"Coronavirus and the US" or "We are all going to die!!!!"

[repoman]

There is the California mutation. There is the NY mutation. And now Seattle.

Lockdowns and masking were designed to slow the spread to (1) avoid hospital overloading, (2) defer infections giving time for good treatment protocols to emerge, (3) time for a vaccine to be found.
An unintended consequence was to provide billions of chances for mutation. The damn thing has, through blind chance, found a way to modify their spike protein so the immune system doesn't recognize it making the mRNA vaccine shooting for the target that is no longer there.

No--slowing it down doesn't increase the number of mutations. That's based on the number of people infected, not the time period over which they are infected.

Pushing this to the most extreme two cases that are not possible but just a thought experiment:

Case 1: Everyone on the whole planet is exposed and infected with covid in the same month.

Case 2: over a period of two years everyone is exposed to the virus from someone after the virus was in their body for a week or longer. This exposure is done in the most dragged out and steady flow as possible.

In case 1 the mutations are not building on top of each other.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is the California mutation. There is the NY mutation. And now Seattle.

Lockdowns and masking were designed to slow the spread to (1) avoid hospital overloading, (2) defer infections giving time for good treatment protocols to emerge, (3) time for a vaccine to be found.
An unintended consequence was to provide billions of chances for mutation. The damn thing has, through blind chance, found a way to modify their spike protein so the immune system doesn't recognize it making the mRNA vaccine shooting for the target that is no longer there.

No--slowing it down doesn't increase the number of mutations. That's based on the number of people infected, not the time period over which they are infected.

Pushing this to the most extreme two cases that are not possible but just a thought experiment:

Case 1: Everyone on the whole planet is exposed and infected with covid in the same month.

Case 2: over a period of two years everyone is exposed to the virus from someone after the virus was in their body for a week or longer. This exposure is done in the most dragged out and steady flow as possible.

In case 1 the mutations are not building on top of each other.

True, but we have nothing like case 1. The time frame only matters if the infection rate is fast compared to the rate of spread and Covid is nowhere near that. With modern air travel I don't think there's anything that spread remotely that fast.

 

[George S]

Pushing this to the most extreme two cases that are not possible but just a thought experiment:

Case 1: Everyone on the whole planet is exposed and infected with covid in the same month.

Case 2: over a period of two years everyone is exposed to the virus from someone after the virus was in their body for a week or longer. This exposure is done in the most dragged out and steady flow as possible.

In case 1 the mutations are not building on top of each other.

True, but we have nothing like case 1. The time frame only matters if the infection rate is fast compared to the rate of spread and Covid is nowhere near that. With modern air travel I don't think there's anything that spread remotely that fast.

I believe that repoman's response was a limiting-case scenario. If the infections had happened quickly and the disease either killed or everyone had antibodies the number of mutations might well have been zero. It can never go that fast. It was the best we could have done given the information at the time. Now we have the problem. Can we accomplish eradication or must it become as endemic as the familiar viruses that are the common cold. What strategy then?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Pushing this to the most extreme two cases that are not possible but just a thought experiment:

Case 1: Everyone on the whole planet is exposed and infected with covid in the same month.

Case 2: over a period of two years everyone is exposed to the virus from someone after the virus was in their body for a week or longer. This exposure is done in the most dragged out and steady flow as possible.

In case 1 the mutations are not building on top of each other.

True, but we have nothing like case 1. The time frame only matters if the infection rate is fast compared to the rate of spread and Covid is nowhere near that. With modern air travel I don't think there's anything that spread remotely that fast.

I believe that repoman's response was a limiting-case scenario. If the infections had happened quickly and the disease either killed or everyone had antibodies the number of mutations might well have been zero. It can never go that fast. It was the best we could have done given the information at the time. Now we have the problem. Can we accomplish eradication or must it become as endemic as the familiar viruses that are the common cold. What strategy then?

I'm saying that even at his scenario there's room for mutations.

 

[George S]

The world is entirely strange.
They did a study in Israel and found that there is a certain treatment effective as a prophylactic against COVID19.
The dose compared was 81 mg/day. (1/4 of a grain) ("Take 2 grains and call me in the morning" is the cliché.)

