[HN Gopher] SARS-CoV-2 variant A.30 is heavily mutated and evade...
___________________________________________________________________
SARS-CoV-2 variant A.30 is heavily mutated and evades vaccine-
induced antibodies
Author : bananapear
Score : 213 points
Date : 2021-10-26 18:13 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nature.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nature.com)
| b0sk wrote:
| The silver lining with Delta is it's such a transmissible variant
| that it out-competes the more slowly spreading but more vaccine
| evasive variants. I hope we never see a more transmissible one
| than Delta
| bydo wrote:
| I hadn't seen these names before, so:
|
| ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 is AstraZeneca
|
| BNT162b2 is Pfizer/BioNTech
| throwawayswede wrote:
| Both of these look like "cool hacker names" from a movie...
| _3u10 wrote:
| ChAdOx1 is the guy who gets the girl lol.
| [deleted]
| throwawayswede wrote:
| Only initially, then he turns out to be a douche.
| orra wrote:
| Frankly, I think the names are terrible. Great vaccines and
| all, but terrible branding.
| oezi wrote:
| Yes, and it was only when the AZ vaccine (Jansen?) showed a
| trombosis risk that all manufacturers started to fokus on
| branding their vaccines to potentially distance themselves,
| or was this a timely coincidence?
|
| Why couldn't they just be called Moderna/Pfizer/... Covid
| Vaccine?
| angelzen wrote:
| Same reason we have Intel Pentium Core2 Duo E8400.
| michaelmior wrote:
| Neither names are really intended to be the "brand" of the
| vaccine. That said, I don't think Comirnaty is really much
| better.
| orra wrote:
| No, I don't think Comirnaty is any better! I am however
| relatively partial to Spikevax, aka Moderna: at least
| Spikevax is easily pronounceable.
|
| I suppose you mean the vaccine names are mainly useful
| for regulatory purposes, because the general population
| will continue to name the vaccines after the manufacturer
| or researchers?
| palae wrote:
| As a native French speaker, I would say Comirnaty is
| actually easier to pronounce than Spikevax, and I suspect
| it might be similar in other Romance languages.
| orra wrote:
| Interessant. Sorry, I was being pretty anglocentric.
| palae wrote:
| Pas de probleme ;) Now I'm thinking about it, finding a
| name that is easily pronounced in many languages is
| probably a fun but not that trivial task.
| mattkrause wrote:
| Specifically, ChAdOx1 is the _vector_ , a platform for
| making vaccines: there are vaccine candidates using it
| for TB, MERS, Zika, flu, and a bunch of other things (see
| here: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=C
| hAdOx1&cn...)
|
| In more normal times, most people outside of R&D would
| never encounter the name.
| orra wrote:
| Exciting that they're using it as a platform to develop
| other vaccines.
|
| But I still maintain the official names are ridiculous.
| "Vaxzevria" is the trademark used by AstraZeneca in the
| EU. (As you say, not ChAdOx1.) And yes, the general
| population end up seeing Vaxzevria, on their vaccine
| information forms, and online at https://www.ema.europa.e
| u/en/medicines/human/EPAR/vaxzevria-...
| [deleted]
| tialaramex wrote:
| Ch = Chimpanzee Ad = Adenovirus Ox = Oxford
|
| This is a speed-up that pre-dates the mRNA trick Moderna had
| been working on, a virus from chimps (so humans aren't immune
| to it because it wouldn't infect humans normally, yet chimps
| are similar enough that the virus can get into a human cell)
| but hollowed out to make whatever you want instead of more
| copies of itself. You put any payload inside it and it'll re-
| program the patient's cells to make that for a brief period
| until the immune system cleans up the mess. This vaccine uses
| the spike protein as payload to train your immune system.
| marton78 wrote:
| The last time I saw chimpanzee research in Oxford, it didn't
| end well...
|
| https://youtu.be/n8FbMY-quW4
| sureglymop wrote:
| Is it also the case that the human getting vaccinated build
| up immunity to the carrier virus and thus booster shots might
| become less effective? Would that be a reason to get a
| booster shot from something other than AstraZeneca?
| hammock wrote:
| How well does this variant evade natural immunity-induced
| antibodies, which includes not only antibodies vs. the spike
| protein but vs. the body of the virus as well?
| Kenji wrote:
| That moment when after 20 months of nothing happening, other than
| human rights being abolished across the planet, you're still
| scared of a common cold virus.
| JPKab wrote:
| I didn't see any information about this variant's ability to
| infect those with immunity from previous infection. Did I miss
| it, or was this rather important question completely out of the
| scope of this study?
| thinkcontext wrote:
| Yes it is outside the scope of this study. It looked at
| behavior of the variant in a test tube. The results suggest
| that the question you raise is a natural next line of inquiry.
| But it won't likely be performed by this group, they are test
| tube researchers, that question is answered by number
| crunchers.
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| I remember getting downvoted a while back, but my suggestion
| has been to have people get vaccinated and then give them a
| small dose of coronavirus thereafter. At the time it may have
| seemed wild, but now it has been proven to be the most
| effective immunity.
| 323 wrote:
| Some people die despite being vaccinated. And you can't tell
| ahead of time which ones (generally the very sick, but not
| always).
| thinkcontext wrote:
| How many rigorous studies have been performed testing your
| hypothesis?
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Has it? I thought there was promising result with catching
| COVID and then being vaccinated (though you've already caught
| COVID, so you've failed the whole "don't catch COVID"
| objective), I wasn't aware there was good research for the
| opposite.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Will the body actually generate antibodies to other covid
| proteins in that case or will the existing antibodies against
| the spike protein destroy covid before new ones have a chance
| to be developed?
| orra wrote:
| > At the time it may have seemed wild, but now it has been
| proven to be the most effective immunity.
|
| It's wild because immunity is useful for _preventing
| infection_ (also, reducing the severity of infection). There
| 's little point catching the thing you don't want to catch in
| order to prevent you catching it, because you still. suffer.
| the. harm. of having been infected.
|
| There are way better options, like third doses of vaccines.
| Or revising the vaccines for Delta. Besides, if you want
| something 'like' a small dose of coronavirus, it would be far
| safer to attenuate the coronavirus first. Then you just have
| a classic vaccine.
| chme wrote:
| A.30 seems to be one of the very minor lineages: https://cov-
| lineages.org/lineage.html?lineage=A.30 compared to others
| https://cov-lineages.org/lineage_list.html
| greg5green wrote:
| I can't even find it on Nextstrain
| uuddlrlr wrote:
| I guess there might be a point where strictly vaccinated
| populations are less protected than populations with more natural
| antibodies.
|
| Where I live is >80% double dosed, however there are far less
| than 5% that have been naturally infected.
| barbazoo wrote:
| What do you base your guess on?
| dev_tty01 wrote:
| Is there any significantly contagious and deadly disease where
| natural antibodies have proven more protective than large-scale
| vaccination? Measles? Polio? Diptheria? Flu? Mumps? Rubella?
| Hepatitis? ...
| bserge wrote:
| The great imbecility pandemic of 2020-2021. People who have
| experienced severe symptoms, hospitalization and deaths of
| relatives came out smarter than those who didn't.
| dudeofea wrote:
| Dengue. The initial vaccine did not target all subtypes of
| dengue, causing "severe dengue" in infections after a naive
| individual was vaccinated. The same could happen if someone
| moved from one region to another, since the subtypes inhabit
| different regions. Your body will respond to one subtype's
| antigens primarily with it's initial conditioning. If you
| weren't conditioned with that subtype, you get original
| antigenic sin / severe dengue
|
| https://www.cdc.gov/dengue/prevention/dengue-vaccine.html
|
| The worst-case scenario for a vaccine is not "no immunity",
| it is negative immunity. If your adaptive immune response
| outcompetes your innate immune response in binding to
| antigens, but does not neutralize them, then your immune
| system will struggle to fight off an infection
| uuddlrlr wrote:
| I worded it poorly (and it wasn't really anything worth
| saying in the context of COVID), but:
|
| A population with 5% naturally-induced/80% vaccine-induced
| immunity _might see more spread_ of a new variant than a
| population with 25% /60%, however the total outcomes would
| still be better in the first population; so "less protected"
| was definitely the wrong thing to say.
|
| Naturally-induced immunity for COVID is stronger because it
| targets more than just the spike protein, and it
| presumably[0] grants better mucosal immunity than our current
| vaccines induce, but of course the risk/cost of natural
| infection is very high.
