CV19 - The Anti Vaxxers Are Back
Discussion
gizlaroc said:
isaldiri said:
It is far from a good post. It's completely riddled with heaps of very obvious mistakes that the poster thinks repeating enough times might then make it true.
Go on then. gizlaroc said:
You should only use non neutralising vaccines, vaccines that don't make you immune just make the effects less severe, when a virus is not running wild in the eco system.
It should be used as a preventative measure, to allow the body to recognise the type of virus and have some sort of immunity to it at a later date.
You are going to have to explain what a 'non neutralising vaccine'. It should be used as a preventative measure, to allow the body to recognise the type of virus and have some sort of immunity to it at a later date.
Assuming you meant 'non sterilising vaccine', well a vaccine can't do what your immune system response isn't going to do. Measles infection and vaccines generate lifelong sterilising infection. Covid very obviously is not going to do so as antibody titers that enable sterilising infection almost certainly do not remain at high enough levels to do so after a period of time. If you have a problem with non lifetime sterilising immunity then you are going to have to stop everyone from being infected ever and start supporting zerocovid.
gizlaroc said:
It should be used as a preventative measure, to allow the body to recognise the type of virus and have some sort of immunity to it at a later date.
Er that is exactly what the current vaccines are doing.gizlaroc said:
The problem using them when the virus is here, during a pandemic, is the virus is every where and if people don't show symptoms, if they don't feel really ill, we have the issue that they carry on as normal and we have a super spread.
The reason flu epidemics tend to come and go quickly is once people get flu they are really ill, most can't make it out of bed, and the few that do tend to look rough as fook, so we when we see them out and about we give them a massive swerve, it is just human nature. So with flu epidemics we tend to get the initial wave and then it naturally dies out because there is no hosts for it to jump to.
This virus has been different in that the majority who get it, who are not very old, tend to get mild symptoms, many don't know they have had it, therefore they carry on, go to work, go to shops, get on trains and planes and spread it. That in itself is not a problem, until they go and visit Nan and give it to her.
You do realise a whole heap of viruses cause asymptomatic infections. Flu for example has some estimates of asymptomatic infection at 40-50% - that's higher than the 30-35% estimated asymptomatic infection rate for covid. It is certainly not the case that 'once people get flu they are really ill'The reason flu epidemics tend to come and go quickly is once people get flu they are really ill, most can't make it out of bed, and the few that do tend to look rough as fook, so we when we see them out and about we give them a massive swerve, it is just human nature. So with flu epidemics we tend to get the initial wave and then it naturally dies out because there is no hosts for it to jump to.
This virus has been different in that the majority who get it, who are not very old, tend to get mild symptoms, many don't know they have had it, therefore they carry on, go to work, go to shops, get on trains and planes and spread it. That in itself is not a problem, until they go and visit Nan and give it to her.
gizlaroc said:
Then we have the case that a virus does what a virus does and will always try to get stronger and stronger, it is after all trying to attack the host, so it will mutate, and mutating in a host that is isolating is one thing, mutating and getting more deadly in millions of hosts that are wandering around as super spreaders is a completely different matter and a bloody stupid situation to put ourselves in.
Most viruses burn themselves out before they get too deadly because people are ill and therefore not spreading them. These vaccines are taking that away.
This is not the right time to be using this type of vaccine.
I don't even know where to start with this. A virus will try to spread not 'get stronger and stronger'. There are 4 existing human coronaviruses (pre covid) that humans have continually got for literally centuries multiple times throughout a person's lifetime, they haven't suddenly got mutated into some deadly variants. Most viruses burn themselves out before they get too deadly because people are ill and therefore not spreading them. These vaccines are taking that away.
This is not the right time to be using this type of vaccine.
I have no idea how you managed to come up with a scenario of millions of super spreaders wandering about all showing active infection permanently either as covid infection whether with or without vaccination is cleared by people after recovery and it is very obviously not the case that viral infection remains active in the host.
The strange thing perhaps is I fully agree with the idea that we should mainly concentrate vaccination on those who are vulnerable. However a lot of your so called justification for not doing so for the rest is quite frankly nonsensical and blatant mistruths like what you have come up with simply makes it easier for the everyone must vaccinate loons to brand anyone who is trying to argue for a more measured approach as an antivaxx loon.
