesiologist to have strong answers on this question?
| Vaccinology is laboratory science. My son works in a
| vaccinology lab; as far as I know, nobody there has been to med
| school.
| Quillbert182 wrote:
| They may not have the answers, but you would think they would
| have a better idea of where to look than someone with no
| medical experience at all.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| People think that, but there's basically nothing in nursing
| or anesthesia training that's gonna deal much with the
| nitty gritty details of vaccines and how they're developed
| and tested.
|
| It's like asking a car mechanic about steel production.
| Entirely out of their wheelhouse, even if they deal with
| the steel daily.
|
| (Both could comfortably tell you masks don't cause hypoxia
| or pneumonia, though.)
| lethologica wrote:
| It's a starting point though. How often do you get to
| your answers immediately without having to go through
| some dead ends and wrong turns? That's how learning
| works.
| macksd wrote:
| I just happen to know a lot of anesthesiologists and they
| went to all of med school - I didn't. They were easy to ask
| and know more than me. The first nurse, again, more medical
| education than me to begin with, was very interested in the
| science beyond his work and was obviously briefed on the
| situation at work as it changed. I just figured it might have
| been more common knowledge than it turned out to be.
|
| My point is more that these people have far more medical
| education than the average person I interact with on social
| media, and didn't look down on my question but also wanted to
| know. People who knew less than them and knew even less than
| me were mad that I would dare even ask.
| [deleted]
| thatfrenchguy wrote:
| It's a little bit like asking a random software engineer on
| the street on how GPU drivers work internally: they're
| unlikely to have an actual informed opinion.
| kgwxd wrote:
| Worse, maybe even an ill-informed opinion since they
| might feel like they should know how GPU drivers work
| since they're in the industry and start spouting off
| smart sounding techno-babble. I know a few nurses myself,
| they're not a good source for medical advice but people
| trust them anyway. Hell, my mom does clerical work in a
| hospital, and people ask her for medical advice.
| Kinrany wrote:
| That's a reasonable start if you want to know and the
| best alternative is to ask a random person who doesn't
| know anything about computers at all.
| hackinthebochs wrote:
| But there's no reason to know they don't know that as a
| layman.
| azinman2 wrote:
| But compared to someone who isn't in CS, they'd at least
| understand that GPUs exist, might be able to speculate on
| what's needed, and have an idea of who to even ask.
|
| I don't work on operating systems but I had a CS
| education, so I know enough about the kinds of things it
| needs to worry about that I could answer about the
| building blocks of a kernel in a way that I feel would be
| largely correct.
| tptacek wrote:
| I think the quality of the speculation you'd get from a
| random software developer on the design of GPU drivers
| is, in fact, probably a good model for the quality of
| vaccinology speculation you'd get from a random
| anesthesiologist.
|
| But a neat thing about HN is that there are people here
| who've been to med school and can presumably chime in.
|
| What I can tell you personally is that vaccinology seems
| to involve a lot of centrifuging of rabbit poop, which is
| something I don't think they do a lot of in med school.
| lethologica wrote:
| They still know more than I do, an average Joe who makes
| and sells socks for a living, though.
| lhoff wrote:
| Its actually a perfect example. But for the opposit
| argument. A random software engineer has a much deeper
| understanding about the inner workings of GPU then the
| average non-software engineer. So its a perfect analogy
| for asking a nurse about a health related topic. He
| probably doesn't know much about the immune system but he
| definetly knows more then the average population.
| tchalla wrote:
| People who went to medical school may not know how to
| assimilate, read, synthesise and make conclusions about
| scientific literature. Yes, the average social media person
| wouldn't either but better ask the scientists.
| TchoBeer wrote:
| I think there's a bit of difference between asking a
| medical professional in person and asking a generalized
| audience over social media. Asking "do we know if immunity
| from the vaccine lasts longer" that
|
| A) can come across as a statement in the form of a question
| (e.g. "no we don't these vaccines are rediculous" etc) B)
| even if it doesn't, if you ask that and no one knows and
| other people see that, it can cause them to have
| unscientific doubts about vaccines, even if that wasn't
| intended.
