Stunning Effectiveness of the Covid Vaccines

[atyy]

I think UK population was significantly infected, at least once, by summer 2020, but for sure you can put that down as a personal anecdote, but it was notable that a lot of folks were complaining of 'irritations'. My point is that I'm already agreeing with any critiques one might have of my own observation above, that the ratio on record (cases v deaths) may not be at all very reliable.

There's data on this in the text (p11-12) and graphs (Fig 2, 3a, 3b) of https://assets.publishing.service.g...472/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_32.pdf. S-seropositivity can come from infection or vaccination. N-seropositivity comes from infection only (for the vaccines used in the UK, not true for inactivated virus vaccines). S-seropositivity is at 97%, N seropositivity is at about 20%. For the older age groups, S-seropositivity is about 99%.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

Sure, well, I linked to the worldometer website. If you pick a country like the UK and look at the 3.5 waves of infections so far, the ratio hospitalised and dying was already falling before vaccines were introduced.

It's true that the first wave might be considered a source of unreliable data because many people weren't being tested, but I think all the 'positive cases' data is probably unreliable because of that second paper I mention, and other related works, which seem to suggest the number actually infected is substantially greater than ever tested due to the prevalence of asymptomatic carriers.

So for sure, the data is 'nuanced'.

In the UK at the time early 2020, it seemed to me that 'everyone' I came across had a bit of a cold or, more commonly striking, many were complaining of back aches in the region of the lung diaphragm.

I think UK population was significantly infected, at least once, by summer 2020, but for sure you can put that down as a personal anecdote, but it was notable that a lot of folks were complaining of 'irritations'. My point is that I'm already agreeing with any critiques one might have of my own observation above, that the ratio on record (cases v deaths) may not be at all very reliable.

The available data do not support your anecdotal evidence suggesting that the UK population was significantly infected. Researchers can look for signs of prior infection in individuals by looking for antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. These serology tests suggested that in the Summer of 2020 only ~7% of people in England showed signs of having been infected (e.g. see https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...ctionsurveyantibodydatafortheuk/3february2021).

With regard to whether the mortality from the virus has changed, the point @russ_watters raised about the availability of testing is very important. Just looking at deaths/diagnosed cases gives a skewed view because early in the Pandemic, testing was very limited and we were catching a smaller fraction of cases than later in the pandemic.

Another issue is that mortality from the virus is different for different groups of people, so if early in the pandemic there were more cases of the disease among the elderly than later in the pandemic (when more restrictions and infection control measures had been put into place to protect the elderly from infection) that could also make the virus appear to be less deadly. Here's a nice study about the mortality of the virus in Germany that concludes that most of the apparent changes in mortality from the virus over time seem to be attributable to the changing age demographics of those getting infected over time: https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-021-11127-7

Finally, there is some evidence that the Alpha variant of the virus is more deadly that the original variant:
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n579
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03426-1

I have not seen any studies yet to compare the deadliness of the Delta variant against the other variants.

 

[bhobba]

as well as reduce transmission of the virus.

Fingers crossed that is true for Delta. We must reduce its R0 from 8; it is as bad as Chickenpox, and everyone knows how contagious that is.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Ygggdrasil]

Fingers crossed that is true for Delta. We must reduce its R0 from 8; it is as bad as Chickenpox, and everyone knows how contagious that is.

Thanks
Bill

It isn't quite as bad a chickenpox:

 

[Grasshopper]

Let's hope so anyway:
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/...opped-when-delta-became-dominant-study-2021-8

Let's derive Atty's equation posted before. If V is the vaccination rate, and E is its efficiency, then the effective number not vaccinated is 1-E*V. The next generation will have R*(1-E*V) if the reproduction number is R. For it to be in equilibrium, R*(1-E*V) = 1 or V = (1 - 1/R)/E. Less than that, it will die out; greater than that, it will grow.