|
| [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8358136/
| c7DJTLrn wrote:
| Just saying, now is the perfect time for countries to stealthily
| unleash biological warfare upon their enemies. Mutated or
| engineered?
| cryptica wrote:
| It's important to point out that many scientists were called
| conspiracy theorists by mainstream media after predicting (long
| before the vaccine rollouts) that mass vaccinations would cause
| the virus to mutate faster and that we'd all be worse off (as is
| clearly the case)... Mainstream media and big pharma are corrupt.
| The people responsible are criminals and should be brought to
| justice.
|
| COVID19 is not lethal for the majority of people. We will all die
| of something eventually but if some people are particularly
| fixated on COVID19, they are welcome to spend more time at home
| (instead of going out to meet people) and they can try to find
| remote work or some job which doesn't require so much contact
| with other people. Anyone could easily bring their risk of
| catching COVID19 to nearly 0% by limiting social contact, proper
| distancing, hand-washing, mask-wearing, choosing the right kind
| of job (or retiring), getting plenty of sunlight, vitamin D
| supplements, living outside of urban centers, not travelling too
| much, etc... All of these things are going to be way more
| effective at protecting individuals from COVID19 than any vaccine
| and these things don't require ruining other people's lives.
|
| Also, if you don't want to risk dying of COVID19, you can just go
| live in a remote village/town; nobody is forcing you to live in a
| densely populated city. Big cities are reservoirs for the COVID19
| virus. Other people can kill you; this is a fact of life which we
| have to accept. If you choose to constantly surround yourself
| with many people, then you're taking the risk, nobody else owes
| you protection from whatever viruses they may harbor inside their
| bodies without their knowledge.
|
| The hospital system will be fine. If hospitals become too crowded
| with COVID19 patients; they can just start turning them away!
| People will come up with solutions; temporary/makeshift COVID19
| hospitals, home-delivered ventilators, etc... Maybe governments
| can fund this if it comes to that?
| JJzD wrote:
| There is so much wrong with this. Let's start with the apparent
| numbers you are accepting. Millions of Americans will die
| directly from infections, millions will need life support, and
| an additional ten million will die as a direct consequence of
| an overwhelmed health care system. With those numbers it's hard
| to imagine a family not hit with these enormous consequences,
| where you seem to gloss over.
|
| Secondary, the virus has no will of it's own, it will just
| randomly mutate, and if a stronger variant appears it will do
| so, if there are vaccins or not. However, you are advocating to
| roll the dice millions time more, just because there was
| already a very small chance this gets worse, and you think that
| is a good idea?
| cryptica wrote:
| At least 329 million Americans will die over the next 100
| years no matter what we do; that's 3.29 million per year on
| average. So far less than 800K people died from COVID19 in
| almost 2 years... That's 400K per year; ~12% of all deaths...
| OK, this is a very rough/approximate calculation but is it
| worth ruining people's lives and taking away people's
| freedoms over a slight increase in death rate? This isn't the
| black plague. Personally, I wouldn't accept any significant
| change in my lifestyle for anything less than 100% (2x)
| increase in my chance of death... So I won't even bat an
| eyelash over a 12% increase (and I'm in a not-at-risk group
| so it's probably way less for me); and especially if I have
| some control over the risk... Some smokers take on much
| bigger risks by continuing to smoke; the risk is worth it to
| them - Who are we to judge?
|
| This pandemic has been blown out of proportion. The media
| emotional 'contagion' has had a bigger negative impact on
| people's lives than the actual virus. Did everyone suddenly
| forget the emotional 'contagion' study which Facebook did
| some years ago? https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177
| /17470161155795...
|
| The result of that study was that people's emotions could be
| manipulated without their knowledge... How do we know that
| what we're dealing with now isn't just Facebook and the media
| putting the results of that study into practice? It sure
| looks that way. I can definitely feel myself being
| manipulated by the media and I suspect that others who are
| more suggestible than me are even more so and less likely to
| notice it...
| YossarianFrPrez wrote:
| There are clearly people in positions of power at
| pharmaceutical companies that need to be brought to justice.
| The Opioid epidemic, Johnson and Johnson's issue with
| talc/baby-powder... It's disgusting. And yes, individuals can
| take a certain amount of responsibility to limit their risk.
|
| > The hospital system will be fine. If hospitals become too
| crowded with COVID19 patients; they can just start turning them
| away! People will come up with solutions; temporary/makeshift
| COVID19 hospitals, home-delivered ventilators, etc... Maybe
| governments can fund this if it comes to that?
|
| If someone has a 'needs to go to a hospital' case of covid, if
| the disease is affecting their lungs and body poorly enough,
| then they will need attention from people who have medical
| degrees. If they are all busy working in overcrowded hospitals
| which are in triage / ration-care mode, who will staff the
| alternative care solutions you've outlined? Especially if
| hospital demand outstrips hospital supply?
| HatchedLake721 wrote:
| Ouch. Your arguments... are like from early 2020?
|
| Except the live in the remote town, your other points have been
| refuted and are easily disproven with some basic research
| skills.
|
| My home country with silly low vaccination rates just
| introduced 8pm curfew last week, a neighboring country is
| sending additional ventilators, routine healthcare and
| surgeries have been stopped, government is making plans of
| sending patients abroad if the infection and hospitalization
| rates don't change and they're now talking about targeted
| mobilization to help healthcare staff, who are crunching insane
| hours to save people lives.
|
| But hey ho, "Honey, come look! I've found some information all
| the world's scientists and doctors have missed.", said an HN
| commenter.
|
| Just makes me sad.
|
| If you think you're the smartest person in the world, you need
| to look in the mirror twice.
| 323 wrote:
| The title is more bombastic than their conclusion.
|
| TL;DR: it's just a bit worse than the Beta variant.
| listless wrote:
| Thank you. I came looking for the truth behind the click. Of
| course, the truth is much less interesting.
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| Is the Beta variant worse than the Delta variant?
| e40 wrote:
| I believe Delta is worse than Beta.
| revolvingocelot wrote:
| The real question is "can I even find a Beta variant to get
| infected by, given the steady global dominion of Delta"?
|
| [0] https://covariants.org/per-variant
| r00fus wrote:
| Thanks for that link. Seems Delta and P681 are the
| "winners" in this environment (but it seems on further
| research P681 is itself a variant of Delta).
| InInteraction wrote:
| A.30 is basically dead, well outcompeted by Delta etc. The UK
| don't report on it now.
|
| "VUI-21FEB-01 (A.23.1 with E484K), VOC-21FEB-02 (B.1.1.7 with
| E484K), VUI-21MAR-01, (B.1.324.1 with E484K), A.30, B.1.633,
| B.1.214.2 and B.1.1.7 with S494P have not been observed in the UK
| or within the international GISAID dataset within the last 12
| weeks. These variants are no longer included in the data update."
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| Question from a non-molecular-biologist:
|
| IIUC, when COVID first gained notoriety, there was a large public
| effort to solve its molecular structure [0].
|
| Articles like this seem to imply that they've solved the
| structure of numerous variants, making me think we (collectively)
| can do it much more quickly now.
|
| If that's really true, what's changed? Does knowing the structure
| of other COVID variants give us a massive head start? Or has
| there been a massive investment in computing power for solving
| COVID-variant stuctures?
|
| [0] https://foldingathome.org/diseases/infectious-
| diseases/covid...
| rolph wrote:
| yes to all. the early days of biochemistry were heavily
| dependent on x-ray crystallography, meaning the subject
| structure was in crystalline form, meaning there was a bias
| toward understanding of structures that facilitated
| crystalization. sequencing and structural studies[folding] were
| slow tedious wetlab efforts until mid 90s when computing power
| was of caliber, and shared across the internet, we now have
| such computation cheaper smaller, and locally.
|
| like any jigsaw puzzle, the more pieces correctly placed the
| easier it becomes to progress.
| b9a2cab5 wrote:
| Computational docking (figuring out what drug molecules bind
| strongly to) is still not solved. In order to find drugs that
| 1. work well and 2. aren't toxic we need robust docking
| estimators that work well over a wide variety of proteins. My
| understanding of the space (which comes from undergrad comp
| bio, so please someone feel free to correct me) is that just
| having a molecule that binds well to your target doesn't mean
| it's going to work well as a drug, because there are delivery
| and toxicity concerns.
