CV19 - The Anti Vaxxers Are Back

[markyb_lcy]

paulguitar said:

Chromegrill said:

markyb_lcy said:

One two year old in the trial has allegedly died after being given a vaccine. I make no assertions myself whatsoever as to whether the vaccine is at fault or not, but it doesn’t look great.

According to the product information leaflet, the most common reported cause of death shortly after vaccination in teenagers against HPV (the virus which causes cervical cancer) is....

....car accidents. (Followed by suicide and gunshots.)

This is exactly the kind of thing that is winding me up a bit. There is a clear agenda amongst some of those wishing to speak out against vaccines. I think many mean well, but it's really rather unhelpful to simply scaremonger.

The main problem with that VAERS system is that anyone can make a submission. I mentioned that in the original post these can be falsified.

I sure hope I’m not being accused of “scaremongering” here?

I was simply pointing to something that’s being alleged quite openly on social media. As yet, I’ve not seen any confirmation or rebuttal.

Do others just ignore this stuff until it ends up on the BBC?

[Pit Pony]

Claptonian said:

98elise said:

And the anti-vaxxers feel the need to "educate" everyone else.

There is literally someone in the last page or two of this thread that called his friend an idiot for not wanting the vaccine and was going to try to convince him otherwise. That's very inconvenient for the point you are making though, I understand.

Yes, that was me. He asks my advice on all sorts of ste that as an Engineer he should know, so i feel happy enough giving him advice he didn't ask for.

[Gary C]

purplepenguin said:

So Gaz, you are happy to believe the science without question?

That was just a jest , because if those are his quals, you must admit they are quite good !

But, I believe qualified persons before unqualified persons and tend, with an engineering brain, reading what the people who have created and deployed the vaccine, I tend to believe them. I dont get why using this vaccine is 'bad'

I have some of this working in the Nuclear industry as a senior engineer, yet there are a number of self proclaimed experts in all sorts of pressure groups that spout crap, have flashy web sites, make pseudo science proclamations backed up by 'qualifications' but have no substance (ok, some do as well, lets be fair).

So, lets face it, we are here just chatting, passing info, passing opinions and pulling legs occasionally

[Gary C]

isaldiri said:

Gary C said:

Sorry,

I was trying to work out what the 'selection pressure' that you referred to is ?

It suggests that the vaccine, by suppressing one is allowing another mutation to flourish ?

But why ?

Say you have 100 infections (that number doesn't really matter use whatever you like) and 1 of those infections turns out to have a mutation that makes it partially vaccine resistant.

In an unvaccinated population, there is no advantage for that one to increase relative to the others, it's in competition with 99 other 'standard' variants and whether it increases in prevalence is not obvious and dependent on a whole lot of other factors.

In a largely vaccinated population you are pretty much guaranteeing that variant will be the one increasing in prevalence as the other 99 'standard' variants will find it much harder to spread given the population's vaccinated resistance compared to that particular variant.

But that supposes that the variants are in competition with each other ?

Why would they be.

So 65 million people, two variants, no vaccine
Both will spread through the population, given the mixing and the duration of infection everyone will get both surely.

with vaccine
First variant suppressed, second spreads through the population

What's the difference to the second variant ?

Considering mutation
with vaccine
The resistant variant spreads, mutation risk exists for that variant in each infection event

no vaccine
Both variants spread, both present mutation risk occurring between each infection.

So why is giving a vaccine during a pandemic somehow bad ?

[markyb_lcy]

Gary C said:

But that supposes that the variants are in competition with each other ?

Why would they be.

Natural selection.

[Gary C]

markyb_lcy said:

Gary C said:

But that supposes that the variants are in competition with each other ?

Why would they be.

Natural selection.

Easy answer but not really complete. They aren't Giraffes you know.

Why do several rhino virus's exist. Aren't they in competition with each other then ?

What is the competitive nature or component ?

If you have had one, does that mean you cant get the other ? (if that was true a vaccine would work for both), if one variant does not prevent the infection by the second, they they don't compete surely.