This was used by a 'so-called' expert to 'prove' we are 'stuffed':
https://abc7chicago.com/coronavirus...id-booster-shot-is-pfizer-effective/10949401/

Now R0 is the reproduction rate under normal conditions, and Delta is about the same as chickenpox at 8. R is the rate that is actually occurring, which depends on several factors such as mask-wearing, social distancing, lockdowns etc. That is how they bring it under control without the vaccine. At least simple precautions such as mask-wearing and social distancing will need to be still used. The R0 is without the vaccine. We do not know how effective the vaccine is at preventing retransmission. If it is at all effective, the vaccine will lower R further. At the moment, there is some evidence it is not effective at all:
https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/arti...9-transmission-by-vaccinated-individuals.html

So it looks as though, for the time being, we will be stuck with at least minimal precautions to prevent it from getting out of control, and they may include the occasional lockdown.

At a minimum, I think we will all be getting third doses, and hopefully, second-generation vaccines are effective at preventing vaccinated people from passing it on. That seems the key to herd immunity. And, of course, we need to vaccinate, vaccinate, vaccinate. If we get to nearly 100% and have the third booster, it will hopefully be 8*.15 = 1.2 - a bit below the flu which we can live with. Otherwise - I hate to think. And that assumes it is 85% effective - which I do not think it is - the third dose of a next-generation vaccine likely will be needed:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-11/the-australian-next-generation-covid19-vaccines/100271062

I don't think people will like it, but I now think, as is done for Whooping Cough, there will eventually be a no jab, no pay policy introduced.

Getting my second dose AZ at 3.00 pm today. Waited the full 12 weeks.

Thanks
Bill

If it’s not effective at all at preventing infection/transmission then how is the data in that study explained? Surely not only through social distancing and masks alone, which those who are vaccinated are more likely to take seriously.

Or do you mean the vaccines only prevent infection, and if breakthrough infections occur, they are useless in terms of preventing spread. (I have been assuming infection and transmission were effectively the same thing).EDIT — what do you mean by “so-called expert.” That’s crank vernacular and it instantly makes me uneasy. Or are you using the term mockingly? (In which case I fully approve).Thanks for the reply, Bill.

 

[bhobba]

what do you mean by “so-called expert.”

No problems, mate. It's my way of saying you need a bit of HS algebra to do it - not a high powered expert. It is in no way meant to indicate they are a crank or anything like that. Just my strange sense of humour. Sorry for any confusion.

I will state my position clearly. Because of how transmissible Delta is, even high vaccination rates will not allow us to live as we did before the pandemic - at least at this stage. Herd immunity is now not achievable. It will be better than without vaccination, though. As always, research will continue, and things will likely get better.

It is a big problem here in Aus as everyone seems to want zero covid. We will need to wait and see how this plays out.

Thanks
Bill

 

[PeroK]

(This is just a wider question on how we have evolved to resist future pathogens, I am not seeking to test the wisdom or merits of modern medication, but are the medications themselves 'risk free' if they interfere with evolutionary processes?)

Of course vaccines are not risk free. The question is whether a mass vaccination programme is safer and better than mass infections.

A helicopter rescue from a mountain is not risk free, but it's a lot safer than being indefinitely trapped up a mountain in a storm!

 

[bhobba]

Of course vaccines are not risk free.

As always, it is risk/reward. I think Actuaries should be more involved in this - they are experts at doing that. That is just my view. We hear a lot from medical experts but not much from risk experts. And then there is the even harder issue of at what point we encroach on basic freedoms such as controlling what is put in our bodies and fundamental principles of law like reckless endangerment. I personally do not know where to draw the line. Of course, I have my opinion, but really in a democracy, that is for the citizens to decide. As an example here in Aus we have called in the Army to help police the pandemic rules, man vaccination hubs etc. Some, however, think it is imposing martial law. Who is right? I mention it purely as an example of some of the dilemmas we face - please do not use it as a springboard for a political discussion - we do not do that here.

Thanks
Bill

 

[PeroK]

As an example here in As we have called in the Army to help police the pandemic rules, man vaccination hubs etc. Some however think it is imposing martial law. Who is right? I mention it purely as an example of some of the dilemmas we face - please do not use it as a springboard for a political discussion - we do not do that here.