| [deleted]
| clairity wrote:
| at least for identifying variants, you don't necessarily need
| to know the full (highly complex) structure of each variant,
| just the relevant diffs from the original variant, and computer
| modeling to tease out whether the diffs are significant enough
| to warrant a 'variant' label (along with epidemiological data,
| of course). once identified and labeled, pcr can give you
| enough information (via the differing prevalences of short
| sequences of dna/rna that act like unique fingerprints) to tell
| the variants apart without needing to know anything about the
| structure.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Famously, once the novel coronavirus was sequenced, Moderna had
| their mRNA sequence ready just a few days later. This was well-
| covered in the press.
|
| All the time from then to general availability of their vaccine
| was spent on testing and scaling.
|
| This is not exactly what you asked. But if the question is
| whether we have a speed advantage on vaccines because of
| greater understanding of viruses now, the answer is yes. It's
| one reason the COVID-19 vaccine was the fastest in history.
|
| Should it become necessary to separately vaccinate against
| coronavirus variants, the same advantage would confer. And
| vaccine makers have said they are monitoring variants and ready
| to go, if necessary.
|
| The question is, will it be necessary? And how much testing
| will variant vaccines need to undergo?
| timr wrote:
| No, there are not solved structures for these variants (in
| general). They're using computer modeling.
|
| Even if there were, changes of a single amino acid that don't
| induce significant conformational (shape) change are the sort
| of thing that you'd need a _very_ good structure to discern,
| since they 're mostly on the surface of the spike, and probably
| spin around a lot.
|
| The most relevant thing to know is what a mutation / mutations
| looks like in the context of antibody binding, but that's even
| harder to get a good structure. It's not something that can be
| done quickly.
| rolph wrote:
| when the focus is on individual molecules it is about a
| statistical measure of bond angle, distance, resonanceforms,
| charge distribution, and rotational freedom.
|
| this ends up looking like the quantum physics conundrum where
| there is a central tendency rather than certainty, until you
| pin it down in some way.
|
| this is why we have a vaccine to begin with, the realization
| that there are conformational frequencies to the S protien,
| and a particular locus in the sequence is associated with the
| conformational change that sequesters the binding domain of S
| protien. thus the 2proline version of S was used in
| subsequent vaccines, allowing the ACE2 binding domain to
| remain exposed to the PAMP recognition machinery.
|
| it takes months or weeks depending on how well the
| supervising scientist receives a request, it used to take
| years and decades in many cases.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| I think these headlines, possibly purposefully, overlook the
| possibility that vaccine antibodies eased acquisition of
| infection induced antibodies to the point of being subclinical
| events.
|
| That is, a vaccinated person could be exposed to a variant for
| which they are partially protected, not notice clinical symptoms,
| while the person's immune system still remembers the details of
| the variant.
|
| As an iterative process, this is akin to software updates (for a
| running immune system).
|
| So to say that variant A.30 isn't covered by the mRNA induced
| spike protein antibodies is a very different statement than to
| say it's able to evade an immune system primed by mRNA antibodies
| which then re-entered daily life and thereby was able to
| continuously adapt to variants.
| jtc331 wrote:
| Except that data from the UK shows that's precisely what's not
| happening. Those who were immunologically naive when receiving
| the vaccine continue to not have N protein antibodies after
| subsequent infection. That is they did not gain new immunity
| that would have been gained in the reverse order of events.
| kazinator wrote:
| > _this is akin to software updates_
|
| That is blatant fear mongering. :)
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| :)
| mlyle wrote:
| It's also worth noting that the most people still had
| antibodies effective against A.30-- just not _as_ effective. So
| the existing antibody response would be expected to slow
| infection and then the body is primed to broaden the variety
| and quantity of antibodies after infection.
|
| It's only a small portion of those receiving the AZ vaccine
| whose serum had no significant activity against A.30-- all of
| those with the mRNA vaccine did and most of those receiving AZ
| did.
| cronix wrote:
| > It's only a small portion of those receiving the AZ vaccine
| whose serum had no significant activity against A.30-- all of
| those with the mRNA vaccine did and most of those receiving
| AZ did.
|
| How about those that received no vaccine, but have previously
| recovered from Covid? Is it an insignificant number because I
| rarely hear it discussed.
| greg5green wrote:
| They don't include the data in the paper, but they do have
| that data in the supplemental charts under "Convalescent".
| Looks like a similar dropoff as scene in people vaccinated
| with BNT162b2.
|
| It should be noted that this convalescent plasma was taken
| from ICU patients, not people that were asymptomatic or had
| minor symptoms.
| nradov wrote:
| It's a significant number. The CDC estimated that about 36%
| of Americans had been infected as of May (more by now).
|
| https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-
| updates/burd...
|
| I recommend that everyone get vaccinated if they can,
| especially if they haven't had a confirmed infection. For
| most patients natural immunity provides protection as good
| or better than vaccination.
|
| https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.12.21263461
| v...
| mlyle wrote:
| There's convalescent plasma in the study we're all looking
| at.
|
| Looks like a similar difference.
|
| - People given AZ required 8.8x the concentration of their
| serum to neutralize A.30 vs. B.1
|
| - For mRNA vaccines, this was 4.6x.
|
| - Convalescent plasma-- those infected-- this was 4.4x.
|
| - AZ dose 1, mRNA dose 2 was by far the smallest
| difference, 1.8x.
|
| I'd caution in reading too much into these numbers.
| Comparing titers in general between the groups in this
| study is problematic because of vastly varying times since
| infection/administration. And the size of the populations
| is small.
| armagon wrote:
| I think it is due to politics that you don't hear this
| discussed; seemingly, nuance makes it more difficult to
| convey a message. The number of people who are known to
| have been infected is not insignificant, and the number who
| have been infected but it isn't known is much higher. (I
| thought estimated were that at least 4x as many people have
| had Covid as show up in the published results).
|
| There is every reason to expect that natural immunity
| (derived from a previous infection) is better (than that
| conferred by a vaccine), simply because the immune system
| will recognize the entire virus and not just the spike
| cell.
|
| This pre-print paper (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.11
| 01/2021.08.24.21262415v...) concludes:
|
| "This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers
| longer lasting and stronger protection against infection,
| symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta
| variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose
| vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both
| previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose
| of the vaccine gained additional protection against the
| Delta variant."
|
| If having pre-delta covid made it more likely that your
| immune system could face delta, then I think it would stand
| true for other variants, too.
| fhars wrote:
| Yes, but even if
|
| P(Survive infection|Survive first infection) > P(Survive
| infection|Have been vaccinated),
|
| in general the far more interesting inequality is
|
| P(Survive first infection) * P(Survive infection|Survive
| first infection) << P(Survive having been vaccinated) *
| P(Survive infection|Have been vaccinated)
|
| So it usually is still a better strategy to get
| vaccinated than to get infected.
| cronix wrote:
| Let's just say it was "on par" with a vaccine for the
| sake of argument, even if it is suggested it might be
| better/work more broadly. Is there a scientific reason,
| as opposed to political, why this would not exempt one
| from a mandated vaccine?
| nuerow wrote:
| > _Is there a scientific reason, as opposed to political,
| why this would not exempt one from a mandated vaccine?_
|
| First of all, taking the vaccine is not political. What
| is political is the contrarian stance against vaccinating
| against COVID-19. This sad state of affairs was the
| direct result of an election campaign which was deeply
| invested in denying that COVID-19 was a public health
| concern, or even that it existed at all, and thus
| recognizing the vaccine's importance and effectiveness
| was deemed a sign of a political defeat and admission of
| responsibility for countless unnecessary deaths.
|
| Secondly, natural immunity against COVID-19 is not a sure
| thing, with the risk of reinfection being as high as 17%,
| and subsequent infections are known to be more severe
| than the first[1]. In contrast, immunity through
| vaccination is believed to be not only more effective but
| also last longer[2].
|
| Consequently, there is absolutely no reason at all, other
| than political beliefs, to refuse to get the vaccine.
|
| [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-01202-8
|
| [2] https://www.immunology.org/coronavirus/connect-
| coronavirus-p...
