I'm pretty surprised to still see some misinformation in some of the posts here.
I have a friend who has a PhD in molecular biology and she described the mRNA vaccines to me.
The mRNA is only a piece of the spike protein, and does not enter the cell's nucleus. It only interacts with the cytoplasm. Normally, if a cell had to deal with an actual SARS-CoV-2 virus, it would be dealing with the spike proteins and the entire virus, basically, a much higher dose, and it would also invade the actual cell.
She also described the ingredients of an mRNA vaccine, which were basically:
-mRNA (which is gone from the body in a few days)
-lipids
-salt and sugars
It's also worth noting that the mRNA does not interact with a person's actual DNA. I just don't see why there is so much concern out there. This is a potentially deadly virus. Look at the states with the highest amount of unvaccinated individuals in the US. They are running out of hospital beds [1]. This is not about taking our freedoms, this is about getting this under control.
I do agree with the other posters here that say that COVID will likely just become endemic. My understanding is that eventually it will probably be a common cold, once humans have enough antibodies for it.
I have never ever on HN seen an argument about DNA and mRNA, but then again I don't follow the conversation too much.
As it seems like you know someone with correct background on the subject, so I wanted to ask you something I've always wanted to know as a young,(late 20s) healthy person with no existing risky precondition in this pandemic:
Why should I take a vaccine, when it is now known that vaccinated people can still spread the virus, there's an almost neglible chance of side effect, and with no information about possible long-term side effect.
If the chance of me getting hospitalized is so low to begin with, what's the benefit of the vaccine to me.
It's an genuine question, as I soon have to travel (to a country that still force quarantine even with vaccine) and have vaccine session booked by next month.
With my limited info the risk vs benefits of vaccine seems to solely end on "we know too little about the vaccine".
Edit: thanks for all the thoughtful replies. It's a hard question to ask (without anonymity) these days so all the sincere replies are much appreciated. I'll read through the given links (and credibility of the link) when I wake up
The amount of times I've seen text to the extent of "mRNA does not alter DNA" vastly exceeds the amount of text I've seen that claims mRNA does alter DNA. As far as I could see nobody in this thread is claiming such a thing, so I'm genuinely curious to know why you feel the need to point it out.
>The mRNA is only a piece of the spike protein, and does not enter the cell's nucleus. It only interacts with the cytoplasm.
>it would also invade the actual cell.
Before complaining about misinformation, you might want to freshen up on your basic microbiology.
I get that this has become more about the narrative than the facts, but this comment gets quite a few fundamentals very very wrong for it to be up top with the HN crowd.
> Look at the states with the highest amount of unvaccinated individuals in the US. They are running out of hospital beds [1]. This is not about taking our freedoms, this is about getting this under control.
I can't see the article due to paywall, but based on how you're presenting I have to say: Due to the phrasing it isn't a straight lie, but it's definitely not true either and is meant to be misleading. Hospitals are not being overrun by covid patients, most of the capacity is being used by things from last year that people were putting off.
For example in the least vaccinated state, Idaho [0], most hospitals are running at around 50% capacity [1], and even then only around 10% of beds are covid-19 cases.
On top of this you have to remember that hospitals are for-profit institutions, and beds are counted not just by physical beds but by having nurses to attend to them. Empty beds cost the hospital money, so they try to run fairly full anyway. I remember reading 80-90% in the past, but have found a source [2] that says 60-70% is the average across all hospitals, and another that gets into the 80-90% range for only large hospitals [3].
I see a lot of presumptions that Covid will "become like a common cold," but what separates this from dangerous wishful thinking?
Humanity suffered from smallpox for centuries before it was finally eradicated. It's not clear that it was becoming meaningfully less severe.
Dengue is endemic in tropical regions. A reinfection often leads to severe disease.
Yellow fever did not get better over time.
We vaccinated actual measles in children somewhere close to oblivion. Pockets of vaccine resistance still lead to localized outbreaks in the US. Measles is, according to most estimates, significantly more infectious that Delta, and yet we still managed to reach crowd immunity instead of throwing up our hands and relying on hopes and prayers.
Finally, HIV is perhaps our most recent experience with a viral epidemic. If we expect Covid to turn into a cold, maybe we should expect AIDS to turn into a cold first. It has a 40-year lead!