Thanks
Bill

People who think the West is becoming dictatorial should catch a plane to Kabul wearing a Charly Hebdot tee-shirt and see what happens.

 

[bhobba]

People who think the West is becoming dictatorial should catch a plane to Kabul wearing a Charly Hebdot tee-shirt and see what happens.

Yes. One thing I have learned over the years is to trust democracy in the long run. If it disagrees with my perspective - that is just the way it is.

Thanks
Bill

 

[cmb]

Of course vaccines are not risk free. The question is whether a mass vaccination programme is safer and better than mass infections.

A helicopter rescue from a mountain is not risk free, but it's a lot safer than being indefinitely trapped up a mountain in a storm!

And what metrics can we make for the impact on the immunity of the species as a whole, if the susceptible ones are medicinally prevented from succumbing to diseases?

The question I guess I am asking is what 'safe' means on the generational timescale. If we prevent 10 million people dying now through mass vaccination, and this leads to 20 million dying over the next generation as their inherited immunological weaknesses create an ever growing population of susceptible hosts that medicines cannot save, I'm asking if there is a point where we may end up breeding a super bug for which no-one can resist and for which no prophylactic medicines can be created?

I'm not suggesting we should not try, but I am suggesting that's a pretty important outcome which we should seek to measure if we are going to try it.

If the helicopter rescue is the first ever attempted, then OK, we take it as a risky thing to try out. But once we have made 100 such mountain rescues, one would be sensible to look at the success rates. If 99 of the 100 flights crashed, then you would take that metric and say 'oh, no, a helicopter rescue is not wise'. How are we assessing the risk impact on the long term survivability of the species? Are we so sure that the use of vaccines is of no impact on such generational survivability, and if there is an argument that we don't need to look, then how is that conclusion formed?

I'm not 'anti-vaccines', I take them because it is what 'we modern people do'. I'm asking a longer term question regarding the evolution of the 'adaptive response' (as @Ygggdrasil helpfully discriminated from the humoral response in #35). If we end up evolving to rely on artificial representations of diseases to stimulate humoral response, and our front line adaptive responses are muted, that doesn't sound like a great thing over time. We won't see anything for several generations, of course. But we may then begin to see diseases which affect progressively larger fractions of the populations at anyone time. Are we seeing this already?

I'm not going to post further on this because I realize this is going to be contentious and I have put forward the scientific question; what is the metric for measuring the impact of vaccinations on generational immunity? Beyond that, the prospect of measuring whether saving a person now and risking several in the future is heading off into ethics and too problematic to address. So I'll not contribute further on this thought.

 

[pinball1970]

And what metrics can we make for the impact on the immunity of the species as a whole, if the susceptible ones are medicinally prevented from succumbing to diseases?

The question I guess I am asking is what 'safe' means on the generational timescale. If we prevent 10 million people dying now through mass vaccination, and this leads to 20 million dying over the next generation as their inherited immunological weaknesses create an ever growing population of susceptible hosts that medicines cannot save, I'm asking if there is a point where we may end up breeding a super bug for which no-one can resist and for which no prophylactic medicines can be created?

I'm not suggesting we should not try, but I am suggesting that's a pretty important outcome which we should seek to measure if we are going to try it.

If the helicopter rescue is the first ever attempted, then OK, we take it as a risky thing to try out. But once we have made 100 such mountain rescues, one would be sensible to look at the success rates. If 99 of the 100 flights crashed, then you would take that metric and say 'oh, no, a helicopter rescue is not wise'. How are we assessing the risk impact on the long term survivability of the species? Are we so sure that the use of vaccines is of no impact on such generational survivability, and if there is an argument that we don't need to look, then how is that conclusion formed?

I'm not 'anti-vaccines', I take them because it is what 'we modern people do'. I'm asking a longer term question regarding the evolution of the 'adaptive response' (as @Ygggdrasil helpfully discriminated from the humoral response in #35). If we end up evolving to rely on artificial representations of diseases to stimulate humoral response, and our front line adaptive responses are muted, that doesn't sound like a great thing over time. We won't see anything for several generations, of course. But we may then begin to see diseases which affect progressively larger fractions of the populations at anyone time. Are we seeing this already?