| maccam94 wrote:
| Most people in the US who have contracted COVID-19 don't
| have proof of it. Vaccinating everyone is cheaper and
| more consistent than trying to build out mass testing
| infrastructure. Plus if you can convince people to show
| up for a test, it's better to just vaccinate them. Tests
| can come back negative, or give false positives, in which
| case those people still won't have immunity, but the
| benefits of the vaccine are pretty well understood. AFAIK
| it's more of an issue of ensuring public safety and
| efficiency than whether your immune system produced good
| enough antibodies from an infection.
| caconym_ wrote:
| Since initial infectious doses and peak viral loads seem
| to vary wildly in people who've been infected, I would
| speculate that it's much easier to quantify vaccine-
| induced immunity in a public health context relative to
| so-called "natural immunity", since those initial
| variables can be tightly controlled. This is a practical
| matter for making consistent and effective public health
| policy, as well as a scientific matter (viz. establishing
| the relative effectiveness of various forms of immunity
| for diverse and uncertain infection scenarios). Experts
| in public health and/or infectious diseases,
| epidemiology, etc. may feel free to correct me if I'm
| substantially incorrect.
|
| However, for people who see the world through a lens that
| paints all public health policy with the brush of
| partisan politics, the distinction may be difficult to
| grasp.
| OrvalWintermute wrote:
| > Since initial infectious doses and peak viral loads
| seem to vary wildly in people who've been infected, I
| would speculate that it's much easier to quantify
| vaccine-induced immunity in a public health context
| relative to so-called "natural immunity", since those
| initial variables can be tightly controlled.
|
| I think you are missing the largest discriminator.
|
| The US Vaccines[1], and the related vaccines, are highly
| limited resistance specific to a spike protein only,
| perhaps with boosters, to a number of spikes seen. Total
| = 1, perhaps 2 if it includes a delta variant spike
| booster also.
|
| Natural immunity confers with it resistance to a number
| of different covid-19 viral proteins, not just the spike.
| We know Covid-19 has 29 proteins
|
| Now, we know that researchers saw these antibodies, as
| they were the ones that said, "all these antibodies could
| be the target of future vaccines", and the idea is there.
| However, we don't know the exactly count of antibodies to
| all these viral proteins, we just know of their existence
| from research. [2]
|
| But, to compare the strength of natural immunity to a
| vaccine is to fail at elementary math.
|
| However, I am not saying that people at a high risk from
| age, comorbidities, or both, should not take the vaccine.
| That is their own decision. On the other hand, the vast
| majority of the research indicates that natural immunity
| actually provides superior immunity from a breadth
| perspective, since a legacy vaccine protection is
| comparatively challenged against a mutated spike.
|
| [1] This is not true for all vaccines, merely "spike"
| vaccines. So, it wouldn't apply to an attenuated viral
| vaccine. However, attenuated vaccines do not prompt as
| strong an immune response.
|
| [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32555388/
| caconym_ wrote:
| I'm not sure where you imagine I made any statement
| directly comparing the _efficacy_ of vaccines to natural
| immunity. The substance of my comment is limited to the
| problem of _quantifying_ the efficacy of natural immunity
| in the real world, from the perspective of public health
| policy.
| destitude wrote:
| Because it is purely political in the USA. Many other
| countries do classify people who gained immunity from
| exposure the same as vaccinated.
| nuerow wrote:
| > _Many other countries do classify people who gained
| immunity from exposure the same as vaccinated._
|
| Can you point out an example of any country that exempts
| those who were already infected with COVID from taking
| the vaccine? As far as I can tell, no European country
| does anything of the sort, neither does the US and
| definitely not Canada, and a quick Google search returns
| no search hit.
| robbiep wrote:
| Well some countries are saying proven infection is good
| for 7 months worth of vaccine coverage. But the length
| and time period of the immune response is likely much
| more variable than those who received vaccination
| [deleted]
| Pyramus wrote:
| > There is every reason to expect that natural immunity
| (derived from a previous infection) is better (than that
| conferred by a vaccine), simply because the immune system
| will recognize the entire virus and not just the spike
| cell.
|
| No - we do not have "every reason" to expect, quite the
| opposite. As a starter, for many infectious diseases
| (incl. viral diseases) vaccine-induced immunity is
| better, see e.g. the commentary and examples here [1].
|
| Regarding SARS-CoV-2, the picture is a lot more subtle.
| Directly from German virologist Christian Drosten:
|
| "If you look closely at the data in the studies, the
| situation is much more complicated. What one should say
| and be aware of is vaccination, which provides a
| relatively constant protection, which is very well
| described in studies. You actually pretty much know what
| you have. While there is a greater spread in the case of
| infection. Quite simply, we get different amounts of
| virus in the infection. Some have a silent infection that
| they don't even notice, others have a symptomatic
| infection. And you have to be aware that in such studies,
| which are primarily based on PCR test results, there will
| always be a certain emphasis on symptomatic courses. That
| means saying that if I know I have survived an infection
| and it was confirmed by PCR testing, then that also
| implies that I had symptoms, otherwise I would hardly
| have had a PCR test at the time. So then I had a
| symptomatic course. I think that for this situation you
| can now say very well, whoever had the whole thing
| symptomatically, will be well protected afterwards,
| almost like a vaccination." [2]
|
| The study you picked in its current pre-print form does
| not adequately address this obvious selection bias, nor
| does it address the inherent survivorship bias. I'm not a
| medical expert though, so we will see if it passes peer
| review.
|
| In any case, please do not perpetuate the myth that
| natural immunity is superior _per se_. If you had a
| symptomatic infection plus a PCR test, you are likely
| well protected, very similar to (mRNA) vaccination. If
| your infection is more than 6 months old, get a booster.
|
| [1]
| https://twitter.com/ENirenberg/status/1412865782862725125
|
| [2]
| https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/coronaskript334.pdf
| page 7 (via Google Translate)
| christkv wrote:
| Antibodies is also just one part of the immune response, memory
| T cells are just as important.
|
| We know the vaccines are not sterilizing so you can still catch
| and spread it. They do reduce the likelihood of hospitalization
| and that seems to be about that.
| _djo_ wrote:
| They're partially sterilising, with studies showing up to six
| times lower infection rates amongst the vaccinated than the
| unvaccinated.
|
| That's a huge difference, and not just reducing the
| likelihood of hospitalisation.
| nradov wrote:
| COVID-19 vaccines aren't sterilizing to any meaningful
| extent. They provide only limited and temporary protection
| against infection. The real benefit is in protection
| against severe symptoms.
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y
| feanaro wrote:
| Not sterilising, but they do reduce viral load and hence also
| the probability of spreading.
| christkv wrote:
| I don't think there is consensus about that unfortunately.
| I see plenty of pre-prints going both ways.
|
| https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264262
| v...
|
| I think the only conclusion that can be supported truly at
| this point is that you seem to be less likely to get a
| severe disease progression.
|
| And before anyone jumps on the whole political thing. Yes I
| have taken two doses of the biogen vaccine.
| pc86 wrote:
| They do a lot more than that. A lot of the symptoms
| (coughing, sneezing, etc.) increase infectivity. The vaccines
| reduce not only the likelihood you'll get symptoms at all but
| if you do they reduce both the longevity and severity.
|
| Saying "well you're just less likely to go to the hospital"
| underplays their importance and gives unnecessary credence to
| the completely false notion that if you don't get vaccinated
| the only person you're potentially hurting is yourself.
| drcross wrote:
| So you're saying a vaccinated person is likely to
| unknowingly infect other people around them?
| inglor_cz wrote:
| So, they detected this variant half a year ago, and yet it didn't
| become prevalent. Delta rules the roost.
|
| Is it possible that the heavy mutations detected on the A.30
| variant also make it less contagious?
| grillvogel wrote:
| genuinely asking, how do we actually know the delta variant is
| real, and is the dominant variant causing the current cases? do
| people actually get tested for specific variants, or is it just
| a generic covid test?
| kjaftaedi wrote:
| Not all cases are tested for which variant, but those that
| are are catalogued.
|
| I've been watching the delta variant take over the world over
| the past several months here: https://covariants.org
|
| (dark green is delta)
| mewpmewp2 wrote:
| Also see nextstrain.org for interesting data.
| roywiggins wrote:
| It depends where you live. The UK was an early[0] leader in
| sequencing a _lot_ of their cases. They hit 600,000 sequenced
| cases in July[1].