 

[Jarhyn]

I believe that repoman's response was a limiting-case scenario. If the infections had happened quickly and the disease either killed or everyone had antibodies the number of mutations might well have been zero. It can never go that fast. It was the best we could have done given the information at the time. Now we have the problem. Can we accomplish eradication or must it become as endemic as the familiar viruses that are the common cold. What strategy then?

I'm saying that even at his scenario there's room for mutations.

Aren't mutations a function of total overall reproduction anyway?

If a billion people get infected in either scenario, a billlion people are still going to have a billion viral loads, wherein each virus in each load could be a mutant.

It's like asking whether a ton of feathers or a ton of bricks is heavier. They are both a ton.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I believe that repoman's response was a limiting-case scenario. If the infections had happened quickly and the disease either killed or everyone had antibodies the number of mutations might well have been zero. It can never go that fast. It was the best we could have done given the information at the time. Now we have the problem. Can we accomplish eradication or must it become as endemic as the familiar viruses that are the common cold. What strategy then?

I'm saying that even at his scenario there's room for mutations.

Aren't mutations a function of total overall reproduction anyway?

If a billion people get infected in either scenario, a billlion people are still going to have a billion viral loads, wherein each virus in each load could be a mutant.

It's like asking whether a ton of feathers or a ton of bricks is heavier. They are both a ton.

For any reasonable real-world scenario you are right. For bacteria you're always right--a given number of infected means a given number of splittings however fast or slow it happens. However, viruses crank out many, many copies when they hijack a cell. The higher the number of copies per hijack the flatter the genetic tree becomes and the fewer victims at the bottom of the tree descend from any given mutation.

 

[repoman]

Why is the Pfizer CEO talking about the possible need for a 3rd vaccine dose?

Conflict of interest much?

Let governments make the decision.

Jesus Fucking Christ.

 

[skepticalbip]

Why is the Pfizer CEO talking about the possible need for a 3rd vaccine dose?

Conflict of interest much?

Let governments make the decision.

Jesus Fucking Christ.

Governments??? You really want politicians to decide medical questions? Why not the winning cook in a 'cook-off'?

I would think the opinions of medical professionals would be a better choice... medical professionals that studied the results of clinical trials.

 

[Copernicus]

Why is the Pfizer CEO talking about the possible need for a 3rd vaccine dose?

Conflict of interest much?

Let governments make the decision.

Jesus Fucking Christ.

A conflict of interest would be some government official taking an official action on a subject that affects that official personally. This is the CEO of a vaccine manufacturer saying that a third dose MAY be necessary, not a government official mandating it. The government can choose to recommend and subsidize a third dose, but the CEO of Pfizer is certainly within his rights to express an opinion on the interaction of his vaccine with the body's immune system. Maybe he is lying in order to increase his sales revenues, but nobody is just going to take his word for it. Medical researchers will need to evaluate the performance of the vaccine. The CEO is just saying what he thinks will be needed in the future.

Covid-19 booster shot likely needed within 12 months, Pfizer's CEO says

 

[crazyfingers]

I have said for a long time that i'd not be surprised if every fall for years to come we get a flu and covid shot.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why is the Pfizer CEO talking about the possible need for a 3rd vaccine dose?

Conflict of interest much?

Let governments make the decision.

Jesus Fucking Christ.

It's the virus that makes the decision--if it mutates enough to substantially get around the current vaccines boosters will be needed.

 

[crazyfingers]

Why is the Pfizer CEO talking about the possible need for a 3rd vaccine dose?

Conflict of interest much?

Let governments make the decision.

Jesus Fucking Christ.

It's the virus that makes the decision--if it mutates enough to substantially get around the current vaccines boosters will be needed.

Some portion of the country will decide that Ajax will suffice.

 

[George S]

Why is the Pfizer CEO talking about the possible need for a 3rd vaccine dose?

Conflict of interest much?

Let governments make the decision.

Jesus Fucking Christ.

It's the virus that makes the decision--if it mutates enough to substantially get around the current vaccines boosters will be needed.