I'm not going to post further on this because I realize this is going to be contentious and I have put forward the scientific question; what is the metric for measuring the impact of vaccinations on generational immunity? Beyond that, the prospect of measuring whether saving a person now and risking several in the future is heading off into ethics and too problematic to address. So I'll not contribute further on this thought.

Don't post and run.
Why would Vaccines weaken our immune system?
Vaccines allow us to encounter a dangerous disease but give us a fighting chance encountering it.
We are not meeting it for the first time because the Vaccines have primed our immune system.
Atty Perok and Ygg have referenced 1918. The way we over came that virus was to die with it OR survive and have natural immunity.
We could do it that way but I have seen estimates of up to 100 million dead from that epidemic.
That was a significant % of the population at that time.

 

[PeroK]

And what metrics can we make for the impact on the immunity of the species ...

What's the alternative to mass vaccination? Semi-permanent lockdown? Letting the disease run its course and overwhelm our health services?

Whether there is any substance to your concerns about vaccinations being counterproductive in the long term, I'll leave to the experts.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

How did people evolve T cell immune responses to SARS CoV2 before it existed? That'll be evolution at work.

No, this is not an example of evolution. Evolution acts over very many generations to select for changes in the genome that affect a species' susceptibility to pathogens. The potential partial immunity to SARS-CoV-2 from previous infection by cold-causing coronaviruses comes from the adaptive immune system working exactly as we expect it should. This immunity works in exactly the same way that immunity from vaccination works, except that vaccination (because it provide antigens that exactly match the SARS-CoV-2 virus) provides better cellular and humoral immunity to COVID-19.

T-cell based immunity is not genetic and not heritable (which is why babies need to get immunized even though the parents were or why children can get chicken pox even though their parents might have gotten infected earlier in life and gotten immunity that way), therefore the acquisition of T-cell based immunity to pathogens like SARS-CoV-2 is not part of evolution.

And what metrics can we make for the impact on the immunity of the species as a whole, if the susceptible ones are medicinally prevented from succumbing to diseases?

The question I guess I am asking is what 'safe' means on the generational timescale. If we prevent 10 million people dying now through mass vaccination, and this leads to 20 million dying over the next generation as their inherited immunological weaknesses create an ever growing population of susceptible hosts that medicines cannot save, I'm asking if there is a point where we may end up breeding a super bug for which no-one can resist and for which no prophylactic medicines can be created?

COVID-19, even in the absence of a vaccine, would be unlikely to cause many long lasting evolutionary changes. At worst, ~1% of the world's population would be expected to die from the disease, which is not a very strong selective pressure on such a large population as the human species. It could contribute to selection against certain genetic markers associated with greater susceptibility to COVID-19, but the selection pressure would not be large enough to drive fixation of novel genetic traits that drive resistance to the virus (that type of selection requires something like the plague in Medieval Europe which is estimated to have killed ~50% of the population at the time). The death of 1% of the world's population (similar death toll as the 1918 Influenza Pandemic) would be very bad, but 50% of the world's population dying is definitely not something that we should want.

 

[Grasshopper]

And what metrics can we make for the impact on the immunity of the species as a whole, if the susceptible ones are medicinally prevented from succumbing to diseases?

The question I guess I am asking is what 'safe' means on the generational timescale. If we prevent 10 million people dying now through mass vaccination, and this leads to 20 million dying over the next generation as their inherited immunological weaknesses create an ever growing population of susceptible hosts that medicines cannot save, I'm asking if there is a point where we may end up breeding a super bug for which no-one can resist and for which no prophylactic medicines can be created?

I'm not suggesting we should not try, but I am suggesting that's a pretty important outcome which we should seek to measure if we are going to try it.