|
| That said, if you just want to know what proportion of the
| population has delta, you don't need to sequence _that_ many
| cases. The point of sequencing a large fraction of cases is
| to catch emerging variants, that wouldn 't be likely to be
| caught otherwise. But to know whether Delta is 30%, 50%, or
| 70% of cases, you just need a good random sample, not a
| particularly large one, and I imagine you can do that at the
| labs where the PCR tests are being run.
|
| (at one point, I recall that the UK had a test that matched
| on three distinct sites on the virus, and they found that one
| of those sites would turn up negative for a particular
| variant, so they were able to use that as a proxy for the
| spread of the variant. I don't remember if that was Alpha or
| Delta though, and obviously it's no replacement for
| sequencing)
|
| [0] https://cen.acs.org/analytical-
| chemistry/sequencing/200000-c...
|
| [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-
| exceeds-600000-covid-1...
| walterbell wrote:
| UK publishes detailed reports on variant surveillance via
| genetic sequencing,
| https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/investigation-
| of-...
|
| US does statistical sampling and also prevents patients from
| being told about variants,
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28419280
| _3u10 wrote:
| They sample the swabs and do full sequencing for those
| selected.
| Herodotus38 wrote:
| In Washington state, a percent of positive tests are sent to
| the dept of health for variant sequencing. You can see the
| published results by week. Delta has outcompeted every other
| variant for several months. All covid is essentially delta.
|
| See page [pdf] 5 on this: https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Do
| cuments/1600/coronavirus/...
|
| It is updated every Wednesday
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Genomic surveillance; separate from the routine COVID tests,
| performed on a statistically significant sampling of them.
|
| https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/variant-s.
| ..
|
| https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/cdc-
| role-...
| depereo wrote:
| NZ had until recently sequenced 100% of its cases, and used
| that sequencing information to map person to person infection
| linkages. This included all of the people in the mandatory
| 2-week quarantine at the border. So in NZ, yes, every case
| was tested for specific variants. Delta does seem to be real.
| kadoban wrote:
| Not every test will tell you which variant it is, but they do
| some extra testing here and there to track which variants are
| spreading.
| black6 wrote:
| Some small subset of COVID tests are sent to larger labs to
| perform a more detailed genetic test to determine specific
| variants. The prevalence of different variants within that
| set is extrapolated to the population of the region from
| which it originated.
|
| If the lab finds that 87% of the samples from Adam's College
| are of the Omega Mu strain, then it's assumed 87% of total
| cases at Adam's College to be Omega Mu variant.
| 323 wrote:
| There are multi tests today which can differentiate between
| variants without sequencing.
|
| There is also a way to differentiate on some RT-PCR tests
| (but not all), depending on how they are made.
| slimeballsz wrote:
| Delta is fake.
|
| The whole fucking thing is fake.
|
| Branch Covidians should be thrown out of airplanes at 30k
| feet over the Pacific.
| rolph wrote:
| the results in the paper suggest, the mutations facilitate
| viral mechanisms of entry and antibody evasion.
|
| efficacy of Oxford, Pfizer, and hetero-innoculation with both
| were examined, indications were given of reduced efficacy of
| either vaccine alone vs CoV A.30. The combination of both
| vaccines[hetero-inocculation] was associated with higher
| efficacy vs A.30
|
| the mutations appear in vitro; to confer inhibition of vaccine
| induced antibody binding; enhanced cellular entry; enhanced
| pulmonary[lung] trophicity[targeting]
|
| relative efficacies of moderna; Johnson&johnson; vs Oxford;
| Pfizer were not examined.
| orra wrote:
| > Is it possible that the heavy mutations detected on the A.30
| variant also make it less contagious?
|
| That wouldn't surprise me. The spike is central to how SARS-
| CoV-2 is so infectious. If the virus mutates the spike too
| much, it might evade the vaccines, but at the cost of being
| less infectious.
|
| What's surprising is this research says, in vitro, A.30 is
| _more_ infectious.
|
| Regardless, as you and others say, in real world conditions
| A.30 doesn't appear to out compete Delta.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Even if A.30 was "more contagious", like Alpha, it isn't as
| contagious as Delta and thus would get outcompeted.
|
| There's a lot of variants of concern. Its important to keep an
| eye on new variants, but don't worry about them until they
| cross the 1% or 5% mark. At that point, you can better theorize
| that they might be outcompeting the dominant strain.
|
| You _really_ don't know that something is outcompeting until it
| reaches 50%. But by then its too late. The 1% or 5% points are
| still a month or two in advance of the 50% crossing, in both
| Alpha and Delta.
|
| So that's where I keep my attention: at the 1% and 5% points. A
| variant gotta get to 1% before it can reach 50% of the world ya
| know?
| inglor_cz wrote:
| At the very least, it seems that you cannot be reinfected by
| A.30 if you had Delta recently, otherwise they would be
| _both_ spreading at the same time.
| mewpmewp2 wrote:
| You probably can, it just means that the R in this scenario
| is very small. If R is below 1 it will fade away.
| FooBarWidget wrote:
| How does viral outcompetion work? How would Delta prevent
| A.30 from thriving? Why won't we become infected by Delta
| _and_ A.30?
| alecst wrote:
| You asked a good question that I've wondered as well.
| Basically someone has to show that immunity to one variant
| confers immunity to another, which is not at all obvious
| since presumably they have different epitopes. I guess what
| people are suggesting is that the epitopes are distinct
| enough that a targeted vaccine might not cover both, but
| not so distinct that they behave like separate infections
| in vivo. But I would hope that an expert can chime in and
| shed some light here.
| JamesBarney wrote:
| > How does viral outcompetion work?
|
| Basically one spreads faster than the other so after a few
| iterations almost all of new cases are the new variant.
|
| > How would Delta prevent A.30 from thriving?
|
| Directly by driving up immunity, indirectly by coercing
| people to take steps to slow the spread of delta, which
| also slows the spread of a.30. Things like vaccination,
| social distancing, mask wearing etc...
|
| > Why won't we become infected by Delta and A.30?
|
| Because Delta probably give you significantly more immunity
| than a vaccine. Specifically infection gives both more
| robust and stronger immunity than the vaccines.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > Specifically infection gives both more robust and
| stronger immunity than the vaccines.
|
| Isn't there evidence that says the opposite? And that
| immunity due to infection is much more variable between
| individuals and infections, due to how the immune system
| responds to the virus.
| kbelder wrote:
| I haven't seen any evidence for that, but I've sure seen
| it claimed a lot.
| JamesBarney wrote:
| https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.212624
| 15v...
|
| > SARS-CoV-2 naive vaccinees had a 5.96-fold (95% CI,
| 4.85 to 7.33) increased risk for breakthrough infection
| and a 7.13-fold (95% CI, 5.51 to 9.21) increased risk for
| symptomatic disease. SARS-CoV-2-naive vaccinees were also
| at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations
| compared to those that were previously infected.
|
| > Conclusions This study demonstrated that natural
| immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection
| against infection, symptomatic disease and
| hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-
| CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced
| immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected
| with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine
| gained additional protection against the Delta variant.
|
| Also just in terms of baseline beliefs based on the
| physical world, I would assume that the vast majority of
| the time an infection would be more protective than a
| vaccine.
| dev_tty01 wrote:
| >Also just in terms of baseline beliefs based on the
| physical world, I would assume that the vast majority of
| the time an infection would be more protective than a
| vaccine.
|
| It is also orders of magnitude more deadly. Vaccines are
| proven to be much safer than getting Covid.
|
| This is one preprint study comparing natural immunity to
| the Pfizer vaccine. It is interesting and may hold up
| after peer review. However, we have to be careful drawing
| broad conclusions and over interpreting these results.
|
| The danger is that we are already seeing many groups
| pointing to this study and trying to read this as meaning
| we should not be getting vaccinated, because obviously
| getting covid is better. We should not forget that in
| 2020 and into 2021, despite significant lock downs and
| enforced/encouraged masking, and without widely and
| globally available vaccinations we lost about 5 million
| people to Covid. Skipping vaccines in favor of "natural"
| immunity is a path to continued carnage.
| UnFleshedOne wrote:
| People are not usually saying getting covid is better
| (not without many qualifiers anyway), they are saying
| that if you already had covid, getting shots might have
| bad risk/benefit ratio. (you get all the risk for small
| additional protection).
| omgwtfbyobbq wrote:
| It might have a bad risk/benefit ratio. The preliminary
| evidence I've seen suggests a good risk/benefit ratio.