These "nano"-bubbles of fat were advertised as nano-particles. It was just this old doctor that wanted to be cool for once but it has become a grave mistake...
That said, I don't see the current concern in that regard. People believe they will be lied to when there are counter-indications for the efficiency, that side-effects won't be reported on, that they need to provide vaccination and medical passes. And to be honest, these fears are 100% valid. It is very likely there will be media blackouts about such issues. Especially if you know a bit about politics and how people build a profile. Safety sells better than sex in politics.
And the hysteria about misinformation isn't at all conductive for real scientific debate. On the contrary, it is far more disruptive than conspiracies of any form. The self-imposed defenders of science are fools in their approach to contain information.
While there are no cures yet, there was a political campaign against substances that helped, even if the benefit was small. This should be a scandal on its own.
> My understanding is that eventually it will probably be a common cold, once humans have enough antibodies for it.
This can’t be right. Antibodies fade: for other coronaviruses within 6-12 months. They aren’t a thing the body keeps around forever.
Lasting immunity would be from memory T cells or memory T cells, if their long run response worked well and the virus didn’t change enough between infections.
I find that hard to believe, considering that these states didn't run out of hospital beds in any of the previous waves that also had higher incidence and far higher mortality.
I quote:
> "Another nine states have less than 20% of their ICU beds available."
This is still on the high end, by international standards. Optimal occupancy rate is estimated at 70-75%:
Running near capacity doesn't mean there isn't emergency capacity that can be made available, otherwise ICUs wouldn't be able to run above 100% capacity.
Whatever is causing the severe side-effects, it's probably not the MRNA or the spike protein. With Pfizer/Moderna vaccines, it's likely the lipid nanoparticles causing Myocarditis. With the J&J vaccine, it's likely the viral vector that is causing TTS.
Both technologies have never been widely deployed before. The fact that we could not predict and still do not understand these side-effects is quite concerning. It also puts into question the "COVID infection is like the vaccine only worse" narrative.
You are contradicting yourself. You say this is about getting things under control, but then you say there is no way of controlling things.
Because vaccinated people can still spread infections vaccinations, just like lockdowns, do not help ‘getting things under control’. They only delay progression of the pandemic.
You say ‘it will probably be a common cold, once humans have enough antibodies’. Humans do not get permanent antibodies from the vaccines. They get antibodies from getting infected. Lockdowns and vaccines only delay the inevitable.
The only argument there is is that vaccinated people get less seriously ill than unvaccinated people. But then it affects only themselves so it’s pretty hard to argue for schemes that force people to get vaccinated against their will.
That's because most people don't remember the basics from their Biology classes. I believe it's taught here in the US with the basics: DNA->RNA->Protein. The J&J vaccine does work with DNA I believe, so people may be confusing them?
Certain virus do in fact modify the DNA in cells[1].
From the article:
> Some types of virus, such as retroviruses, integrate their genetic material (including the new gene) into a chromosome in the human cell.
Therefore the claim that an injection of RNA could modify your DNA is possible. Whether the COVID injections do this is a different story, and seems unlikely.
I am fascinated to know what the effects are of over-vaccination. Is there some spillover effects where a highly-primed immune system begins to get into weird autoimmune reactions? Do weird plaques develop or a build-up of antibodies begin to form in random parts of the body, like in a blood dyscrasia? Or does nothing happen?
Chronic vaccine overdoses are so exotic, as access to vaccines had been historically so tightly controlled, and it’s unlikely that someone would routinely subject themselves to daily/weekly IM injections.
Edit: After seeing a few responses, I meant to say that my curiosity is for vaccine doses way over and above what might be comparable to current practices with annual vaccinations.
A lot of people get a flu shot every year so on the level of abstraction of "a vaccine" it's not that big of a problem. These vaccines are slightly more side effecty than the average flu shot (flu shots don't usually make you feel as bad for the day or two after the shot) so who knows.
It's not unusual to get very large numbers of lifetime doses of flu vaccines, and people frequently get quite a few doses of the tetanus vaccine. As far as I know, nothing goes wrong, although I've heard that side effects from tetanus vaccines are more likely if doses are administered too close together.
Annual flu jabs aren't exactly uncommon. Obviously the mechanism isn't quite the same but there's no real reason to expect a high chance of issues at that rate of revaccination.
Vaccination of the population affects how the virus mutate, that's why some scientist are pushing for more research on viral medicine and hospitalization therapy and not to force vaccinate the world.