If the helicopter rescue is the first ever attempted, then OK, we take it as a risky thing to try out. But once we have made 100 such mountain rescues, one would be sensible to look at the success rates. If 99 of the 100 flights crashed, then you would take that metric and say 'oh, no, a helicopter rescue is not wise'. How are we assessing the risk impact on the long term survivability of the species? Are we so sure that the use of vaccines is of no impact on such generational survivability, and if there is an argument that we don't need to look, then how is that conclusion formed?

I'm not 'anti-vaccines', I take them because it is what 'we modern people do'. I'm asking a longer term question regarding the evolution of the 'adaptive response' (as @Ygggdrasil helpfully discriminated from the humoral response in #35). If we end up evolving to rely on artificial representations of diseases to stimulate humoral response, and our front line adaptive responses are muted, that doesn't sound like a great thing over time. We won't see anything for several generations, of course. But we may then begin to see diseases which affect progressively larger fractions of the populations at anyone time. Are we seeing this already?

I'm not going to post further on this because I realize this is going to be contentious and I have put forward the scientific question; what is the metric for measuring the impact of vaccinations on generational immunity? Beyond that, the prospect of measuring whether saving a person now and risking several in the future is heading off into ethics and too problematic to address. So I'll not contribute further on this thought.

If random mutations are half of evolution (without them, what does selection have to work with?) wouldn’t the best tactic to prevent a “super bug” be to quickly minimize the lottery tickets it has for hitting on beneficial mutations using all measures — including vaccines — as thoroughly and quickly as possible?

 

[bhobba]

The question I guess I am asking is what 'safe' means on the generational timescale. If we prevent 10 million people dying now through mass vaccination, and this leads to 20 million dying over the next generation as their inherited immunological weaknesses create an ever growing population of susceptible hosts that medicines cannot save, I'm asking if there is a point where we may end up breeding a super bug for which no-one can resist and for which no prophylactic medicines can be created?

That is where risk professionals such as Actuaries come in. At the start of the pandemic, they locked down in South Africa (SA). But a group of Actuaries, along with other relevant professionals, did an analysis that showed - not a good idea except in the short term:
https://www.medicalbrief.co.za/deat...wn-disaster-dwarfs-covid-19-say-sa-actuaries/

That is in SA, which has different issues than say where I am in Australia. It can not be taken as a general 'rule'. That said, I think it has become obvious from the Aus experience that long term lockdowns do more harm than good. Short, sharp, fast and hard (even overkill) lockdowns are favoured now. That is NOT what happened in NSW. I will not get into why - but the results have been disastrous and is endangering all of Australia. Here in Brisbane, we did a short, sharp, fast, hard lockdown many thought way overkill because of just one case at my old High School. Numbers quickly grew - but it was contained, and the lockdown lasted less than a week. Soon compulsory mask-wearing will not be required. Although I will continue wearing mine as well as all other sensible measures everyone should take.

Regarding your worry about down the line, the vaccines may result in disaster; nobody can predict the future. As Bohr said (actually, it is an old Danish proverb) - It’s Difficult to Make Predictions, Especially About the Future. All we can do is make reasonable decisions based on experience. That experience has shown long term disasters do not result from vaccinations. The worst I am aware of is the 1976 Flu Vaccine:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/long-shadow-1976-swine-flu-vaccine-fiasco-180961994/

The great comic strip character, Pogo, made it clear when he said, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” Problems are always going to happen. But their outcome has everything to do with peoples reactions. In this forum, we speak to the strengths of people by dealing with facts and debunking falsehoods. My comment on Nepal summed it up well.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Grasshopper]

I can’t see how there will be a “super bug” long term from vaccines when (a) it hasn’t happened with other vaccines in history and (b) if SARS-CoV-2 gets too deadly it will cause its own extinction before ours (when people start dropping like flies, the maximum quarantine procedures possible will begin — even by the chronically stupid, anti-mask wearing fools who have never heard of an exponential function, and the implications that even a slight difference in spread rate means long term due to the nature of exponential functions). Meanwhile, with vaccines more widespread, we can at least have a better shot at handling hospitalization cases.

But the worst possible case, if it comes will be because of those proudly stupid individuals who are both anti-vaccine AND anti-mask/anti-social distancing.