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02795-x
|
| >Those who had recovered from COVID-19 months before
| receiving their jabs harboured antibodies capable of
| defanging the mutant spike, which displays much more
| resistance to immune attack than any known naturally
| occurring variant. These peoples' antibodies even blocked
| other types of coronaviruses. "It's very likely they will
| be effective against any future variant that SARS-CoV-2
| throws against them," says Hatziioannou.
| dragontamer wrote:
| The same way that Delta has decimated Flu Type B/Yamagata
| to the point that some are whispering that Flu Type
| B/Yamagata has gone extinct. (The Flu is still around, but
| Type B/Yamagata was very, very common before COVID19 hit.
| It hasn't been seen for almost 1.5 years now)
|
| Its not like "Delta-variant" gives you immunity to Flu Type
| B/Yamagata. But people around the world are masking up and
| locking down (well, in 2020 anyway). People's behaviors
| change when a large-scale pandemic like this occurs, and
| the weaker viruses die out.
|
| Even ignoring that, COVID19 forces an immune response. Yes,
| this immune response includes memory-cells (which remember
| COVID19's signature), but it _ALSO_ increases other immune
| cells (Neutrophil, killer-T cells, among others) which will
| hunt down any virus more effectively. This effect is
| temporary, but still a big enough effect to see the body
| fight off other diseases a bit better after getting sick
| from anything.
|
| So even though COVID19 / Delta doesn't give you any
| immunity (ie: memory cells / antibodies) to Flu B/Yamagata,
| you see Delta outcompeting it and driving Flu B/Yamagata to
| extinction.
|
| --------
|
| Delta transfers memory-cell responses + antibody responses
| (two attributes of "memory immunity") against COVID19, and
| Alpha, and other variants. Sure the disease is evolving,
| but its not like these antibodies are totally useless
| against the virus within the same line.
|
| COVID19 simply doesn't evolve as quickly as the flu does.
|
| --------
|
| This effect, in reverse, was seen in 2020 where recipients
| of the standard Flu shot had something like a 5% lower
| chance of getting COVID19. The temporary "immune response"
| that your body built up for the Flu vaccine had a minor
| (but measurable) effect on COVID19.
|
| Getting sick with _ANYTHING_ makes it harder for other
| viruses to attack you. Your body just goes into overdrive
| making various white blood cells.
| [deleted]
| polote wrote:
| Same question, especially that if someone is infected with
| delta he can only infect someone with delta. So delta can
| be outperformed at the person level only if the person is
| infected by both variant at the same time.
|
| For me the only way a variant can be outperformed is that
| all people who get infected get also infected with the
| other variant OR the first variant for whatever reason stop
| being transmissible
| kazinator wrote:
| Because being infected by the successful, fast-spreading
| one confers you a measure of immunity against the less
| successful variant, thereby directly suppressing it.
| gzer0 wrote:
| _Heterologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 /BNT162b2 vaccination, which was
| previously shown to augment neutralizing antibody responses
| against VOCs compared to corresponding homologous vaccinations
| [7, 10], might offer robust protection against the A.30 variant._
|
| There's hope!
| lol768 wrote:
| I've not seen much reported in the way of clinical trials / peer-
| reviewed publications for modified vaccines that target (the
| spike protein of) these variants of concern that are actively
| circulating.
|
| Is there ongoing work here I'm missing? What progress has been
| made? I'm somewhat surprised that almost a year on from the
| initial vaccination roll-out in the UK we're now dishing out
| boosters which are .. identical to the vaccinations given out
| initially.
| angelzen wrote:
| That is a fantastic question. We are still vaccinating &
| boosting against the original variant. Would "the experts"
| please demonstrate that vaccines against variants are
| effective, given that original antigenic sin is a long known
| and well documented phenomenon?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_antigenic_sin
|
| https://www.jstor.org/stable/985534
| 323 wrote:
| OAS might be a problem with much more divergent future
| variants. Today's variant are still very close to the
| original, so OAS is not a factor yet.
| belltaco wrote:
| How is OAS related to ADE?
| angelzen wrote:
| A South Korea paper from 2016 argues they are related
| "sometimes". Note that coronaviruses are RNA viruses.
|
| Now, all the epi data we have indicates that the covid mRNA
| vaccines _are_ effective against covid variants of concern.
| No need to panic.
|
| "Original Antigenic Sin Response to RNA Viruses and
| Antiviral Immunity"
|
| "Abstract: The human immune system has evolved to fight
| against foreign pathogens. It plays a central role in the
| body's defense mechanism. However, the immune memory geared
| to fight off a previously recognized pathogen, tends to
| remember an original form of the pathogen when a variant
| form subsequently invades. This has been termed 'original
| antigenic sin'. This adverse immunological effect can alter
| vaccine effectiveness and sometimes cause enhanced
| pathogenicity or additional inflammatory responses,
| according to the type of pathogen and the circumstances of
| infection. Here we aim to give a simplified conceptual
| understanding of virus infection and original antigenic sin
| by comparing and contrasting the two examples of recurring
| infections such as influenza and dengue viruses in humans."
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5086450
| greg5green wrote:
| They haven't found original antigenic sin so far. There's a
| couple links with some data (although I couldn't find a pre-
| print or published article right now) in this comment:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29005187
| angelzen wrote:
| Thanks for the links! Note that they are making variant-
| specific vaccines, not proving that variant-specific
| vaccines are effective against the target variant, if
| delivered after the original vaccine.
|
| Side note: I hope we can do better than taking at face
| value investor press releases by the biopharma corps
| producing the vaccines.
| greg5green wrote:
| >Note that they are making variant-specific vaccines, not
| proving that variant-specific vaccines are effective
| against the target variant, if delivered after the
| original vaccine.
|
| You are correct that it isn't proving vaccine efficacy,
| but it is showing a different set of antibodies created
| by the variant vaccines that are more effective at
| neutralizing the targeted variant than the antibody
| collection created by the original, WT-targeted vaccine.
|
| >Side note: I hope we can do better than taking at face
| value investor press releases by the biopharma corps
| producing the vaccines.
|
| I hate science by press release too. I wish I was better
| at bookmarking the pre-prints and journal articles I
| find/read, but they'd just be a mess I couldn't find
| anything in either :|
| blackbear_ wrote:
| > Would "the experts" please demonstrate that vaccines
| against variants are effective
|
| There's plenty of evidence that current vaccines work against
| variants:
|
| - https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7034e4.htm
|
| - https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891
|
| -
| https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(21)01057-6#%20
|
| > given that original antigenic sin is a long known and well
| documented phenomenon?
|
| This could apply both to vaccines and natural infections. Not
| sure what you are trying to say?
| angelzen wrote:
| That is not the question I asked. Furthermore the degree of
| which the current vaccines work against variants is
| dependent of the variant itself, please consult the OA.
| (Also dependent on time, but that's a separate conversation
| .)
|
| I am asking specifically if there is any hard evidence of
| vaccine effectiveness to back statements made by biopharma
| corporations about variant-specific vaccines, for example:
|
| "We have built a process that within 95 days from the day
| that we identify a variant as a variant of concern, we will
| be able to have a vaccine tailor-made against this
| variant," [Pfizer CEO] Bourla said.
|
| https://www.insider.com/pfizer-ceo-vaccine-resistant-
| coronav...
| blackbear_ wrote:
| > the degree of which the current vaccines work against
| variants is dependent of the variant itself
|
| Yes, we all know that. Follow the scientific literature
| and you will find updated vaccine assessments soon after
| a concerning variant is noticed.
|
| > "We have built a process that within 95 days from the
| day that we identify a variant as a variant of concern,
| we will be able to have a vaccine tailor-made against
| this variant," [Pfizer CEO] Bourla said.
|
| That's likely closely guarded IP, so I don't think there
| is hard evidence for that statement. But the phase I
| clinical trials for Moderna's [1] and Pfizer's [2]
| started respectively in February and April 2020, just a
| few months after covid became a problem. This is IMHO
| reasonable evidence that 95 days is a plausible lead
| time.
|
| [1] https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04283461
|
| [2] https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT04368728
| angelzen wrote:
| I find it strange to believe that 95 days are sufficient
| to assess the lifelong effects of an immunity system
| intervention.