Competition is based on one getting something over on the other.

Now, of course throwing a vaccine in the mix means the resistant one will get the upper hand, but without the vaccine, surely it would be just as endemic.

Edited by Gary C on Monday 19th April 13:12

[isaldiri]

Gary C said:

That was just a jest , because if those are his quals, you must admit they are quite good !

But, I believe qualified persons before unqualified persons and tend, with an engineering brain, reading what the people who have created and deployed the vaccine, I tend to believe them. I dont get why using this vaccine is 'bad'

I have some of this working in the Nuclear industry as a senior engineer, yet there are a number of self proclaimed experts in all sorts of pressure groups that spout crap, have flashy web sites, make pseudo science proclamations backed up by 'qualifications' but have no substance (ok, some do as well, lets be fair)

Well because so far none of the discussion has revolved around anything where those supposed qualifications gives him a meaningful advantage. No one here is disputing if amino acid X or gene Y has a specific effect but a (much) broader issue of whether public health is necessarily served by attempting eradication of a respiratory virus in view of the difficulty in doing so.

And it's not about whether using the vaccine is bad. It's great for those at risk. It's a question of whether it's 'good' to be requiring everyone regardless of risk to take it.

[Jinx]

Gary C said:

Easy answer but not really complete. They aren't Giraffes you know.

Why do several rhino virus's exist. Aren't they in competition with each other then ?

What is the competitive nature or component ?

If you have had one, does that mean you cant get the other ? (if that was true a vaccine would work for both), if one variant does not prevent the infection by the second, they they don't compete surely.

Competition is based on one getting something over on the other.

You can't get two different strains at the same time (think of it like a female can't be pregnant by two different males - except, I think, in an extremely rare superfecundation event). So they are in competition in the same way males are in competition with each other.

[Gary C]

Jinx said:

You can't get two different strains at the same time (think of it like a female can't be pregnant by two different males - except, I think, in an extremely rare superfecundation event). So they are in competition in the same way males are in competition with each other.

but given a 65 million population and the circulation, you would not need to have both at the same time. Both would remain endemic, both finding sufficient suitable hosts, both mutating.

It would need a competitive driver. If a mutated variant spreads much faster, then it will become the most found strain of course. BUT what I am not seeing is why vaccinating a population would (as claimed in past posts) lead to an increased risk of mutation ?

Edited by Gary C on Monday 19th April 13:21

[otolith]

The resource the variants are competing for is susceptible hosts - but competition is maybe a phrase which has unhelpful anthropomorphic ideas of intent around it. Changing gene frequencies in the viral population is another way of thinking about it.

[Gary C]

otolith said:

The resource the variants are competing for is susceptible hosts - but competition is maybe a phrase which has unhelpful anthropomorphic ideas of intent around it. Changing gene frequencies in the viral population is another way of thinking about it.

Changing gene frequencies in the viral population

well that's answered that



So if they are 'competing' for susceptible hosts, does vaccination make more susceptible hosts for a resistant strain ?, surely they would be just as susceptible vaccine or not ?

BTW, I am listening, rather than just trying to put an entrenched view across, just not quite getting the point (bit thick probably, but that goes with being an enjunear)

[rxe]

isaldiri said:

Well because so far none of the discussion has revolved around anything where those supposed qualifications gives him a meaningful advantage. No one here is disputing if amino acid X or gene Y has a specific effect but a (much) broader issue of whether public health is necessarily served by attempting eradication of a respiratory virus in view of the difficulty in doing so.

And it's not about whether using the vaccine is bad. It's great for those at risk. It's a question of whether it's 'good' to be requiring everyone regardless of risk to take it.

I don't think you can say a vaccine is "good" or "bad" in the context of mutation. It just "is". Vaccinaction seems to provide very good outcomes for all current strains. It is inevitable that the thing will mutate, vaccination is probably speeding this up, but we're just talking about time rather than any fundamental difference in outcome.