 

[Dullard]

"COVID-19, even in the absence of a vaccine, would be unlikely to cause many long lasting evolutionary changes. At worst, ~1% of the world's population would be expected to die from the disease..."

Source https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/stunning-effectiveness-of-covid-vaccine.1003823/page-2

Particularly since 90+ percent of the 1% would be beyond reproductive age - their deaths are almost meaningless in evolutionary terms.

 

[Grasshopper]

If that comment is directed to the previous comment, I believe the study referenced above is talking about evolutionary changes in humans. The rest of the quote:

"which is not a very strong selective pressure on such a large population as the human species."I was referring to the virus itself. It clearly has gained new mutations, as evidenced by the existence of new variants.

 

[Grasshopper]

Regarding refusal to wear masks:

Looking at a standard exponential equation, N(t) = N₀e^rt (or the growth one, x = x₀ (1+r)^t), it seems pretty clear that even tiny variations in rate of infection will, in the long term, lead to massive differences in N(t) for large enough t. That indicates to me that even crappy surgical masks would make a difference, and it seems fairly obvious.

I do not understand why this concept is lost on so many people. But oddly, it seems to be extremely common.

This examination, for example:
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/28/16264

Oddly, this seems to explain why mask wearing seems to fall along political lines. Conservatives tend to underestimate exponential growth a little worse than liberals. But even liberals underestimate it fairly spectacularly.

Strange political correlations aside, the misperceptions about exponential growth is oddly pervasive. And it seems that fixing them is crucial to stopping this absurd anti-common sense behavior we're seeing in the world (and particularly in the Southern United States).

https://www.iza.org/publications/dp...n-of-covid-19-spread-and-economic-expectation
.
.
.I don't get vaccine hesitancy either, but a refusal to wear masks and/or social distance? Or the erroneous belief that these things don't matter? This I do not understand, and it frustrates me to no end.

 

[Dullard]

My comment was directed at the excerpted quote which appears just above my comment. My point (perhaps not clearly made) is: The mortality profile for this virus is such that it produces very little 'selection' pressure - it can't drive any changes because people of breeding age are not significantly impacted. The size of the human population is effectively moot. We probably also shouldn't count on evolution to rid us of heart disease, Alzheimer's, or any other geriatric-onset conditions.

 

[jim mcnamara]

@Dullard - based on overall mortality reporting so far, you seem to be correct.

PICU Covid mortality was lower in North America before this summer. It is increasing numerically - more patients <=18 years old. Increased percent of pediatric cases in the Covid population.

Example news story: https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/13/us/dallas-county-no-pediatric-icu-beds-left/index.html

The latest PICU fatality numbers will probably be out In September. I do not know what effect if any will be found. A priori, I would expect some very localized higher impact.

NB: the above does not deal with the long term medical cost and DLY burden "long hauler" children will impose. Current case studies are not favorable. So let's wait for definitive studies before we conclude anything of merit.
Example:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33205450/ claims that the rate of "long hauler" pediatric cases parallels adult rates. Therefore. This does not bode well, regardless of mortality rates.

One other point - the places where mortality has been estimated to be both high and under reported is in poor countries with crummy medical care, crummy PCR testing, and made-up reporting. India is an example. The official numbers are very likely way under reasonable values. Consider: India has limited medical care and 1.3 billion people. The US has good medical care, better reporting and testing, and 331M people:

Deaths per 1M: India 319, US 1921. (per Worldometer) Hmm.
And:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-56345591 India's vaccination rate as of July 15 2021 was 5%.
This defies too many basic epidemiological concepts to be believable. Kind of like 'My dog ate my homework'. --
Conclusion: so who actually knows the pediatric impact in India? Nobody AFAICT.

 

[Astronuc]

A colleague who works in San Diego, CA, shared some statistics on COVID hospitalizations in San Diego County. From July 12 through August 10, thirteen (13) fully-vaccinated person were hospitalized with COVID-19, while 521 not-fully-vaccinated persons were hospitalized for COVID-19. The San Diego County website has a statement, "†Not fully vaccinated includes individuals with one dose of the two-dose series, no doses, or unknown vaccination status. Individuals less than 12 years of age who are not yet eligible for the vaccine are also included."