It's still an evolving process so we will find out the numbers soon.
I'm not an expert, but my intuition is that it shouldn't be a big deal since vaccines are meant to start your body's response to a pathogen. I'm sure we build antibodies to all kind of weak baby viruses all the time throughout our lives without even knowing it.
Assuming it's only as effective as the original two-dose shot and prevents for the same duration, it seems like COVID will never go away. Assuming the current trend and a 9 month prevention, that pretty much aligns to what happened last year. So we'd need no new significant variants to develop or any outbreaks. Seems unlikely given that there are many countries with vaccination rates under 50%
Probably better to focus on the minimum number of vaccinations necessary to make hospitalization/death unlikely and move on from there. Preventing infection might be too high a bar to meet now.
I have little understanding of this but someone who actually works on vaccines told me this theory: Your body upon coming in contact with the vaccine starts to product antibodies (the first shot). This is generally enough for a normal immune system to fight the disease if in the future the body was to come in contact with the virus. The second shot is for hyper immunity after 4 weeks. What it does is that it basically tells your body make a lot more antibodies now and the second shot is actually a booster shot. So every time you take a shot afterwards (like in the middle of a pandemic) your body produces an abundance of antibodies and will likely fend off the virus much more easily than if there was no booster dose of any kind and just a vaccine shot. This is important because simply protecting your body from the virus is not enough since you could be carrying the virus and spreading it with mild infection which will not be a problem for you but will not protect others and so the hyperimmunity is important for preventing spread during a wave. I won’t be surprised if this one is a yearly dose as you need to be hyperimmune to not show symptoms and spread.
I'm starting to feel that when people protest things they disagree with that it has less to do with the actual issue than with a desire to voice a contrary opinion in general.
I suspect that the opposition—even anger sometimes—is a lot less about vaccines, or abortion than some other unmet need that finds expression though this kind of opposition.
And I also think that even discussing these issues with the intent to persuade is futile and giving the protesters exactly what they are seeking.
I think it's deeply ironic that an army of well intentioned people fan out on the internet to 'educate' people who are against X actually end up giving the protesters what they actually want, free therapy for some sort of frustrated need to be heard.¹
Even funnier is that both sides are playing out this psychodrama while being completely ignorant of the actual motivations behind their behaviour.
1. Or maybe the need to exercise the power expressed by holding an entire state or country hostage via a virus...?
I would love to see more research on whether a different/better vaccine could provide stronger or longer lasting immunity. There are a whole lot of mechanisms by which a vaccine might produce immunity (antibodies, memory B cells that can produce antibodies if needed, various forms of T cells, and probably mechanisms that haven't been discovered or understood yet.) It seems that most research on immunity focuses on antibodies in blood, and I think this is just because they are relatively easy to measure.
I haven't seen anything suggesting that mRNA vaccines are especially good as compared to other vaccines. mRNA vaccines were quick to develop given all the past work that had been done, but that isn't the same thing as being good once developed and mass-produced. Novavax's subunit vaccine did extremely well in trials, and it's mostly old technology.
Are there useful studies of the efficacy of the J&J and AZ vaccines over time? Those are newish technology, too.
I’m curious if we have data wrt to safety and approval process length. How fast (in terms of trial - size and duration) - can we go on approvals without compromising safety? Maybe a progressive approval is best. Approve for x% of population for next n months then study the data and lift limits. What if it was dangerous that we went from 0-100 with the current round of vaccines?
The headline doesn't quite do the article justice.
Boosters in this one study reduced measured infection (they didn't measure actual hospitalization/disease!) by some amount in the very short term.
But experts say this tells us very little about what effect they will have over even months, instead of weeks/days.
Last paragraph:
> If the booster’s additional immunity fades quickly, or if the booster campaign distracts from surveillance efforts or from reaching people who have not been vaccinated at all, Dowdy says, the effort will have little long-term impact: “We need longer term data before we can say that giving people boosters at any given interval is the right strategy.”
A question to consider is, how to we move from pandemic to endemic? COVID-19 isn't going away and will join the other endemic viruses like chicken pox, the other widely out there coronaviruses, etc.
When will we stop seeing this vague click-baity titles?
"new studies suggest" - not conclusive.