It will mutate, the vaccine will be altered and off we go again. It will be just like 'flu, we get a new one every few years, and we try and vaccinate the elderly against our best guess as to what will happen.

Should everyone have the vaccine? Certainly not the current vaccines - even we have said they're unsuitable for the under 30s (AZ, probably J&J, not enough evidence for Pfizer). Under 30, you're trading negligible risks. Over 30, you're trading a small risk for a negligible one. Over 60, you're trading quite a material risk for a negligible one.

Does it matter if some people don't have the vaccine? Not at all. If YOU want to have the vaccine, have it, and you are protected. I've had it, and I couldn't care at all whether other people have had it. Their call.

[markyb_lcy]

Gary C said:

markyb_lcy said:

Gary C said:

But that supposes that the variants are in competition with each other ?

Why would they be.

Natural selection.

Easy answer but not really complete. They aren't Giraffes you know.

Why do several rhino virus's exist. Aren't they in competition with each other then ?

What is the competitive nature or component ?

If you have had one, does that mean you cant get the other ? (if that was true a vaccine would work for both), if one variant does not prevent the infection by the second, they they don't compete surely.

Competition is based on one getting something over on the other.

Now, of course throwing a vaccine in the mix means the resistant one will get the upper hand, but without the vaccine, surely it would be just as endemic.

Edited by Gary C on Monday 19th April 13:12

Natural selection in viruses works just the same as in giraffes, only speeded up. Two (or more) giraffe species, or virus variants can coexist together, but the ones that will succeed (under any pressure) will be those most adapted to their environment. That doesn’t necessarily mean always that one species or variant will become exclusive and all the others die off. It might just mean one becomes more prevalent than the other, to the point an equilibrium is reached. Any living thing (including viruses) that exists, is still evolving. The only time it’s no longer evolving is when it’s extinct.

(Oversimplifying here)Without the vaccine, the vaccine-resistant variants have no advantage over non-vaccine resistant variants. As you say, they might both become endemic (all other things being equal - which would never be the case for if it were, the variant could hardly be called a variant, but for the sake of argument).

It’s important to understand that the virus is mutating and replicating all the time, in every single host, so there’s an element of natural selection both within each host, and outside of hosts and in the environment at large.

[otolith]

Gary C said:

otolith said:

The resource the variants are competing for is susceptible hosts - but competition is maybe a phrase which has unhelpful anthropomorphic ideas of intent around it. Changing gene frequencies in the viral population is another way of thinking about it.

Changing gene frequencies in the viral population

well that's answered that



So if they are 'competing' for susceptible hosts, does vaccination make more susceptible hosts for a resistant strain ?, surely they would be just as susceptible vaccine or not ?

BTW, I am listening, rather than just trying to put an entrenched view across, just not quite getting the point (bit thick probably, but that goes with being an enjunear)

Immunity (however achieved) provides a situation such that variants which can overcome that immunity have a population of hosts into which they can spread and into which other variants cannot. More people being immune to the current variant and not immune to some new variant increases the likelihood that should such a new variant arise it will find a series of vulnerable hosts who are not vulnerable to the original strain and amplify itself. So the more of the population is immune to the current strain, the more likely it is that the spark of a resistant strain would find the tinder of a vulnerable host amidst the inferno of the current strain.

On the other hand, the fewer people are acting as amplifiers for the current variant, the lower the probability of somebody producing, amplifying and passing on a new variant.

I don't think the risk of vaccine escape is a reason to constrain vaccination. It's a reason to use vaccination to get as much of the population off limits as amplifiers for the current strain as quickly as possible.

[isaldiri]

otolith said:

I don't think the risk of vaccine escape is a reason to constrain vaccination. It's a reason to use vaccination to get as much of the population off limits as amplifiers for the current strain as quickly as possible.

True but equally risk of vaccine escape is the 'official' justification being used to seemingly coerce everyone no matter what age into getting it. That is clearly ignoring as you pointed out when everyone is actually vaccinated you are almost guaranteeing anything that spreads as a vaccine escape one.