For the people who are not at risk it is up to them whether to take it (and indeed for those at risk too but self interest pretty much takes care of that) and it very clearly should not be coerced or made effectively required by exclusion from society without but it is also very clearly not because of some of the apocalyptic scenarios you have dreamt up per above.
purplepenguin said:
What are your qualifications?
My BSc is in Human Cellular Pathology (ie the study of human diseases at the cellular and sub-cellular level).My MSc is in Immunology.
My PhD is in Molecular Genetics (specifically appertaining to the control of the Immune System).
I studied under Tony Epstein (of Epstein-Barr virus fame), Bert Achong (sadly no longer with us), W. David Billington. and Av Mitchison.
Edited by LP12 on Saturday 17th April 20:21
LP12 said:
My BSc is in Human Cellular Pathology (ie the study of human diseases at the cellular and sub-cellular level).
My MSc is in Immunology.
My PhD is in Molecular Genetics (specifically appertaining to the control of the Immune System).
I studied under Tony Epstein (of Epstein-Barr virus fame), Bert Achong (sadly no longer with us), W. David Billington. and Av Mitchison.
And you’re arguing with pretend people on a nondescript website in a tiny corner of the inter web?My MSc is in Immunology.
My PhD is in Molecular Genetics (specifically appertaining to the control of the Immune System).
I studied under Tony Epstein (of Epstein-Barr virus fame), Bert Achong (sadly no longer with us), W. David Billington. and Av Mitchison.
Edited by LP12 on Saturday 17th April 20:21
Why?
Gary C said:
Mutation, why does vaccination make that more likely, I think it does just the opposite but I see there is the root of the disagreement.
Selection pressure. With a very large number of vaccinated people, the virus, when it spreads it is (much) more likely to do so with mutations that find a way around spike protein immunity (which is what the vaccines are providing). Whether or not with overall lower infections through everyone being infected that chance overall is lower than with a much higher rate of infection but a (much) lower chance of having that vaccine escape mutation repeat itself is not obvious. It may or may not ultimately be higher in either case.
The question really is - should we continue eternally being so worried about variants? the existing variants whether SA or brazil that people are seemingly in a panic over has been clearly shown to be recognised by our current immune or vaccine response. perhaps a little less effectively than the 'standard' sars-cov2 but it is still recognised and mostly neutralised/dealt with. There is good reason to believe that that will be sufficient to protect from severe disease even if it isn't sufficient to protect from developing mild symptomatic illness. The 4 existing human coronaviruses that we have got literally for centuries haven't turned up super scary variant that is going to kill everyone so far. we now have a 5th human coronavirus that will almost certainly (despite the best efforts of some lunatics) become endemic. Why would it be that different?
LP12 said:
purplepenguin said:
What are your qualifications?
My BSc is in Human Cellular Pathology (ie the study of human diseases at the cellular and sub-cellular level).My MSc is in Immunology.
My PhD is in Molecular Genetics (specifically appertaining to the control of the Immune System).
I studied under Tony Epstein (of Epstein-Barr virus fame), Bert Achong (sadly no longer with us), W. David Billington. and Av Mitchison.
it took centuries with smallpox whereby the vaccine is remarkably effective and able to provide lifelong sterilising immunity. We still can't do so for measles despite again vaccines providing lifelong sterilising immunity at (much) higher efficacy rates than covid.
How anyone particularly with that background thinks eradication is going to be possible for covid where infection/vaccination does not provide long term sterilising immunity is.....peculiar let's just say.
LP12 said:
My BSc is in Human Cellular Pathology (ie the study of human diseases at the cellular and sub-cellular level).
My MSc is in Immunology.
My PhD is in Molecular Genetics (specifically appertaining to the control of the Immune System).
I studied under Tony Epstein (of Epstein-Barr virus fame), Bert Achong (sadly no longer with us), W. David Billington. and Av Mitchison.
Impressive. (I am a skeptic partly due to you signing up on 1st April, and the weird behaviour of some posters creating multiple accounts after being banned etc).My MSc is in Immunology.
My PhD is in Molecular Genetics (specifically appertaining to the control of the Immune System).
I studied under Tony Epstein (of Epstein-Barr virus fame), Bert Achong (sadly no longer with us), W. David Billington. and Av Mitchison.
Edited by LP12 on Saturday 17th April 20:21
So, presuming you are what you say, which I hope you are, which vaccine would you take and why?
LP12 said:
purplepenguin said:
What are your qualifications?
My BSc is in Human Cellular Pathology (ie the study of human diseases at the cellular and sub-cellular level).My MSc is in Immunology.