| avl999 wrote:
| Why are you expecting your nurse and anesthesiologist friends
| to answer questions about mrna technology and then taking it to
| mean something when they can't answer? That's like reading a
| paper about an advancement in compiler parsing technology
| asking an average Software Developer who has spent the last 3
| years of his career doing React apps to answer detailed and
| specific questions about ambiguities in the said paper?
|
| This reminds me of my aunt who calls me about random issues she
| is having with her Samsung tablet and then is shocked when I
| can't solve her problem when I "do computers" all day.
| bad_alloc wrote:
| > But I'm almost equally concerned that there's an awful lot of
| people on the pro-science bandwagon who don't actually support
| science, but simply don't tolerate dissent or questioning, and
| that's unscientific and potentially harmful too.
|
| Dissent to the dominant opinion in any scientific field is
| always tricky, but that is a self-defense mechanism. Over time
| opposing viewpoints are integrated into the body of knowledge
| and may or may not replace or amend it. HOWEVER when we
| consider anti-vax or flat earth people they are acting in bad
| faith and their nonsense steals bandwith. It does not reserve
| respect and kicking them out harshly is a very necessary
| defense mechanism. Call it a memetic immune response with
| inflammation.
| Amezarak wrote:
| I think it's unfair to characterize people who are skeptical
| about mRNA and liquid nanoparticle technology as anti-vax,
| but this is what people (including Linus) are doing.
|
| Most people I know are pro-vax, have all their other
| vaccinations, but are leery of new technology being
| distributed under the same label. I think that's reasonable.
| I'm one of these people. I don't plan on taking any mRNA
| vaccine until we have a few decades worth of safety data on
| LNPs, although I think the technology and its development is
| very interesting. [1]
|
| Does the net health benefit provided by mRNA vaccines
| probably outweigh the consequences of Covid? Probably, even
| almost certainly. But I'll stick to more conventional biotech
| for now.
|
| In general, I think the average person hugely overestimates
| how much we know about biology and how much experts really
| know - they know 100x more than me, but still 0.00001% of
| what there is to know. We have a lot of hubris when it comes
| to science and technology.
|
| [1] https://cen.acs.org/pharmaceuticals/drug-
| delivery/Without-li...
| macksd wrote:
| True. Perhaps dissent is a poor choice of words here, because
| I was never against the vaccine - I would default to
| supporting a vaccine. More - I didn't get why everyone was so
| optimistic about them and asked to know more. Even that was
| blasphemy to a few people - but ironically not to the people
| who are medical experts in SOME way.
| Quekid5 wrote:
| > but ironically not to the people who are medical experts
| in SOME way.
|
| The dangerous thing about expertise in a very narrow area
| (which most medicine is these days) is that is bolsters
| confidence so much that you imagining yourself an expert in
| an adjacent area... not realizing that you might be missing
| very important fundamental knowledge.
|
| You see this often in e.g. Nobel Disease[1], but also in
| more mundane settings.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease
| refulgentis wrote:
| TL;DR you heard claims of vaccines' prophylactic effect lasting
| for years, from somewhere unnamed, and you correctly heard from
| people in the medical field that no one has any idea of how
| long it'll last, we're barely 6 months into have a sizable
| cohort to analyze this with in the US, which itself is far
| ahead of most of the world. Another massive factor is we have
| no idea how fast the virus will mutate.
| XorNot wrote:
| We have a fairly good idea about how it will mutate actually.
| COVID is probably one of the most heavily studied and
| sequenced viruses ever, and a lot of research has been
| published on likely mutagenic pathways.
|
| The media as always has sensationalized every new strain
| found and their behaviour is cause for concern, but
| researchers have not been sounding the alarm over possible
| vaccine escape - the evidence points to the spike protein
| being highly conserved, and the mRNA vaccine antibodies have
| remained effective.
| refulgentis wrote:
| We do have a fairly good idea, but certainly not enough to
| describe it's exact relationship to exactly how long we can
| except vaccines to last, to OP's concern :)
| harry8 wrote:
| Do you have anything on the Astra-Zenaca vaccine and how
| well it works against the do called "South-African"
| variant. There was a story that they'd stopped a trial
| because the results were so bad. Do we have any harder
| data?