Moving away from constantly being scared of variants just might be sensible until it's shown any vaccine escape variant is actually losing efficacy in terms of protection from severe disease rather than just symptomatic disease.

[Gary C]

markyb_lcy said:

Natural selection in viruses works just the same as in giraffes, only speeded up. Two (or more) giraffe species, or virus variants can coexist together, but the ones that will succeed (under any pressure) will be those most adapted to their environment. That doesn’t necessarily mean always that one species or variant will become exclusive and all the others die off. It might just mean one becomes more prevalent than the other, to the point an equilibrium is reached. Any living thing (including viruses) that exists, is still evolving. The only time it’s no longer evolving is when it’s extinct.

(Oversimplifying here)Without the vaccine, the vaccine-resistant variants have no advantage over non-vaccine resistant variants. As you say, they might both become endemic (all other things being equal - which would never be the case for if it were, the variant could hardly be called a variant, but for the sake of argument).

It’s important to understand that the virus is mutating and replicating all the time, in every single host, so there’s an element of natural selection both within each host, and outside of hosts and in the environment at large.

The thing I was having problems with, is vaccination somehow making a variant more likely, the postulation being I assume, that by removing 'competition', it would allow more replication of a resistant virus by providing more infectible hosts.
But, I assume a vaccine resistant virus would spread at the same rate, vaccine or no vaccine ?

[markyb_lcy]

Gary C said:

markyb_lcy said:

Natural selection in viruses works just the same as in giraffes, only speeded up. Two (or more) giraffe species, or virus variants can coexist together, but the ones that will succeed (under any pressure) will be those most adapted to their environment. That doesn’t necessarily mean always that one species or variant will become exclusive and all the others die off. It might just mean one becomes more prevalent than the other, to the point an equilibrium is reached. Any living thing (including viruses) that exists, is still evolving. The only time it’s no longer evolving is when it’s extinct.

(Oversimplifying here)Without the vaccine, the vaccine-resistant variants have no advantage over non-vaccine resistant variants. As you say, they might both become endemic (all other things being equal - which would never be the case for if it were, the variant could hardly be called a variant, but for the sake of argument).

It’s important to understand that the virus is mutating and replicating all the time, in every single host, so there’s an element of natural selection both within each host, and outside of hosts and in the environment at large.

The thing I was having problems with, is vaccination somehow making a variant more likely, the postulation being I assume, that by removing 'competition', it would allow more replication of a resistant virus by providing more infectible hosts.
But, I assume a vaccine resistant virus would spread at the same rate, vaccine or no vaccine ?

A vaccine resistant variant will spread faster (than the original variant) in a vaccinated population (versus the original virus) because within vaccinated hosts, the resistant variant will outcompete the original virus (which the vaccine was developed against).

In a non-vaccinated population (rewind 12 months), the vaccine (immune) resistant variant would probably not become remotely prevalent until a certain level of infections had occurred with the original variant - conferring a level of immunity and creating the conditions for which the immune-resistant variant has an advantage.

As someone mentioned earlier, vaccine-resistant and immune-resistant, are more or less the same thing. Both are essentially ... exposure to the spike protein of the original variant and most of the as-yet-discovered variants.

I’m not an expert though, just a guy that became obsessive for a year, wanting to understand the basis on which my “life” was taken from me. Happy for anyone to butt in and correct.

Edited by markyb_lcy on Monday 19th April 16:39

[Kermit power]

gizlaroc said:

A very good friend of mine is very much against vaccines, and medicines, he would take them if life and death, but he is one of these 'the body needs purity' types.

As much as we take the piss out of him, the fact is, he and his wife who have not taken any medicine since they we 16, not a paracetamol or aspirin, only eat farm meat, their own grown fruit and veg etc. are now mid 50s and neither have ever been ill.
When I say never been ill that is not quite true, they had the odd sniffle, but always shook it off within 24 hours or so.