My PhD is in Molecular Genetics (specifically appertaining to the control of the Immune System).
I studied under Tony Epstein (of Epstein-Barr virus fame), Bert Achong (sadly no longer with us), W. David Billington. and Av Mitchison.
Edited by LP12 on Saturday 17th April 20:21
isaldiri said:
Gary C said:
Mutation, why does vaccination make that more likely, I think it does just the opposite but I see there is the root of the disagreement.
Selection pressure. With a very large number of vaccinated people, the virus, when it spreads it is (much) more likely to do so with mutations that find a way around spike protein immunity (which is what the vaccines are providing). Otherwise a new mutation would spread at a rate regardless of the current mutation (without any other external influences such as lockdown etc) ?
If the current mutation does indeed suppress a mutations spread, then why is infection by a current mutation or a vaccine that simulates that infection any different ?
LP12 said:
bodhi said:
How many respiratory illness have we eradicated in the past?
We haven't tried. What we've done is attempt to 'control' things like 'flu which is a very differebt series of viruses (and which mutate FAR more rapidly than do Corona viruses)Hmm, interesting given your apparent credentials, you've gone straight for the flu comparison rather than mentioning the other 4 endemic HcoVs in general circulation. Any particular reason why, after the population have either already been infected or vaccinated, why this wouldn't be number 5?
And I'll assume, given your qualifications, you can explain why we've never tried eradicating respiratory viruses before, and why this one is different?
soofsayer said:
Impressive. (I am a skeptic partly due to you signing up on 1st April, and the weird behaviour of some posters creating multiple accounts after being banned etc).
So, presuming you are what you say, which I hope you are, which vaccine would you take and why?
Unfortunately there are a raft of (rather small) studies as to efficacy and side effects. So, presuming you are what you say, which I hope you are, which vaccine would you take and why?
From the studies I have looked at, then the Pfizer and Moderna come in slightly better than the Astra Zeneca (hence my preference for the Pfizer when it became available in UK), albeit it appears the Moderna has the worst side effects (I haven't looked at the J&J single shot vaccine). Having said that, the studies post trials, IMHO, have not been really statistically valid. There are still questions as to whether the new variants such as the SA variant, the Brazil variant, and the new Indian double mutation can evade any immunity conveyed by the extant vaccines.
I'm not totally convinced by the recent Israeli study into Pfizer- the sample was too small.
I had my first jab back at the end of Feb (Pfizer) but I would suggest you get whatever is available.
It's not just about confering immunity within the popuation, but reducing spread. As I stated earlier, the idea of 'Herd Immunity' through infection with a highly infectious, lethal, airborne, pathogen just doesn't work
I think a lot of the anti-vaxx siilliness is down to the fact that we have a generation of people who didn't grow up with stuff like Smallpox or Polio, or Diptheria, or Whooping Cough. I have the scars on my shoulder from the Smallpox and BCG (Tuberculosis) jabs I had as a kid. I also remember having the Polio vaccine (on a sugar cube) yet, when I started my BSc some 35+ years ago there was a guy in my Honours Microbiology class who walked with calipers - he was lucky, he'd survived Polio as a child.
Also factor in the totally debunked rubbish that Andrew Wakefield purported that the MMR vaccine caused autism as well as the idea that the current Covid vaccines are 'experimental' and have been developed far faster than any other previous vaccine.
The fact is that Corona viruses have been known about since around 1965 - the fist being a respiratory disease in avians (and until SARS-1 in 2002 and 204) there were a mere 4 Corona viruses in the human population (until MERS in 2012). So we have had nearly 2 decades of studying SARS type disease and at least 20 years of studying mRNA technology.
isaldiri said:
it took centuries with smallpox whereby the vaccine is remarkably effective and able to provide lifelong sterilising immunity.
We didn't start trying to fully eradicate Smallpox worldwide until the 1950s (and in reality notuntil the 1960s) with the USA and the USSR working together on a vaccine - and then, of course, there was the MASSIVE innoculation program with the disease not being eradicated until 1980isaldiri said:
We still can't do so for measles despite again vaccines providing lifelong sterilising immunity at (much) higher efficacy rates than covid. [/covid]
Measles was eradicated in UK in 2016 until the anti-vaxx brigade got started refusing the vaccine - hence the rise in infection rates.