I watched an epidemiologist (formerly VP at Pfizer) discuss this. He pointed out that (1) the "variants" differ from the original by 0.3%. 99.7% similarity. (2) Having had original SARS yields immunity to SARS-CoV-2. (3) Original SARS is 80% similar to SARS-CoV-2.
Having had either COVID or the original vaccine will provide enough protection so the death rate for re-infection should be 0.01% or less. No "boosters" needed even if it changes drastically.

 

[steve_bank]

We get a flu 'booster shot' every year. Now rhere may be one more.

 

[George S]

We get a flu 'booster shot' every year. Now rhere may be one more.

Each year they prepare a vaccine for the top 3 strains from last season. There are two reasons for this. If one of the new ones is a near-clone of one of these some immunity is provided and, of course, full immunity for those who get infected by the flu that survived over the non-flu season. Sometimes one of the new strains expected is known by the time the flu vaccine is being designed -- about one year in five. I'm not sure I would call this a "booster."

 

[repoman]

Are these covid vaccines more "leaky" or "perfect"?

I understand life is a grayscale, so one particular vaccine may be 90% perfect and 10% leaky for example.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Are these covid vaccines more "leaky" or "perfect"?

I understand life is a grayscale, so one particular vaccine may be 90% perfect and 10% leaky for example.

You-tube videos should not be presented as scientific arguments.

The reality is viruses will tend to mutate to get around immunity, whether that immunity is natural or due to a vaccine. If anything, natural immunity is more likely to drive mutations as modern vaccines target reasonably stable parts of the virus while natural immunity is much more random.

Evolutionary pressure favors things that spread well, infections have no benefit from killing their host. (Although there can be evolutionary pressure that indirectly makes it more dangerous--cholera wants to spread by giving you uncontrollable shits, the more uncontrollable they are the more likely you are to shit somewhere that helps it spread. This indirectly kills via dehydration.)

 

[repoman]

Are these covid vaccines more "leaky" or "perfect"?

I understand life is a grayscale, so one particular vaccine may be 90% perfect and 10% leaky for example.

You-tube videos should not be presented as scientific arguments.

The reality is viruses will tend to mutate to get around immunity, whether that immunity is natural or due to a vaccine. If anything, natural immunity is more likely to drive mutations as modern vaccines target reasonably stable parts of the virus while natural immunity is much more random.

Evolutionary pressure favors things that spread well, infections have no benefit from killing their host. (Although there can be evolutionary pressure that indirectly makes it more dangerous--cholera wants to spread by giving you uncontrollable shits, the more uncontrollable they are the more likely you are to shit somewhere that helps it spread. This indirectly kills via dehydration.)

Well the video is from Penn State, not Jim Bob in his basement. Also it is from before covid when these topics were not so politicized.

This is the journal article by the man interviewed in the video


Imperfect Vaccination Can Enhance the Transmission of Highly Virulent Pathogens
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002198

Two other articles

‘Leaky’ Vaccines Can Produce Stronger Versions of Viruses
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/leaky-vaccines-can-produce-stronger-versions-of-viruses-072715


Coronavirus: The dangers of weak vaccines
https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-the-dangers-of-weak-vaccines/a-56339759

 

[repoman]

Pushing this to the most extreme two cases that are not possible but just a thought experiment:

Case 1: Everyone on the whole planet is exposed and infected with covid in the same month.

Case 2: over a period of two years everyone is exposed to the virus from someone after the virus was in their body for a week or longer. This exposure is done in the most dragged out and steady flow as possible.

In case 1 the mutations are not building on top of each other.

True, but we have nothing like case 1. The time frame only matters if the infection rate is fast compared to the rate of spread and Covid is nowhere near that. With modern air travel I don't think there's anything that spread remotely that fast.

I believe that repoman's response was a limiting-case scenario. If the infections had happened quickly and the disease either killed or everyone had antibodies the number of mutations might well have been zero. It can never go that fast. It was the best we could have done given the information at the time. Now we have the problem. Can we accomplish eradication or must it become as endemic as the familiar viruses that are the common cold. What strategy then?

This is an interesting video that may be taken down soon about this, so I just downloaded the audio