[b]Around a decade ago he put in some super sophisticated water filtration system.
He did it because of the crap in our water system, pour a pint of tap water and leave it to sit for a couple of weeks, pour out the water and look at the putrid gunk that is left sat in the glass, the smell of it is beyond foul. That is what we are putting into us every day.[/b]

Since putting his filtration system into place none of his family have had any illness at all. The only time he gets a headache now is from dehydration.


A guy my father knows in India, he was the same, he used to work at the shoe factory, he lived out in the sticks, would only drink the spring water and eat the food that grew around where he lived, and refused to put "the white mans poisons" (what he called medicines) never had a day off ill in his life. He was still cutting patterns in that factory when he was 100 years old. My old man always wondered how long he carried on working there for.


I think we will look back in years to come and laugh at how advanced we thought we were in 2020. But for now, many of us are happy to eat processed foods, fill our faces with 'medicines' and take more 'medicines' to get us through it, myself included, but I think we are only now at the start of really understanding what our bodies really need.

I have two thoughts there...

Firstly, specifically for the tap water being left to go fetid in a glass for a couple of weeks, I assume he tried putting glasses of his organic meat and homegrown veg next to his glass of tap water to act as a control group? I rather suspect that their bouquets would've rather overpowered the tap water!

Secondly, more generically, it's very nice for someone to be able to choose that sort of lifestyle if they wish, but let's not forget that one of the main reasons they can do so is because the overwhelming majority of the population did take the vaccination route, meaning that he and his wife are pretty unlikely to have come into much close contact with people carrying smallpox, polio, measles or anything else that used to kill thousands before mass vaccination got them under control.

[Kermit power]

Brave Fart said:

rxe said:

<apologies for edit>
We’ve vaccinated ourselves, and through vaccination and immunity via infection we’re giving the virus fewer hosts - what happens next - we will get a version that can re-infect vaccinated people. This is inevitable, and we shouldn’t be surprised that it is happening. It’s what pretty much every respiratory virus does, which is why we are still living with the common cold, about a billion years after the first human got a snotty nose.

I can see the logic of that, and it begs the question: "what should our response be?"
Now, it may be that the next variant is rather milder than the first, and doesn't kill to the same extent. In which case the sensible response would be to do.....nothing much.
My fear is that governments everywhere will instead go down the "OMG a vaccine-evading variant; we must lock everyone down again, until a revised vaccine is developed to outwit this cunning new variant. Get back in your homes, people! Pfizer, work your magic!"

We could become locked in to a long term loop of vaccination then a resistant variant then lockdown............rinse and repeat, for ever.

Surely it would follow the influenza route?

We've had the mass scramble to get a first response in place, but now that that's there, we should just be able to keep on top of new variants by tweaking the vaccines ahead of each winter season. I've not seen anything to suggest that this wouldn't be the case?

[anonymous-user]

Gary C said:

purplepenguin said:

So Gaz, you are happy to believe the science without question?

That was just a jest , because if those are his quals, you must admit they are quite good !

But, I believe qualified persons before unqualified persons and tend, with an engineering brain, reading what the people who have created and deployed the vaccine, I tend to believe them. I dont get why using this vaccine is 'bad'

I have some of this working in the Nuclear industry as a senior engineer, yet there are a number of self proclaimed experts in all sorts of pressure groups that spout crap, have flashy web sites, make pseudo science proclamations backed up by 'qualifications' but have no substance (ok, some do as well, lets be fair).

So, lets face it, we are here just chatting, passing info, passing opinions and pulling legs occasionally

Couldn’t answer yesterday as I was testing my Caterham and ragging the st out of it.

Yes very impressive qualifications - too impressive??

I think you need actual time to pass before you can categorically state that each vaccine is “safe”

Using a vaccine to mass vaccinate whilst in a pandemic is new and also needs long term data to be analysed fully.

I would still like to know who LP12 worked/works for......