Measles was eradicated in UK in 2016 until the anti-vaxx brigade got started refusing the vaccine - hence the rise in infection rates.
isaldiri said:
How anyone particularly with that background thinks eradication is going to be possible for covid where infection/vaccination does not provide long term sterilising immunity is.....peculiar let's just say.
Firstly the Immune Response to the Covid vaccination is by far superior to that of infection - we don't yet have the data on the efficacy of the vaccination program. Secondly, can we eliminate it? I don't know. I would like to think so given that SARS-1 and MERS disappeared, but I have a nasty feeling we will be into seasonal outbreaks (and booster vaccinations) for the forseeable future.Edited by LP12 on Saturday 17th April 22:22
LP12 said:
soofsayer said:
Impressive. (I am a skeptic partly due to you signing up on 1st April, and the weird behaviour of some posters creating multiple accounts after being banned etc).
So, presuming you are what you say, which I hope you are, which vaccine would you take and why?
Unfortunately there are a raft of (rather small) studies as to efficacy and side effects. So, presuming you are what you say, which I hope you are, which vaccine would you take and why?
From the studies I have looked at, then the Pfizer and Moderna come in slightly better than the Astra Zeneca (hence my preference for the Pfizer when it became available in UK), albeit it appears the Moderna has the worst side effects (I haven't looked at the J&J single shot vaccine). Having said that, the studies post trials, IMHO, have not been really statistically valid. There are still questions as to whether the new variants such as the SA variant, the Brazil variant, and the new Indian double mutation can evade any immunity conveyed by the extant vaccines.
I'm not totally convinced by the recent Israeli study into Pfizer- the sample was too small.
I had my first jab back at the end of Feb (Pfizer) but I would suggest you get whatever is available.
It's not just about confering immunity within the popuation, but reducing spread. As I stated earlier, the idea of 'Herd Immunity' through infection with a highly infectious, lethal, airborne, pathogen just doesn't work
I think a lot of the anti-vaxx siilliness is down to the fact that we have a generation of people who didn't grow up with stuff like Smallpox or Polio, or Diptheria, or Whooping Cough. I have the scars on my shoulder from the Smallpox and BCG (Tuberculosis) jabs I had as a kid. I also remember having the Polio vaccine (on a sugar cube) yet, when I started my BSc some 35+ years ago there was a guy in my Honours Microbiology class who walked with calipers - he was lucky, he'd survived Polio as a child.
Also factor in the totally debunked rubbish that Andrew Wakefield purported that the MMR vaccine caused autism as well as the idea that the current Covid vaccines are 'experimental' and have been developed far faster than any other previous vaccine.
The fact is that Corona viruses have been known about since around 1965 - the fist being a respiratory disease in avians (and until SARS-1 in 2002 and 204) there were a mere 4 Corona viruses in the human population (until MERS in 2012). So we have had nearly 2 decades of studying SARS type disease and at least 20 years of studying mRNA technology.
LP12 said:
Also factor in the totally debunked rubbish that Andrew Wakefield purported that the MMR vaccine caused autism as well as the idea that the current Covid vaccines are 'experimental' and have been developed far faster than any other previous vaccine.
Are they not “experimental” by virtue of still being in phase 3 clinical trials (until 2022/23), unlicensed and only approved for emergency use?bodhi said:
Hmm, interesting given your apparent credentials, you've gone straight for the flu comparison rather than mentioning the other 4 endemic HcoVs in general circulation. Any particular reason why, after the population have either already been infected or vaccinated, why this wouldn't be number 5?
And I'll assume, given your qualifications, you can explain why we've never tried eradicating respiratory viruses before, and why this one is different?
Firstly there were SIX Corona viruses in the Human Population prior to SARS-CoV-2 - these being the 4 you mention plus SARS1 and MERS.And I'll assume, given your qualifications, you can explain why we've never tried eradicating respiratory viruses before, and why this one is different?
The 4 endemic viruses don't kill people - they cause Common Cold like symptoms (they are not the Common Cold - that is the preserve of Adenoviruses and Rhinoviruses) but they cause similar symptoms. SARS-1 burnt out as did MERS in a way that SARS-CoV-2 has not - it is far more lethal. Not one of the 4 endemic Corona Viruses has had a vaccine developed because we didn't need to (or, being snarky, the US drug companies saw no profit in such).
WRT to other upper Respiratory Tract viral infections, the reason I compared with 'flu is because that's the standard cry on the internet that Covid is the same as 'flu - it isn't for a whole raft of reasons - lethality, infectiousness, rate of mutation.