| newacct583 wrote:
| > Another massive factor is we have no idea how fast the
| virus will mutate.
|
| Sorry, what? We've been sequencing and tracking variants and
| lineages reliably since the pandemic started. This is very
| well travelled science. We've seen multiple notable variants
| arrive already, something that was predicted form the very
| early days of the pandemic and that _surprised no one_ in the
| field.
|
| Literally reality is the opposite of what you're saying. The
| virus is in fact "mutating" in more or less exactly the way
| that virologists would have expected, given decades of
| research on the subject.
|
| One of the weirdest angles that the anti-vax/anti-mask crowd
| tend to take is to somehow argue that covid-19 is
| simultaneously "just a disease"/"not that bad" _and_ that it
| 's somehow some crazy unpredictable thing that defies the
| expectations of all of science. And both are wrong!
|
| It's a very conventional novel disease behaving the way novel
| diseases do. There's a "global pandemic" among some species
| or another every few years (e.g. 90% of the pacific sea stars
| disappeared to a novel virus like 15 years ago and they're
| just now recovering). And that's bad, and requires action!
| ufo wrote:
| Most of the times I've seen those ~6 months numbers being
| quoted, they were lower bounds. We have 6 months of data saying
| that immunity lasts at least this long.
|
| One reason to expect that immunity might last a long time is
| that people infected by Sars-Cov-1 still have plenty of
| antibodies 10 years later.
|
| That said, when it comes to reinfections there is the big
| problem of variants of the virus. Immunity against one variant
| might not protect fully against another variant. It's very
| possible that we'll need to get yearly COVID vaccines,
| similarly to Influenza. But right now, it's still too soon to
| worry about that; we're still trying to get everyone vaccinated
| for the first time.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| > there's an awful lot of people on the pro-science bandwagon
| who don't actually support science, but simply don't tolerate
| dissent or questioning
|
| I think the problem is that its 10-100x as expensive to refute
| a misinformed statement than it is to make one. So the plea for
| the small pool of genuinely authoritative / informed people to
| invest two orders of magnitude more effort patiently and kindly
| explaining misinformation to people just isn't practical in any
| meaningful sense.
|
| We don't need to persuade them. They aren't persuadable, and in
| many cases they aren't there in good faith in the first place.
| We do need them to stop spreading lies and causing extreme harm
| to their communities. The most effective way to do that is to
| teach them that their actions - spreading obvious
| misinformation - are as offensive as they actually are (in that
| they actively harm people).
| Angostura wrote:
| > and was wondering why we expected the immunity after the
| vaccine to last longer than natural immunity.
|
| In the case of Pfizer and Astra Zeneca, the simple answer is
| that it is the second dose which presents a second challenge to
| the immune system which is designed to stimulate the longer
| protection, I'm quite surprised that none of your medical
| friends said that.
|
| That leaves the question of how the single-dose jabs fair, and
| the honest answer is, I don't know.
| whakim wrote:
| I get what you're saying, but the logical conclusion of all
| this is that no one can knowing anything at all unless they're
| an expert in that specific thing. But that's why we _have_
| experts in the first place - so that we can determine what is
| most likely to be true without necessarily needing to deeply
| understand it first hand. So sure, perhaps there 's some small
| chance that the vaccines don't work the way they're supposed to
| or the earth is flat. But "expert consensus is X" is a pretty
| good heuristic for "X is correct." And while I'm not defending
| random trolls on Facebook, this does happen to be a pretty
| sensitive subject right now because there _is_ a pretty
| significant proportion of the population who won 't get the
| vaccine precisely because they don't believe in expertise.
| mindfulplay wrote:
| This is good.
|
| Now states are combating such hesitancy by drawing lottery for
| vaccinated folks.
|
| Like, having this magic, absolutely mind boggling potion that
| prevents serious illness and death *isn't* already the lottery
| win of our lifetime??
|
| People in India and elsewhere are dying because of lack of
| vaccines and here we have educated, first world countries
| struggle to get their citizens vaccinated.