According to one document from SD county, since March 1, 2021:

Vaccination status     Unvac./Not-fully      Vaccinated      Total
Cases                    45,599 (91.2%)    4,402 ( 8.8%)    50,001
Hospitalizations          1,344 (97.1%)       40 ( 2.9%)     1,384
Deaths                      103 (88.8%)       13 (11.2%)       116

https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/hhsa/programs/phs/Epidemiology/COVID-19 Watch.pdf

 

[StevieTNZ]

NZ has approved the vaccine for those 12 - 16: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/he...covid19-live-the-latest-on-the-delta-outbreak

 

[cmb]

"COVID-19, even in the absence of a vaccine, would be unlikely to cause many long lasting evolutionary changes. At worst, ~1% of the world's population would be expected to die from the disease..."

Source https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/stunning-effectiveness-of-covid-vaccine.1003823/page-2

Particularly since 90+ percent of the 1% would be beyond reproductive age - their deaths are almost meaningless in evolutionary terms.

There is a basic misunderstanding in play over what I desired to ask in regards if there are metrics for immunological evolution.

I'll explain it step by step in the hope of clarifying, but fear I won't clarify it. I will try;

In evolutionary terms, we do not merely evolve one specific characteristic towards one specific outcome, but a species experiences a range of random mutations over time, some of which have no expression and no effect on survivability in maybe one, two or several generations. Maybe thousands. But an apparently 'useless' mutation may become selected for in some later period of stress on a species. So long as any given mutation doesn't get in the way and reduce survivability, then species exists with a variety of characteristics and 'benign' mutations.

During stress events those characteristics may suddenly find utility, and lead to some fractions surviving and other fractions not surviving.

It is not the exposure to one single stressor on a species that might see a particular cadre of phenotypes eliminated, but it may reduce in total percentage that one particular cadre in favour of other phenotypes.

In our population we have a range of immunological responses, some have a better ability to defend against new random and never been seen before pathogens than others. This has to be the case, it is in the nature of random mutations.

By being routinely exposed to new random and never been seen before pathogens, various phenotypes will be selected for that can respond, survive and thrive even in the face of new random and never been seen before pathogens.

If we ALWAYS defeat new random and never been seen before pathogens with medications and never allow such phenotypes to be selected, my point is that we are not selecting the strongest responses to new random and never been seen before pathogens.

Like all other species, we've evolved over millions of years to a species that has evolved to evolve. It is not merely the singular generational response to a singular generational stressor. That may mark an evolutionary event that preferentially selects a phenotype from a sea of random benign mutations. But it does not explain, and ignores, the evolution for having gained that range of phenotypes and benign mutations in the first place.

It is in the nature of the evolution of sexual reproduction itself to produce, at anyone time, a sea of phenotypes, from which evolutionary selection would take place at times of stress on the species.

My question is whether vaccination reduces the evolution of those processes which give our species a range of autoimmunological mutations? If the selection conditions no longer exist (because everyone is getting an 'artificially enhanced' immunological response) then weak phenotypes (in this respect) are allowed to continue to thrive at the same rates as strong phenotypes, which can only dilute the average strength of the phenotype over extended generations.

We have been using man-made vaccines (or at least man-directed inoculations, considering cow-pox used for vaccination for small-pox) for just 200 years.

My grandfather used to tell me stories about his grandparents who lived then. We are not talking about a time period in which strong autoimmune phenotypes are going to be selected or deselected, so to say modern vaccines have no effect on autoimmune phenotypes would be premature.

In particular, the current range of RNA vaccines have never been used before and are unlike previous vaccination means.

[In fact, they are so new, the vaccines are not even properly licenced (at least here in the UK) but issued under emergency protocols (it means the users and recipients are accepting all the risks of adverse consequences, not the drug companies, which is not the case for licenced vaccines).]

