8 ms·

I hate to be that person, but I'm personally more worried about the virus mutating under the increased selection pressure. We only defeated polio with a >99% ef

I hate to be that person, but I'm personally more worried about the virus mutating under the increased selection pressure. We only defeated polio with a >99% effective vaccine, and the research for this vaccine isn't even available.

Turing_Machine 6y ago
Unlike older vaccines (such as polio vaccine) which generally used weakened or killed whole virus particles (and which occasionally produced infectious cases, due to the virus not being as weak or dead as intended), this vaccine contains no whole virus particles and thus cannot result in an infectious case. It contains RNA that cause the patient's cells to emit proteins normally produced by the viral infection (which can then be recognized by the immune system), but contains none of the genetic material required to produce standalone infectious virus particles. This is a new thing; these will the first vaccines using this technology to be approved. The chairman likely isn't worried about the vaccine itself producing infections, but rather does not know whether a vaccinated patient might also develop an active infection before the vaccine takes effect.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  Not that I agree with GPs concern, but this comment doesn't address it whatsoever.
  - Turing_Machine 6y ago
    It absolutely does address it. The Pfizer chairman is saying he doesn't know whether you can get a spreadable COVID-19 infection after the vaccine has been administered, but before it takes full effect. That's an entirely different thing from the vaccination CAUSING an infectious case of COVID-19.
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      > That's an entirely different thing from the vaccination CAUSING an infectious case of COVID-19. If you read carefully, you'd see that's not the concern.
- FruityCoconut 6y ago
  There is absolutely 0% chance I'll be letting that anywhere near my family. And I was a biomedical scientist formerly. Over my dead body (one way or another).
  - Shared404 6y ago
    > There is absolutely 0% chance I'll be letting that anywhere near my family. I hope any children you may have are 18. > And I was a biomedical scientist formerly. Well we can see why it was formerly. > Over my dead body (one way or another). Could we maybe avoid putting others at risk?
    - FruityCoconut 6y ago
      >Could we maybe avoid putting others at risk? I agree. Let's not inject people with experimental vaccines rushed to market under significant political pressure. Let's not pressure strangers' decisions either way. Far more money in this career path. I've made more some days writing junk code than I ever made in a year in a lab. It's easy to see why some scientists might be incentivised by external factors...
      - Shared404 6y ago
        > Let's not inject people with experimental vaccines rushed to market under significant political pressure. I'm less worried about political pressure, and more worried about the very real pressure being applied by the virus. There have been tests which have been safe thus far, and in my opinion there is less risk in moving forward with testing and distribution of the vaccines then not doing so. > Let's not pressure strangers' decisions either way. I'm of mixed feelings on this, and my overall opinion is that it depends on who all is able to take the vaccine. If there are few restrictions, maybe this would be okay. However, if there are enough restrictions that there will be a sizable number of people who cannot take it, we need to get as many as possible out to try to protect them. [Edit: This is referring to legal pressure. I am of the opinion that it is not unreasonable to encourage others to take vaccines if they are able.] > Far more money in this career path. I've made more some days writing junk code than I ever made in a year in a lab. It's easy to see why some scientists might be incentivised by external factors... First of all, I'd like to apologize for my ad hominem attack earlier. That was uncalled for. Second, I find it hard to believe that scientists would be pushed to do something actually dangerous on this sort of scale, and like I said earlier, I find the idea of not combating the virus more dangerous then moving forward as quickly with vaccines as can be safely done. However, it's quite possible that I just have too much faith left in humanity.
saalweachter 6y ago
Is this really a concern? Pruning gene lines from the gene pool only benefits the surviving individuals if it leaves resources on the table for these survivors to be fruitful and multiply, growing to exploit their new niche. If there are variants of COVID-19 the vaccine doesn't protect against, is there any reason to think they would have been crowded out by the original variants? Wouldn't their ability to bypass immunity to the original version apply equally well to the immunity gained as a result of sickness as to the immunity gained from a vaccine?
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  > immunity gained from a vaccine 99% effectiveness from natural immunity vs 90-95% for vaccine
  - saalweachter 6y ago
    Yeah, but isn't that the vaccine only provoking an immune response that leads to immunity in 90-95% of the people to whom it is administered? Not that the immunity, when gained, is less?
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      This is a relevant and good question that I don't know the answer to.
- solinent 6y ago
  I have no clue, I'm not an expert. I just don't see any discussion on this topic and it concerns me. Historically, I don't see any vaccine which was effective against such a virulent virus, unless it had a much higher rate of immunity. I'd gamble on 5% odds if the reward was high enough, so 95% immunity sounds good but it's only half as strong 97.5% immunity, for example. I do know that the immunity may only be temporary--1 out of 20 cases of the most virulent strains may then have a larger substrate to mutate within, but I'm not sure if you can get many strains at once, for example. I do know that the flu mutates each year, and I guess I'm basing this whole "increased selection pressure could cause more mutations" on that fact. When there is less available space for the virus to propagate, it's only chance of survival is to be able to infect those who are already immune. In my opinion, we have an immune system crisis here--we need to focus on eating better and exercising more: we have to fight this virus with every tool we've got, but if we wait a few more months it's possible that we'll get a stronger vaccine. I suspect that's why it ended sooner in certain places--I doubt any measure we can take have had any real effect due to the virulence of COVID--it's in the air and on surfaces and lives there for days, and is transmitted by asymptomatic carriers--so your uber eats driver driving in their car with the AC will infect your food etc.