|
| "Original Antigenic Sin: How First Exposure Shapes
| Lifelong Anti-Influenza Virus Immune Responses"
|
| https://www.jimmunol.org/content/202/2/335
| blackbear_ wrote:
| You are misunderstanding the CEO's statement. It says
| that 95 days are sufficient to make the vaccine, it does
| not mention testing. You cannot assess the lifelong
| effects of almost anything in just three months.
| angelzen wrote:
| Thanks for the correction. I find it strange to believe
| that 12 months are sufficient to assess the lifelong
| effects of an immunity system intervention.
| alex_c wrote:
| Do you mean in terms of protection, or side effects?
|
| In terms of long term protection, I don't think we really
| know yet.
|
| In terms of long term side effects - do we know of any
| past vaccines with notable side effects that only became
| known after 12+ months? Genuine question.
| angelzen wrote:
| In term of protection. For starters, if vaccine
| effectiveness were holding, there would be no need for
| boosters.
|
| A picture from a recent preprint of 600k veterans over 6
| months shows troubling VE against infection curves. J&J
| VE against infection is gone. Pfizer curve is just 2
| months behind, at 53% and dropping.
|
| https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/10/14/
| 202...
|
| https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.13.212649
| 66v...
|
| Fortunately VE against severe infection holds much better
| at 77% Pfizer for June-Sept 2021 time period. The
| clinical trials claimed 94%, so there is a drop there.
| Nobody knows what will be the VE against sever infection
| a year from now, and we appear to have decided to
| preemptively boost so we might never know.
|
| https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7037e2-H.pd
| f
|
| https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-
| deta...
|
| -----
|
| Alas, none of this takes in account future virus variants
| and their interaction with OAS. OAS means that building
| an immune response against the virus today will prove
| ineffective for a virus variant 10 years down the line.
| The worst known scenario was encountered with dengue
| fever. An excerpt from a 2011 paper summarizing the
| dengue situation:
|
| "Original antigenic sin has the advantage that a response
| can be rapidly mobilized from memory. However, the
| downside is that in some cases, such as dengue, the
| response is dominated by inferior-quality antibody. In
| influenza, original antigenic sin has been shown to
| reduce the effectiveness of vaccination (13, 34, 51). In
| dengue, the effect of original antigenic sin has
| considerable bearing on vaccine strategies. Once a
| response has been established, it is unlikely that repeat
| boosting will be able to change its scope, meaning that
| balanced responses against the four virus serotypes will
| need to be established with the first vaccine dose."
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3014204
| blackbear_ wrote:
| Uncertainty is a fact of life and decision making under
| uncertainty an important skill to be successful.
|
| And in case it is not clear, in this thread I am not
| advocating neither for or against vaccines, so we can end
| it here unless you have something of substance to add.
| didibus wrote:
| That's interesting, though the article concludes with:
|
| > Despite the persistent connotation of "sin" as a
| negative attribute, it is clear that OAS-like responses
| are neither inherently "good" nor "bad." The desirability
| of OAS responses is instead context dependent
|
| It doesn't really seem from that article like we have the
| means to predict what OAS will be most beneficial in the
| future, so I think everyone are just flipping a coin
| here. Either you get OAS from some random vaccine
| available at some point in time, or you get it from
| randomly catching some random virus at some point in
| time.
| belltaco wrote:
| They ran studeies/trials on variant vaccines they
| deveolped and found that it wasn't better enough than the
| original vaccine/booster to go to the large effort of
| rolling out a different vaccine all over again. Atleast
| for Delta and the UK variant.
| dboreham wrote:
| They said they built a process. That's a different
| assertion than that any such vaccine will be effective.
| To know that would require a time machine. That said
| these people made a lifetimes work of being as sure as
| they can that such a thing will be effective. I don't
| think we have better information or hard evidence from
| other sources.
| angelzen wrote:
| I fully agree. To prove long term vaccine effectiveness
| (original, boosters, variants, sequence thereof) we
| indeed need a time machine. In other words, we are
| running a species level grand experiment with unknown
| outcomes. That biopharma corps are planning to routinely
| launch new immune stimulants without any long term
| effectiveness data gives me pause.
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| > There's plenty of evidence that current vaccines work
| against variants:
|
| Is there any reason to be afraid of getting vaccinated?
| zzutz wrote:
| besides the fact that plenty of European countries have
| banned the use of certain vaccines because of heart
| issues?
|
| besides the fact that Fauci is responsible for funding
| bio-terrorism in Wuhan?
|
| No not really.
| didibus wrote:
| > Is there any reason to be afraid of getting vaccinated?
|
| There's plenty of reasons, do you mean to also ask how
| likely other people on the internet believe each one to
| be?
|
| For example, if you ask me, this is my personal
| assessment:
|
| Reason 1 - Vaccines could also contain microchips or
| other device for tracking, brainwashing and remote
| manipulating my body and mind by whoever mastermind is in
| charge of what goes in them.
|
| I think that's very unlikely, I'd give it a 0.00000001%
| probability. I just dont know of any possibility for such
| advanced technology. And I can think of many different
| means that you can be more cost effectively tracked,
| manipulated or brain washed. I can also think of other
| ways they could have injected you with such things.
|
| Reason 2 - The vaccines will result in worst long terms
| negative effects on your health than getting Covid.
|
| I think this is a little more likely, but given all prior
| vaccines have shown to be quite safe, and even if they
| could be responsible for some long term effects, even
| some we haven't linked back to them yet, seeing as life
| expectancy and quality of life has grown year over year
| since the introduction of vaccines, it seems the equation
| would still play in their favor.
|
| There are also more and more literature linking prior
| viruses as a possible cause of long term negative effects
| like dimentia, various auto-immune diseases, etc. So it
| would seem Covid is more likely to introduce long term
| negative effects.
|
| So I'd give it a 1% chance.
|
| Reason 3 - The vaccines will result in worst short term
| effects on your health then getting Covid.
|
| I think this one has been shown that most of the time,
| Covid is more likely to kill you or make you really sick
| as compared to vaccines.
|
| I'd give this one a 0.0001% chance.
|
| Reason 4 - Vaccines can stop your pregnancy or your
| period and make you stink
|
| I have seen zero cases of this, and everyone who's had a
| vaccine to my nose do not smell, and still have period
| and can get pregnant.
|
| I'd give this one a 0.000000000000000001% chance.
|
| There might be more reasons, but those are the ones I've
| heard most often, and this is only my personal risk
| assessment.
| bscphil wrote:
| Well said, and pretty reasonable numbers over all.
|
| The one point I'd add some clarification to is your
| .0001% chance of the vaccine having worse short term
| health effects. It's not that the number is wrong,
| exactly, it's that it's an average. It's contingent on a
| host of factors, but once you learn how rare side effects
| are, it's tempting to rhetorically bludgeon people with
| concerns over the head with this, even though in some
| cases they don't deserve it.
|
| To give the most obvious example [1]:
|
| > Some advisers were concerned that young and healthy
| Americans who don't need a booster might choose to get
| one anyway. Side effects are uncommon, but in younger
| Americans they may outweigh the potential benefits of
| booster doses, the scientists said.
|
| > "Those that are not at high risk should really be
| thoughtful about getting that dose," said Dr. Helen
| Talbot, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt
| University.
|
| That's pretty strong language suggesting that if you are
| (1) young, (2) healthy, (3) _already vaccinated_ , the
| risks _might_ outweigh the benefits of getting vaccinated
| _again_ (getting a third shot). That 's extremely
| limited, of course, but it's important not to neglect the
| striking degree to which contingent facts can modulate
| the cost / benefit analysis.
|
| [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/21/health/covid-
| vaccine-boos...
| OrvalWintermute wrote:
| > Reason 4 - Vaccines can stop your pregnancy or your
| period and make you stink
|
| > I have seen zero cases of this, and everyone who's had
| a vaccine to my nose do not smell, and still have period
| and can get pregnant.
|
| > I'd give this one a 0.000000000000000001% chance.