"Protection increases in the weeks following a third dose, but it’s unclear how long the effect will last"
"by more than 10-fold 2 weeks later."
After the first paragraph, it was only established that it provides short term immunity against Delta variant. How long will it last? How well will it do against other variants? Also, the demographic receiving booster shot in Israel are mostly elderly. So this impressive infection rate drop was observed only in older demographic. The effect probably won't be as good among younger generations. Repeated vaccination adds more risk, even if it is small per dose, it is being accumulated. Can we keep up with booster shots every six months? Even flu shot is only once a year and choosing next year flu shot strain is a year long challenge.
I am absolutely pro-vaccine, but can someone help me work through the relative risk calculations here?
Vaccine:
-?% reduction in likelihood of infection (there is currently no monitored control group and no transparent dataset that accurately accounts for baseline infection rates, geographical and demographic variation, etc.)
-?% chance of ?% reduction in severity of disease (there is no empirical evidence that has been consistent across time and location, especially as the virus mutates. All the data I've seen is aggregated across the entire vaccination campaign, never accounting for changing rate of vaccinated vs changes in baseline infection rate in each location)
-?% chance of acute vaccine side effects (VAERS unreliable, no transparent alternative dataset accessible to the public)
-?% risk of future unknown long-term effects of vaccination (including unpredictable outcomes like ADE)
-100% chance of assuming above risk of unknown long-term vaccine side effects (simply no data available by definition)
-?% chance of getting breakthrough infected with COVID-19 if exposed (I haven't seen any challenge studies, probably not possible for ethical reasons)
-?% risk of future long-term effects for recovered breakthrough infections (again, no data available. only time will tell whether breakthrough infections are less likely to lead to potential long-term effects than unvaccinated recovered infections)
-each additional vaccine booster dose adds ?% cumulative risk of both acute and long-term side effects, with no indication that boosters will ever end.
No Vaccine:
-0% chance of reduction in severity of disease
-0% chance of acute vaccine side effects
-0% chance of long-term vaccine side effects
-?% chance of getting infected and assuming a ?% risk of future long-term effects of recovered infection (my risk of getting infected is low and partially under my own control since I don't travel, work from home, self-isolate, etc)
Am I missing anything?
Even if I am relatively confident that the vaccine reduces the likelihood of infection and the severity of infection significantly and will continue to do so for variants (the data suggests this, though it less transparent than I would like, since there is no publicly accessible unaggregated dataset (e.g. infection rates for vaxxed vs unvaxxed starting AFTER 50% vaccination rate in a given region, there is no longer a control group and all "natural" control groups suffer from inherent geographical and demographic biases)
It seems to me that the number of unknowns makes the risk calculation much harder than people are making it out to be, but I would be very happy to to hear considered, thoughtful counterpoints to the above.
I was unaware Isreal repaired their relationship with Pfizer.
Last I saw Israel was trying to stiff Pfizer for 2.5 million doses and Pfizer execs were calling Israel a 'banana republic' and were going to cut them off entirely.
How much time before this flawed study is retracted ? Who pays for it ? Who gets the money when booster after booster is inefective ? Most grave cases in Israel are vaccinated people. Number of cases exploded since population is mostly vaccinated. Wake up people. You're being lied to in a major way. Don't let your intelligence be insulted any more.
My understanding is that if you've had a two-shot series you should get a third shot within 12 months of your second in order to extend immunity for a significant period of time. I'm hoping boosters are offered for Pfizer & Moderna soon, because most people I know are fully vaccinated but also aware that COVID is basically endemic at this point.
[+] [-] hackingforfun|4 years ago|reply
I have a friend who has a PhD in molecular biology and she described the mRNA vaccines to me.
The mRNA is only a piece of the spike protein, and does not enter the cell's nucleus. It only interacts with the cytoplasm. Normally, if a cell had to deal with an actual SARS-CoV-2 virus, it would be dealing with the spike proteins and the entire virus, basically, a much higher dose, and it would also invade the actual cell.
She also described the ingredients of an mRNA vaccine, which were basically:
-mRNA (which is gone from the body in a few days)
-lipids
-salt and sugars
It's also worth noting that the mRNA does not interact with a person's actual DNA. I just don't see why there is so much concern out there. This is a potentially deadly virus. Look at the states with the highest amount of unvaccinated individuals in the US. They are running out of hospital beds [1]. This is not about taking our freedoms, this is about getting this under control.