Turing_Machine 6y ago

Unlike older vaccines (such as polio vaccine) which generally used weakened or killed whole virus particles (and which occasionally produced infectious cases, due to the virus not being as weak or dead as intended), this vaccine contains no whole virus particles and thus cannot result in an infectious case. It contains RNA that cause the patient's cells to emit proteins normally produced by the viral infection (which can then be recognized by the immune system), but contains none of the genetic material required to produce standalone infectious virus particles. This is a new thing; these will the first vaccines using this technology to be approved. The chairman likely isn't worried about the vaccine itself producing infections, but rather does not know whether a vaccinated patient might also develop an active infection before the vaccine takes effect.

whimsicalism 6y ago
Not that I agree with GPs concern, but this comment doesn't address it whatsoever.
- Turing_Machine 6y ago
  It absolutely does address it. The Pfizer chairman is saying he doesn't know whether you can get a spreadable COVID-19 infection after the vaccine has been administered, but before it takes full effect. That's an entirely different thing from the vaccination CAUSING an infectious case of COVID-19.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    > That's an entirely different thing from the vaccination CAUSING an infectious case of COVID-19. If you read carefully, you'd see that's not the concern.
FruityCoconut 6y ago
There is absolutely 0% chance I'll be letting that anywhere near my family. And I was a biomedical scientist formerly. Over my dead body (one way or another).
- Shared404 6y ago
  > There is absolutely 0% chance I'll be letting that anywhere near my family. I hope any children you may have are 18. > And I was a biomedical scientist formerly. Well we can see why it was formerly. > Over my dead body (one way or another). Could we maybe avoid putting others at risk?
  - FruityCoconut 6y ago
    >Could we maybe avoid putting others at risk? I agree. Let's not inject people with experimental vaccines rushed to market under significant political pressure. Let's not pressure strangers' decisions either way. Far more money in this career path. I've made more some days writing junk code than I ever made in a year in a lab. It's easy to see why some scientists might be incentivised by external factors...
    - Shared404 6y ago
      > Let's not inject people with experimental vaccines rushed to market under significant political pressure. I'm less worried about political pressure, and more worried about the very real pressure being applied by the virus. There have been tests which have been safe thus far, and in my opinion there is less risk in moving forward with testing and distribution of the vaccines then not doing so. > Let's not pressure strangers' decisions either way. I'm of mixed feelings on this, and my overall opinion is that it depends on who all is able to take the vaccine. If there are few restrictions, maybe this would be okay. However, if there are enough restrictions that there will be a sizable number of people who cannot take it, we need to get as many as possible out to try to protect them. [Edit: This is referring to legal pressure. I am of the opinion that it is not unreasonable to encourage others to take vaccines if they are able.] > Far more money in this career path. I've made more some days writing junk code than I ever made in a year in a lab. It's easy to see why some scientists might be incentivised by external factors... First of all, I'd like to apologize for my ad hominem attack earlier. That was uncalled for. Second, I find it hard to believe that scientists would be pushed to do something actually dangerous on this sort of scale, and like I said earlier, I find the idea of not combating the virus more dangerous then moving forward as quickly with vaccines as can be safely done. However, it's quite possible that I just have too much faith left in humanity.

saalweachter 6y ago

Is this really a concern? Pruning gene lines from the gene pool only benefits the surviving individuals if it leaves resources on the table for these survivors to be fruitful and multiply, growing to exploit their new niche. If there are variants of COVID-19 the vaccine doesn't protect against, is there any reason to think they would have been crowded out by the original variants? Wouldn't their ability to bypass immunity to the original version apply equally well to the immunity gained as a result of sickness as to the immunity gained from a vaccine?

whimsicalism 6y ago
> immunity gained from a vaccine 99% effectiveness from natural immunity vs 90-95% for vaccine
- saalweachter 6y ago
  Yeah, but isn't that the vaccine only provoking an immune response that leads to immunity in 90-95% of the people to whom it is administered? Not that the immunity, when gained, is less?
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    This is a relevant and good question that I don't know the answer to.
solinent 6y ago
I have no clue, I'm not an expert. I just don't see any discussion on this topic and it concerns me. Historically, I don't see any vaccine which was effective against such a virulent virus, unless it had a much higher rate of immunity. I'd gamble on 5% odds if the reward was high enough, so 95% immunity sounds good but it's only half as strong 97.5% immunity, for example. I do know that the immunity may only be temporary--1 out of 20 cases of the most virulent strains may then have a larger substrate to mutate within, but I'm not sure if you can get many strains at once, for example. I do know that the flu mutates each year, and I guess I'm basing this whole "increased selection pressure could cause more mutations" on that fact. When there is less available space for the virus to propagate, it's only chance of survival is to be able to infect those who are already immune. In my opinion, we have an immune system crisis here--we need to focus on eating better and exercising more: we have to fight this virus with every tool we've got, but if we wait a few more months it's possible that we'll get a stronger vaccine. I suspect that's why it ended sooner in certain places--I doubt any measure we can take have had any real effect due to the virulence of COVID--it's in the air and on surfaces and lives there for days, and is transmitted by asymptomatic carriers--so your uber eats driver driving in their car with the AC will infect your food etc.