|
| Unfortunately shaming such people will only push them further
| into antivax territory.
| swader999 wrote:
| Same with the push for vaccine passports. Really gets my fur up
| and question why the need for heavy hands.
| azinman2 wrote:
| It's already been the case that various countries require
| certain vaccines to enter, or other health clearances. These
| kinds of standards and even more exceptional for animals, and
| ultra protective for plants. Why is this any different? Why
| wouldn't you want someone protected from bringing a (newly)
| preventable disease into your country?
| StavrosK wrote:
| Because people who are in the ICU because they refuse to get
| vaccinated are costing the taxpayer a shitload of money. I'd
| be all for "you can stay unvaccinated if you like, but you
| won't get an ICU bed if you get severe COVID", but that's a
| heavier hand than a passport.
| mnouquet wrote:
| > prevents serious illness and death
|
| Only in 60+ patients with co-morbidity.
| trutannus wrote:
| > Like, having this magic, absolutely mind boggling potion that
| prevents serious illness and death _isn 't_ already the lottery
| win of our lifetime
|
| A lot of it boils down to people not trusting what they're
| seeing. Frankly, governments have done the world a disservice
| by speaking before they really had all the information at the
| start of the pandemic. In Canada at least an insane amount of
| what was said turned out to be completely false, or worse
| harmfully false (ie: no masks, isn't airborne, ect). As a
| result, lots of people see what looks like the "story
| changing", and distrust anything coming out of their
| government, and experts, at this point. I think if we approach
| the problem with that in mind we might win more people over
| than telling them "listen to experts", since for the past year
| and a half experts have been wrong almost as often as they have
| been right.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| This is the most appropriate tone you can use for anti-vaxxers.
| We need more Linuses.
| mnouquet wrote:
| Meanwhile the CDC to meet on rare heart inflammation following
| COVID vaccines - https://news.yahoo.com/cdc-meet-rare-heart-
| inflammation-1932...
| pxf wrote:
| 5 stars reply! Well Done Linus! :)
| ksec wrote:
| Highlight of the reply
|
| >But dammit, regardless of where you have gotten your mis-
| information from, any Linux kernel discussion list isn't going to
| have your idiotic drivel pass uncontested from me.
|
| I dont know why I cant stop laughing.
| rangewookie wrote:
| I'm glad Linus stepped in on this one.
|
| Unrelated question here - how are people actually consuming
| mailing lists like this? I always find these links difficult to
| read and have always assumed there much be some superior format,
| alternative typefaces for one.
| outworlder wrote:
| They are getting messages on their email inbox?
| seaorg wrote:
| Wow, not even the Linux kernel mailing list has escaped eternal
| September round 2. At least lobste.rs is still good.
| bikamonki wrote:
| One does not mess with The Linus :)
| mnouquet wrote:
| There is no such things as "The Linus". He's just a man.
| bikamonki wrote:
| One never calls The Linus just a man.
| The_rationalist wrote:
| I recently learned that one can "durably" (aka for months) alter
| the expression of it's genes though epigenetic changes. This can
| be induced by some peptide drugs such as bromantane and is a very
| interesting biohack/pharmacological mechanism of action.
| jeffreyrogers wrote:
| There are a range of anti-vaccine opinions from idiotic (the
| example Linus quotes) to more reasonable. The way this issue has
| been handled is emblematic of the way many such political issues
| are handled: fringe views are promoted and "debunked" while more
| reasonable views that go against mainstream narratives are
| ignored. This is amplified by various high profile personalities
| in the media who shape the views people are presented with, so
| that all critics of the mainstream narrative appear to be
| lunatics. Thus stigmatizing anyone who has a more reasonable
| objection. This is not a new phenomenon but has played out much
| more frequently over the last year or so.
|
| Also, I got the vaccine, so if you interpret this as some sort of
| veiled anti-vaccine comment you are part of the problem.
| bitL wrote:
| I am eagerly awaiting my vaccine, however we are all alpha/beta
| testers. A real concern is about safety of those vaccines as
| typically they require ~3 years of testing and a single fatality
| aborts their use.