I do agree with the other posters here that say that COVID will likely just become endemic. My understanding is that eventually it will probably be a common cold, once humans have enough antibodies for it.
[1] https://fortune.com/2021/08/25/states-icu-beds-covid-cases-d...
[+] [-] NalNezumi|4 years ago|reply
As it seems like you know someone with correct background on the subject, so I wanted to ask you something I've always wanted to know as a young,(late 20s) healthy person with no existing risky precondition in this pandemic:
Why should I take a vaccine, when it is now known that vaccinated people can still spread the virus, there's an almost neglible chance of side effect, and with no information about possible long-term side effect. If the chance of me getting hospitalized is so low to begin with, what's the benefit of the vaccine to me.
It's an genuine question, as I soon have to travel (to a country that still force quarantine even with vaccine) and have vaccine session booked by next month.
With my limited info the risk vs benefits of vaccine seems to solely end on "we know too little about the vaccine".
Edit: thanks for all the thoughtful replies. It's a hard question to ask (without anonymity) these days so all the sincere replies are much appreciated. I'll read through the given links (and credibility of the link) when I wake up
[+] [-] bondarchuk|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beerandt|4 years ago|reply
>it would also invade the actual cell.
Before complaining about misinformation, you might want to freshen up on your basic microbiology.
I get that this has become more about the narrative than the facts, but this comment gets quite a few fundamentals very very wrong for it to be up top with the HN crowd.
[+] [-] bluedevil2k|4 years ago|reply
The mRNA produces a piece of the spike protein once inside the cell, it’s not the protein itself.
[+] [-] Izkata|4 years ago|reply
> [1] https://fortune.com/2021/08/25/states-icu-beds-covid-cases-d...
I can't see the article due to paywall, but based on how you're presenting I have to say: Due to the phrasing it isn't a straight lie, but it's definitely not true either and is meant to be misleading. Hospitals are not being overrun by covid patients, most of the capacity is being used by things from last year that people were putting off.
For example in the least vaccinated state, Idaho [0], most hospitals are running at around 50% capacity [1], and even then only around 10% of beds are covid-19 cases.
On top of this you have to remember that hospitals are for-profit institutions, and beds are counted not just by physical beds but by having nurses to attend to them. Empty beds cost the hospital money, so they try to run fairly full anyway. I remember reading 80-90% in the past, but have found a source [2] that says 60-70% is the average across all hospitals, and another that gets into the 80-90% range for only large hospitals [3].
[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2021-07-27/...
[1] https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity...
[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/185904/hospital-occupanc...
[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4191350/
[+] [-] legerdemain|4 years ago|reply
Humanity suffered from smallpox for centuries before it was finally eradicated. It's not clear that it was becoming meaningfully less severe.
Dengue is endemic in tropical regions. A reinfection often leads to severe disease.
Yellow fever did not get better over time.
We vaccinated actual measles in children somewhere close to oblivion. Pockets of vaccine resistance still lead to localized outbreaks in the US. Measles is, according to most estimates, significantly more infectious that Delta, and yet we still managed to reach crowd immunity instead of throwing up our hands and relying on hopes and prayers.
Finally, HIV is perhaps our most recent experience with a viral epidemic. If we expect Covid to turn into a cold, maybe we should expect AIDS to turn into a cold first. It has a 40-year lead!
[+] [-] raxxorrax|4 years ago|reply
These "nano"-bubbles of fat were advertised as nano-particles. It was just this old doctor that wanted to be cool for once but it has become a grave mistake...
That said, I don't see the current concern in that regard. People believe they will be lied to when there are counter-indications for the efficiency, that side-effects won't be reported on, that they need to provide vaccination and medical passes. And to be honest, these fears are 100% valid. It is very likely there will be media blackouts about such issues. Especially if you know a bit about politics and how people build a profile. Safety sells better than sex in politics.
And the hysteria about misinformation isn't at all conductive for real scientific debate. On the contrary, it is far more disruptive than conspiracies of any form. The self-imposed defenders of science are fools in their approach to contain information.
While there are no cures yet, there was a political campaign against substances that helped, even if the benefit was small. This should be a scandal on its own.
[+] [-] graeme|4 years ago|reply
This can’t be right. Antibodies fade: for other coronaviruses within 6-12 months. They aren’t a thing the body keeps around forever.