|
| VAERS is tracking the following:
|
| 17,128 DEATHS
|
| 83,412 HOSPITALIZATIONS
|
| 92,017 URGENT CARE
|
| 127,641 DOCTOR OFFICE VISITS
|
| 7,532 ANAPHYLAXIS
|
| 10,179 BELL'S PALSY
|
| 2,631 Miscarriages
|
| 8,408 Heart Attacks
|
| 10,304 Myocarditis/Pericarditis
|
| 26,199 Permanently Disabled
|
| 3,875 Thrombocytopenia/Low Platelet
|
| 18,925 Life Threatening
|
| 31,753 Severe Allergic Reaction
|
| 9,734 Shingles
|
| 2,631 Miscarriage
|
| 15,158 Menstrual Disorders
|
| 5,401 Vaginal/Uterine Haemorrhage (All Ages)
|
| The key question about VAERS data is, how bad is the
| under-reporting of side effects? The allegations of
| under-reporting ratios are all over the place, from as
| low as 1 to 3 undercount, to as bad as 1 to 100
| undercount.
|
| We really don't know how bad the situation is, or isn't.
| We just know there are side effects and some of them are
| non-trivial.
| quesera wrote:
| The non-crazy, non-simple faction of vaccine resistance
| argues about the likelihood of ADE, which is where the
| vaccine primes the immune system to have a larger
| reaction against some types of future infection. The
| typical dwell time before effect is something like 12-18
| months.
|
| Argument goes along the lines that "all" previous
| coronovirus vaccines were found to have ADE effects. It
| took a long time for them to show up, but the effect was
| large and the trials were abandoned.
|
| So apparently we're still all going to die. Spring/Summer
| 2022 (northern hemisphere time) will be the cataclysm.
|
| I'm inadequately gnorant to evaluate the argument on
| merits, but I find it interesting because it fits the
| classic definition of "bullshit".
| acconsta wrote:
| Moderna and Pfizer tested variant-specific (B1.351) boosters
| and found they weren't _significantly_ more-effective than a
| third dose of the original vaccine.
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01527-y
|
| This may of course change with new variants.
| greg5green wrote:
| >found they weren't more-effective than a third dose of the
| original vaccine
|
| This goes against the paper:
|
| >A boost with mRNA-1273.351 appeared to be more effective at
| neutralization of the B.1.351 virus than a boost with
| mRNA-1273, evidenced by the higher mean GMT levels in the
| Part C cohort 1 participants (1400) than the GMT Part B
| participants (864) against the B.1.351 virus. Additionally,
| the difference between the wild-type and B.1.351 assays at
| day 1 dropped from 7.7-fold prior to the boost with
| mRNA-1273.351 to 2.6-fold at 15 days after the boost.
|
| Thank you for posting this though -- I was looking for it
| earlier for my own comment and couldn't find it! Bookmarking
| now.
| nextos wrote:
| I work at an immunology lab which is next door to most of the
| Oxford vaccine group.
|
| I think the quick (and overly simplistic) answer to this
| question is that models (e.g. convolutional networks) that
| predict which chunks of viral (or human) proteins are displayed
| to immune cells (HLA presentation), along with other kinds of
| models (like those predicting crossreactivity of T cell
| receptors against mutated epitopes) are really primitive
| (mostly because of low quality training datasets, it's not
| really a hard problem like e.g. protein folding).
|
| Hence, rushing a new vaccine is not easy as there is a lot of
| labwork to do. As a matter of fact, all COVID vaccine designs
| had essentially the same payload (the whole spike protein).
| Modern subunit vaccines would typically include only little
| chunks of the spike (to increase efficiency and avoid side
| effects). But this was not trivial to do quickly without good
| in silico models.
| 323 wrote:
| Why not just update the vaccine with the corresponding
| sequence from the Delta variant? Isn't the Delta variant
| today a better baseline than the ancestral virus?
|
| Or do a mix - first shot ancestral, second shot Delta.
| nextos wrote:
| I think this is the logical thing to do, but now there are
| two new roadblocks clinical trials have to face:
|
| * It's hard to recruit non-vaccinated participants
|
| * There will be safety issues to address on people that
| have received multiple shots and / or designed against
| different strains
| greg5green wrote:
| I'm having trouble finding the paper, but I'm pretty I've seen
| a pre-print for mRNA-1273.351. This press release is the
| closest I could find on short notice:
| https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-d...
|
| Novavax has also been working on a Beta variant booster (and I
| believe has moved on to a Delta booster that hasn't started NHP
| trials yet) -- here's some info from a presentation:
| https://www.novavax.com/sites/default/files/2021-05/NVAX-WVC...
| (It's slides 17 and 18)
|
| Pfizer/BioNTech definitely has a Delta booster getting ready
| for NHP trials, but my Google Fu is lacking today, apparently.
| slimeballsz wrote:
| FAKE NEWS
|
| FAKE NEWS
|
| FAKE NEWS
| venomsnake wrote:
| The question is are outcomes in vaccinated people comparable to
| flu - if yes - we can freely ignore it. Or people that have
| natural immunity. Or unvaccinated.
|
| I have a bad feeling that with focus just on antibodies we're
| ignoring the important metrics. Which is outcomes.
| 323 wrote:
| The outcomes are pretty clear already, 10 times more official
| deaths globally compared to a bad flu. And we know the official
| death counts is under-counted by a 4x-10x factor.
| Jensson wrote:
| > And we know the official death counts is under-counted by a
| 4x-10x factor.
|
| Not even California undercounted that much and they are among
| the worst under counters in the western world, if we compare
| Covid deaths to excess mortality. Death undercounts are
| closer to 30% at worst.
| 323 wrote:
| I was speaking globally:
|
| > Taken together, the researchers found that excess deaths
| were estimated to be in the range of 3.4 million to 4.7
| million - about 10 times higher than India's official
| Covid-19 death toll.
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-57888460
| YossarianFrPrez wrote:
| If I remember correctly, that number is true of the US.
| Globally speaking, The Economist has it pegged at 3.9x. A
| far cry from 10x, but also a far cry from an undercount of
| 30%.
|
| https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-
| excess-...
| spookthesunset wrote:
| > And we know the official death counts is under-counted by a
| 4x-10x factor.
|
| Or it could be overcounted by a sizable chunk too. Nobody
| really knows the actual count and we probably won't until the
| dust settles and cooler heads prevail. The only thing we can
| do at this point is take the numbers we have at face value.
| YossarianFrPrez wrote:
| Yes, that is a possibility. But given the data on excess
| mortality, it seems unlikely.
|
| The Economist has a model worth checking out:
| https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-
| excess-...
|
| Also, I agree that focusing on the face-value numbers is a
| good call, practically speaking.
| vessenes wrote:
| It would be very surprising if death counts were
| overcounted by a lot, because excess mortality rates have
| spiked massively since COVID-19 hit the scene, and in
| general are higher than the COVID-19 reported death rates.
|
| So, for it to be overcounted, you would need to have an
| explanation for the reason that not just the recent excess
| deaths not attributed to COVID-19 have jumped so much, but
| that the 'real' causes of death have overshot and bit into
| the COVID numbers.
| slimeballsz wrote:
| Stop lying you fascist fuck.
| Jabbles wrote:
| But that question is far harder to answer than testing the
| viral proteins in a lab. You seem to be dismissing this
| research whilst suggesting they concentrate on something that
| is probably impossible, thankfully, due to the fact that this
| variant hasn't spread much.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| It is possible to determine, but only in hindsight, which is
| really the worst sort of possible.
| orra wrote:
| Sure, it's hard to test things in real world conditions, but
| that doesn't mean we should over extrapolate from in vitro
| findings. In particular, infecting cells easier in a lab
| doesn't mean the virus spreads from person to person easier.
|
| Besides, the fact this variant hasn't spread much is telling
| in and of itself! Maybe we got 'lucky'. But maybe it just
| isn't that contagious, compared to Delta.
| angelzen wrote:
| "[...] the variant A.30 [...] was detected in several patients in
| Angola and Sweden in spring 2021 and likely originated in
| Tanzania".
|
| As Western liberal democracies can't outcast "the unvaccinated"
| fast and hard enough, nobody cares to explain what exactly is the
| plan to timely vaccinate billions of people living in poor
| countries.
| slimeballsz wrote:
| TLDR: The puppy torturers want you to keep submitting to their
| totalitarian fascist wishes.
|
| Branch Covidians: We are preparing your chopper ride. You _will_
| go down.
| zzutz wrote:
| Hail Fauci!
|
| Hail Fauci!
|
| Hail Fauci!
|
| Have you been a good little nazi?
|
| Hail Fauci!
| whatanorigtht wrote:
| Hahahah sucks to be vaxxtarded.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-26 23:01 UTC)