|
| Would you give alpha version to people you love? Why is this
| concern downplayed? I understand statistics but we have no clue
| what could go wrong in an early version of a new technology and
| no data on long-term impact. It's all a big experiment.
| Romanulus wrote:
| Good point. Also, the deaths involved to these vaccines are
| much higher than previous runs (think it was swine flu), where
| vaccinations were halted after 25 or so fatalities.
|
| Ultimately, get it if you want it... your helmet doesn't
| require other people to wear theirs.
| cronix wrote:
| I wonder if Mr. Torvalds has listened to Robert W. Malone, M.D.,
| M.S., who is the inventor if mRNA vaccines, on his views on this
| subject. Here's a podcast that he did today with a few others.
|
| https://youtu.be/-_NNTVJzqtY?t=581
|
| His bio: https://www.rwmalonemd.com/about-us
| dqpb wrote:
| Isn't Katalin Kariko the inventor of mRNA vaccines?
| mkw2k wrote:
| Something's not adding up here
| mohanmca wrote:
| In a interview (few years back), Linus mentioned that he read
| many books related to Genes and medical science related to
| that! He supposed to be expert in that domain too!
| pjc50 wrote:
| Something odd here; he's investing a lot of effort into denying
| Kariko's role in mRNA and he looks like a very determined self
| promoter.
| walkerbrown wrote:
| > the inventor if [sic] mRNA vaccines
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katalin_Kariko
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_Weissman
|
| Patent filing:
| https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC...
| walrus01 wrote:
| The past year has been very instructive (and slightly scary) in
| revealing the sheer staggering depths of lack of scientific
| knowledge, and respect for the scientific process, among a vocal
| but aggressive small percentage of the population. These people
| truly have no idea of how much education is involved in getting a
| doctorate level degree in virology, epidemiology or genetics.
| DoreenMichele wrote:
| _mRNA doesn 't change your genetic sequence in any way. It is the
| exact same intermediate - and temporary - kind of material that
| your cells generate internally all the time as part of your
| normal cell processes_
|
| The m in mRNA stands for _messenger._
|
| I'm failing to find anything I consider to be a succinct
| explanation in layman's terms (other than the one in the piece
| under discussion: _all that the mRNA vaccines do is to add a dose
| their own specialized sequence that then makes your normal cell
| machinery generate that spike protein so that your body learns
| how to recognize it._ ).
|
| But from what I gather, mRNA vaccines basically inject your body
| with a coded recipe for how to manufacture the immune stuff it
| normally manufactures in reaction to an infection, only without
| having to first be infected. Not even with a dead version of the
| virus, as some vaccines use for trying to prompt the body to
| figure this out more safely than by actually catching the
| infection.
|
| A few sources I looked at, without feeling satisfied with their
| explanations:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messenger_RNA
|
| https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/messenger-rna
|
| https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/translation-dna-to...
|
| Edit: Thank you to everyone supplying a more accurate explanation
| in layman's terms. Much appreciated.
| moralestapia wrote:
| >The m in mRNA stands for messenger.
|
| Whoops, you got it backwards. Nature does not really care
| whatever names we give to things. Come on, you can do better
| than that :)
| dqpb wrote:
| > But from what I gather, mRNA vaccines basically inject your
| body with a coded recipe for how to manufacture the immune
| stuff
|
| That's not correct. The coded recipe is for covid's spike
| proteins. Your body manufactures a bunch of those spike
| proteins and then has an immune response to them.
| [deleted]
| yuubi wrote:
| They are the recipe for one piece of the virus (which is
| important to its function, so hopefully among the parts least
| subject to mutation), and then your cells that get vaccine in
| them make the foreign protein, which then causes the usual
| immune response to foreign proteins. The difference from what
| you said is that the code in the vaccine is for the foreign
| stuff, and the immune stuff comes from your immune system.
| Nursie wrote:
| It's more that they contain coded instructions to create a
| protein which the immune system can then react to, and learning
| to react that protein confers the ability to react to the virus
| (which has that protein in its surface)
| kube-system wrote:
| > But from what I gather, mRNA vaccines basically inject your
| body with a coded recipe for how to manufacture the immune
| stuff it normally manufactures in reaction to an infection,
| only without having to first be infected.