Edited by LP12 on Saturday 17th April 22:23
soofsayer said:
Thanks for the reply. Why does herd immunity not work with covid? It’s been cited as a primary reason for vaccinating everyone regardless of personal risk?
The problem with Covid is that infection doesn't necessarilly confer immunity. In terms of your Q:It's down to:
1. The infectivity.
2. The lethality.
3. The fact that there is assymptomatic transmission.
The trouble is that unlike, say, 'flu, where Primary Viraemia - ie the point at which the virus is in the bloodstream and you have symptoms, and the point you become infectious and you go to bed, Covid 19 can remain assymptomatic (or pre-symptomattic where you are shedding virus but not yet sick).
So 1 & 2 are the major players here, but 3 really doesn't help.
Gary C said:
So that would require a person infected with a current mutation, to be much less able to be infected by the new mutation during or post infection therefor suppressing the new mutation.
Otherwise a new mutation would spread at a rate regardless of the current mutation (without any other external influences such as lockdown etc) ?
If the current mutation does indeed suppress a mutations spread, then why is infection by a current mutation or a vaccine that simulates that infection any different ?
I'm not entirely certain what your post is saying tbh.Otherwise a new mutation would spread at a rate regardless of the current mutation (without any other external influences such as lockdown etc) ?
If the current mutation does indeed suppress a mutations spread, then why is infection by a current mutation or a vaccine that simulates that infection any different ?
I took your prior posts to suggest that overall infections had to be kept low through mass vaccination to reduce the chance of an escape variant occuring. Which is not untrue.
My point however was that higher levels of vaccination meant despite low infections, each infection means that higher chance of an escape variant being established given the selection pressure to escape spike protein resistance. Whether lower infection rates but higher probability of escape variant being established is higher or lower than higher infection rate but lower probability of escape variant being prevalent is unclear.
LP12 said:
Firstly the Immune Response to the Covid vaccination is by far superior to that of infection - we don't yet have the data on the efficacy of the vaccination program. Secondly, can we eliminate it? I don't know. I would like to think so given that SARS-1 and MERS disappeared, but I have a nasty feeling we will be into seasonal outbreaks (and booster vaccinations) for the forseeable future.
For someone who is purportedly so familiar with immunology I am a little surprised how you are comparing sars1 and mers to sars-cov2 in terms of possible eradication.Mers is still present today but in very low numbers. Sars1 I agree disappeared but I think it was obvious since last February that the profile of infection between sars1 and sars-cov2 are completely different whereby the earlier coronavirus was primarily infectious only while obviously symptomatic and by nature of being a lower respiratory tract infection much less likely to spread while the current one spreads quite easily in the upper respiratory tract while mildly symptomatic and possible pre/asymptomatic. Which surely you would have realised given your supposed expertise.
and with regards your claim that immune response is far superior
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/...
""The findings of the authors suggest that infection and the development of an antibody response provides protection similar to or even better than currently used SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Although antibodies induced by SARS-CoV-2 infection are more variable and often lower in titre than antibody responses induced after vaccination, this observation does make sense considering current SARS-CoV-2 vaccines induce systemic immune responses to spike proteins while natural infection also induces mucosal immune responses and immune responses against the many other open reading frames encoded by the approximately 29?900 nucleotides of SARS-CoV-2. ""
The author of that articleI'd suggest has a little more credibility than you I have to admit despite your apparent qualifications.
LP12 said:
The problem with Covid is that infection doesn't necessarilly confer immunity. In terms of your Q:
Then neither does vaccination....Edited by isaldiri on Saturday 17th April 23:40
Gary C said:
isaldiri said:
Gary C said:
Mutation, why does vaccination make that more likely, I think it does just the opposite but I see there is the root of the disagreement.
Selection pressure. With a very large number of vaccinated people, the virus, when it spreads it is (much) more likely to do so with mutations that find a way around spike protein immunity (which is what the vaccines are providing). Otherwise a new mutation would spread at a rate regardless of the current mutation (without any other external influences such as lockdown etc) ?
If the current mutation does indeed suppress a mutations spread, then why is infection by a current mutation or a vaccine that simulates that infection any different ?
Vaccinations decrease the amount of time the Coronavirus has to spread, this alone imacts its abilty to mutate as colony sizes cant grow as fast as they need to in order to develop competing mutations.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff