5 ms·

Exactly this. Insofar as the vaccines actually worked to protect people who had never acquired SARS-2, an even somewhat vaccine-evading mutation has a sizeable

Exactly this. Insofar as the vaccines actually worked to protect people who had never acquired SARS-2, an even somewhat vaccine-evading mutation has a sizeable population of real-SARS-2-naive individuals to spread through (i.e. the vaccinated who never had natural infection). This is why I and others have opposed the concept of mass vaccination for an endemic highly-spreading respiratory virus. It simply doesn't make sense unless you can develop a vaccine comparable to natural immunity (both in magnitude of immune response but also robustness/resiliency to mutations; over the long-term the current vaccines offer neither). SARS-2's risk is incredibly well bounded; we have a great idea of who is truly vulnerable and who would have to get struck by lightning 8 times in a row to be seriously harmed. We should have recognized that fact from the beginning; but recognizing that fact runs counter to the narrative required to scare the whole population enough to accept lockdowns/etc.

loopz 5y ago
That fantasy vaccine doesn't exist, and what if it triggers auto-immune syndrome?
- __blockcipher__ 5y ago
  I mean, I agree. I have serious concerns about the potential for over-sensitizing the adaptive immune system, even with the current vaccines. I also fundamentally disagree with vaccinating just against the spike protein rather than the whole virus (particularly given how immunogenic and therefore pathogenic the spike is; we're injecting [genetic material that codes for] the most dangerous part of the virus with these vaccines IMO) I'm just pointing out how effective the vaccines would have to be for this strategy to make sense (and that's ignoring the whole matter of people that refuse to get vaccinated against COVID, like me). Simply put the whole strategy doesn't make sense on utilitarian grounds. I don't need to invoke any libertarian principles to argue against why this is so insane. Side tangent: Unfortunately many who are on my side of the fence as far as skepticism of mass vaccination, believe equally absurd things like the notion that we can eradicate SARS-2 by having the whole world all take ivermectin at the same time. This idea was non-ironically advocated for by Bret Weinstein...

loopz 5y ago

That fantasy vaccine doesn't exist, and what if it triggers auto-immune syndrome?

__blockcipher__ 5y ago
I mean, I agree. I have serious concerns about the potential for over-sensitizing the adaptive immune system, even with the current vaccines. I also fundamentally disagree with vaccinating just against the spike protein rather than the whole virus (particularly given how immunogenic and therefore pathogenic the spike is; we're injecting [genetic material that codes for] the most dangerous part of the virus with these vaccines IMO) I'm just pointing out how effective the vaccines would have to be for this strategy to make sense (and that's ignoring the whole matter of people that refuse to get vaccinated against COVID, like me). Simply put the whole strategy doesn't make sense on utilitarian grounds. I don't need to invoke any libertarian principles to argue against why this is so insane. Side tangent: Unfortunately many who are on my side of the fence as far as skepticism of mass vaccination, believe equally absurd things like the notion that we can eradicate SARS-2 by having the whole world all take ivermectin at the same time. This idea was non-ironically advocated for by Bret Weinstein...