Lasting immunity would be from memory T cells or memory T cells, if their long run response worked well and the virus didn’t change enough between infections.
[+] [-] av3csr|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] incrudible|4 years ago|reply
I find that hard to believe, considering that these states didn't run out of hospital beds in any of the previous waves that also had higher incidence and far higher mortality.
I quote:
> "Another nine states have less than 20% of their ICU beds available."
This is still on the high end, by international standards. Optimal occupancy rate is estimated at 70-75%:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24373914/
Running near capacity doesn't mean there isn't emergency capacity that can be made available, otherwise ICUs wouldn't be able to run above 100% capacity.
[+] [-] incrudible|4 years ago|reply
Both technologies have never been widely deployed before. The fact that we could not predict and still do not understand these side-effects is quite concerning. It also puts into question the "COVID infection is like the vaccine only worse" narrative.
[+] [-] tinus_hn|4 years ago|reply
Because vaccinated people can still spread infections vaccinations, just like lockdowns, do not help ‘getting things under control’. They only delay progression of the pandemic.
You say ‘it will probably be a common cold, once humans have enough antibodies’. Humans do not get permanent antibodies from the vaccines. They get antibodies from getting infected. Lockdowns and vaccines only delay the inevitable.
The only argument there is is that vaccinated people get less seriously ill than unvaccinated people. But then it affects only themselves so it’s pretty hard to argue for schemes that force people to get vaccinated against their will.
[+] [-] dfawcus|4 years ago|reply
and with the AZ vaccine, due to the vector chosen, supposedly it (spike protein) does enter the nucleus. Oops.
(note I'm not suggesting the AZ vaccine causes any alteration of our DNA)
[+] [-] vondur|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GuB-42|4 years ago|reply
https://pdb101.rcsb.org/sci-art/goodsell-gallery/sars-cov-2-...
Check the rest of the site, he does awesome watercolor illustrations of microbiology. Including of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself ( https://pdb101.rcsb.org/sci-art/goodsell-gallery/sars-cov-2-... )
[+] [-] manofmanysmiles|4 years ago|reply
From the article:
> Some types of virus, such as retroviruses, integrate their genetic material (including the new gene) into a chromosome in the human cell.
Therefore the claim that an injection of RNA could modify your DNA is possible. Whether the COVID injections do this is a different story, and seems unlikely.
[1] https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/therapy/proce...
[+] [-] vfclists|4 years ago|reply
SARS-CoV-2 RNA reverse-transcribed and integrated into the human genome
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33330870/
[+] [-] charbonneau|4 years ago|reply
Continues with anecdote of conversation with anonymous molecular biology PhD.
-
Isn't that the optimal breeding ground for misinformation?
[+] [-] andred14|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] xyzzy21|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] xattt|4 years ago|reply
Chronic vaccine overdoses are so exotic, as access to vaccines had been historically so tightly controlled, and it’s unlikely that someone would routinely subject themselves to daily/weekly IM injections.
Edit: After seeing a few responses, I meant to say that my curiosity is for vaccine doses way over and above what might be comparable to current practices with annual vaccinations.
[+] [-] whatshisface|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amluto|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tenoke|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ezconnect|4 years ago|reply
It's still an evolving process so we will find out the numbers soon.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] zeku|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lm28469|4 years ago|reply
> build-up of antibodies begin to form in random parts of the body
Real curious: do these things exist in the first place ? Plaques of what ? Where in the body ?
I've never heard of antibody build up and google neither apparently
[+] [-] endisneigh|4 years ago|reply
Probably better to focus on the minimum number of vaccinations necessary to make hospitalization/death unlikely and move on from there. Preventing infection might be too high a bar to meet now.
[+] [-] tumblewit|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] serial_dev|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gerbilly|4 years ago|reply
I suspect that the opposition—even anger sometimes—is a lot less about vaccines, or abortion than some other unmet need that finds expression though this kind of opposition.
And I also think that even discussing these issues with the intent to persuade is futile and giving the protesters exactly what they are seeking.
I think it's deeply ironic that an army of well intentioned people fan out on the internet to 'educate' people who are against X actually end up giving the protesters what they actually want, free therapy for some sort of frustrated need to be heard.¹
Even funnier is that both sides are playing out this psychodrama while being completely ignorant of the actual motivations behind their behaviour.