|
| The mRNA in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines contains the
| instructions to make copies of just the spike protein from the
| outside of the virus. During the short lifetime of the mRNA,
| your body will follow these instructions and produce these
| spikes. Alone, this protein isn't a virus and is pretty much
| inert.
|
| Then, your body naturally recognizes this protein as a foreign
| substance and creates antibodies to attack it.
|
| If the real virus enters your body later, your body will
| already have antibodies that recognize the spike and will
| immediately start fighting it off, faster than it normally
| would if you got infected without already having the
| antibodies.
|
| It's like a training program for your immune system.
| occamrazor wrote:
| Not exactly. The mRNA fragments are instructions to build
| pieces of the virus. Your cells execute the mRNA instructions,
| build virus fragments, and _then_ the immune system notices all
| these unknown fragments and learns how to destroy them.
| sdabdoub wrote:
| The "central dogma"[1] of biology: DNA -> RNA
| -> Protein
|
| DNA is read sequentially base-by-base (essentially like the
| read head on a HDD) by a protein called RNA polymerase. As it
| is reading, it produces RNA. If that RNA is meant to become a
| protein, it is post-processed to remove various bits and
| becomes a messenger RNA (mRNA). This mRNA is inserted into
| another huge protein called the Ribosome[2], and is read 3
| bases at a time. Each set of 3 bases corresponds to a single
| Amino Acid. The string of amino acids produced by the ribosome
| is a protein.
|
| So the mRNA in the vaccine simply contains the instructions to
| produce a copy of the spike protein from the COVID-19 virus.
| When your body produces enough copies of that protein, your
| immune system takes notice that a foreign protein is floating
| around and begins the process to recognize and memorize it for
| future use. (that last part is super simplified).
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_dogma_of_molecular_bio...
|
| [2] https://biologydictionary.net/wp-
| content/uploads/2017/01/Rib...
| tejtm wrote:
| I & others tried about 6 months ago in this thread that asked a
| similar Q.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25319117
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Nobody tell these guys about the adenovirus platform, which
| actually _does_ enter the nucleus [1]. (For the avoidance of
| doubt, it doesn't tamper with your DNA.)
|
| [1] https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-
| reports/exclusives/9160...
| refulgentis wrote:
| The mRNA recipe is for a distinctive spike protein on
| mainstream COVID, your cells unwittingly produce this spike
| protein, then your immune system says "what's this garbage?"
| and attacks it.
| mkw2k wrote:
| Here we go
| indolering wrote:
| I saw the headline and I thought, "Why do I care what Linus has
| to say about vaccines? He's just a programmer!"
|
| But then I clicked the link and realized that it was a classic
| Linus rant! As much as I support codes of conduct and Linus
| curtailing his asshole behavior regarding technical matters, I
| think there should be a loophole for anti-vaxxers and other nut
| jobs who don't care that they might transmit a deadly disease to
| the immunocompromised or children.
| H8crilA wrote:
| Just to clear one thing:
|
| Vaccines actually _do_ edit the genetic code, but only of some
| select B-cells. And so does any other antigen that your body
| develops antibodies for. The process is very complicated and
| beautiful, and is pretty much exactly the same as in plenty of
| other multicellular life forms.
|
| If you've ever wondered what's the "storage format" for all the
| recipes for all the different antibodies that your body produces,
| that is how does your body even remember infections from years
| ago - it's DNA, and the recipes are generated via a massively
| sped up internal evolution, mediated by T cells. The matured
| B-cells are then safely stashed away in the bone marrow. Really
| remarkable stuff.
| insane131 wrote:
| I read this headline and immediately asked myself, why don't you
| create an account and ask these people WTF do we care what Linus
| thinks about that? Then I read his post. It is actually a well
| reasoned response to another post on LKML. Now I created an
| account to say I agree with Linus, understand why post is
| popular, but I think the headline is a bit "click-baity".
| Although it did make me create an account.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-10 23:00 UTC)