1. Or maybe the need to exercise the power expressed by holding an entire state or country hostage via a virus...?
[+] [-] amluto|4 years ago|reply
I haven't seen anything suggesting that mRNA vaccines are especially good as compared to other vaccines. mRNA vaccines were quick to develop given all the past work that had been done, but that isn't the same thing as being good once developed and mass-produced. Novavax's subunit vaccine did extremely well in trials, and it's mostly old technology.
Are there useful studies of the efficacy of the J&J and AZ vaccines over time? Those are newish technology, too.
[+] [-] DSingularity|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrochkind1|4 years ago|reply
Boosters in this one study reduced measured infection (they didn't measure actual hospitalization/disease!) by some amount in the very short term.
But experts say this tells us very little about what effect they will have over even months, instead of weeks/days.
Last paragraph:
> If the booster’s additional immunity fades quickly, or if the booster campaign distracts from surveillance efforts or from reaching people who have not been vaccinated at all, Dowdy says, the effort will have little long-term impact: “We need longer term data before we can say that giving people boosters at any given interval is the right strategy.”
[+] [-] mfer|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] YeBanKo|4 years ago|reply
"Protection increases in the weeks following a third dose, but it’s unclear how long the effect will last"
"by more than 10-fold 2 weeks later."
After the first paragraph, it was only established that it provides short term immunity against Delta variant. How long will it last? How well will it do against other variants? Also, the demographic receiving booster shot in Israel are mostly elderly. So this impressive infection rate drop was observed only in older demographic. The effect probably won't be as good among younger generations. Repeated vaccination adds more risk, even if it is small per dose, it is being accumulated. Can we keep up with booster shots every six months? Even flu shot is only once a year and choosing next year flu shot strain is a year long challenge.
[+] [-] cuspy|4 years ago|reply
Vaccine: -?% reduction in likelihood of infection (there is currently no monitored control group and no transparent dataset that accurately accounts for baseline infection rates, geographical and demographic variation, etc.)
-?% chance of ?% reduction in severity of disease (there is no empirical evidence that has been consistent across time and location, especially as the virus mutates. All the data I've seen is aggregated across the entire vaccination campaign, never accounting for changing rate of vaccinated vs changes in baseline infection rate in each location)
-?% chance of acute vaccine side effects (VAERS unreliable, no transparent alternative dataset accessible to the public)
-?% risk of future unknown long-term effects of vaccination (including unpredictable outcomes like ADE)
-100% chance of assuming above risk of unknown long-term vaccine side effects (simply no data available by definition)
-?% chance of getting breakthrough infected with COVID-19 if exposed (I haven't seen any challenge studies, probably not possible for ethical reasons)
-?% risk of future long-term effects for recovered breakthrough infections (again, no data available. only time will tell whether breakthrough infections are less likely to lead to potential long-term effects than unvaccinated recovered infections)
-each additional vaccine booster dose adds ?% cumulative risk of both acute and long-term side effects, with no indication that boosters will ever end.
No Vaccine: -0% chance of reduction in severity of disease
-0% chance of acute vaccine side effects
-0% chance of long-term vaccine side effects
-?% chance of getting infected and assuming a ?% risk of future long-term effects of recovered infection (my risk of getting infected is low and partially under my own control since I don't travel, work from home, self-isolate, etc)
Am I missing anything?
Even if I am relatively confident that the vaccine reduces the likelihood of infection and the severity of infection significantly and will continue to do so for variants (the data suggests this, though it less transparent than I would like, since there is no publicly accessible unaggregated dataset (e.g. infection rates for vaxxed vs unvaxxed starting AFTER 50% vaccination rate in a given region, there is no longer a control group and all "natural" control groups suffer from inherent geographical and demographic biases)
It seems to me that the number of unknowns makes the risk calculation much harder than people are making it out to be, but I would be very happy to to hear considered, thoughtful counterpoints to the above.
[+] [-] kjaftaedi|4 years ago|reply
Last I saw Israel was trying to stiff Pfizer for 2.5 million doses and Pfizer execs were calling Israel a 'banana republic' and were going to cut them off entirely.
[+] [-] jojo2000|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tristor|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andred14|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] taxicabjesus|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rgbbtc4life|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] swader999|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] vkou|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dang|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pwned1|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Revenant-15|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]