So we simply have no history of how these may affect autoimmune phenotypes over several generations.

My point is that if we are not deriving any metrics for autoimmune phenotypes over time and in response to the use of vaccines, how would we spot if it is a good thing or not?

As mentioned before, it might well be that if vaccinations slow down but do not entirely prevent phenotype selections (which must be true in some capacity, because being vaccinated is neither a guarantee of not acquiring a virus nor the resultant syndrome), then it might improve that outcome. I don't deny this might be the case, I just don't know and no-one can unless we develop an understanding of autoimmune phenotypes over a few dozen generations.

But what I do know is that we exist today as a species after 100,000 years of evolution without vaccines. What I don't know, and cannot be said, is whether we survive after a 100,000 years of vaccinations.

 

[cmb]

@atyy, what are you sceptical about, exactly?

I am not putting forward a 'theory' I am just explaining why I think it is relevant to try to measure and monitor the impact of vaccines (and antibiotics, in fact all modern medical science) on people's autoimmunology over several (dozens of) generations.

This feels a lot like someone saying in the 1800's 'Hey, you know, we're using a technology here that's never been done, we're taking fossil fuels out of the ground and putting carbon back in the atmosphere that is part way through the carbon cycle back into the ground. Should we monitor how much CO2 affects the atmosphere?' and you saying 'Sceptical about that! The atmosphere is really big and one of these new fangled 'cars' won't have any effect on that.'.

I'm just saying to assume it is zero effect might be unwise. I am NOT saying don't go ahead with modern medicine, take the treatments that are proven until there are any signs that there is an adverse effect but do at least look for long-term (multi-generational) adverse effects.

I think really it is the thread title that has prompted my points here, I mean, if someone were to look back on late 19th century writing and see "Stunning effectiveness at internal combustion engine reducing horse pollution", maybe we can be a bit more humble about such accolades without the benefit of time to prove them out?

 

[Grasshopper]

I don’t buy that. One of the things we’ve evolved to do is to cheat the normal processes other animals are subject to. I mean, we have no fur, but we do have fire. I don’t think anyone here would prefer going back to fur.

 

[kyphysics]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ctive-against-delta-in-u-k-study?srnd=premium

Covid Vaccines Are Less Effective Against Delta, Large Study Finds

Covid-19 vaccines are less effective against the delta variant, according to results in the U.K. from one of the largest real-world studies into the efficacy of the shots.

Pfizer Inc. and BioNTech SE’s messenger RNA vaccine lost effectiveness in the first 90 days after full vaccination, though that shot and the one made by AstraZeneca Plc still staved off a majority of Covid infections. When vaccinated people did get infected with delta, they were shown to have similar levels of virus in their bodies as those who hadn’t had shots. This suggests that vaccinating large portions of a population might not protect those who don’t get inoculated, casting doubt on the idea of achieving herd immunity.

There isn’t yet data to show how much the vaccines continue to protect against hospitalizations and severe cases of Covid over time.

These latest results are likely to fuel calls to give booster shots to the fully vaccinated even as countries around the world still lack enough supply for first immunizations.

 

[atyy]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ctive-against-delta-in-u-k-study?srnd=premium

Just to be clear, that is about effectiveness against symptomatic infection. The important point is protections against severe illness, which may have dropped, but remains high 88-93% in Israeli estimates, and 91-98% in UK estimates. From that point of view, boosters might be required only in vulnerable populations eg. seniors and immunocompromised.

 

[atyy]

https://www.cuimc.columbia.edu/research/louisa-gross-horwitz-prize/horwitz-prize-awardees
Horwitz Prize Awardees 2021

Katalin Karikó, PhD
Senior Vice President, BioNTech SE
Adjunct Associate Professor
Perelman School of Medicine
University of Pennsylvania
Dr. Karikó has been senior vice president of BioNTech SE since 2013. She also is adjunct associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine, where she worked for 24 years. She received her PhD in biochemistry from the University of Szeged in Hungary in 1982. Her research for decades has focused on RNA-mediated mechanisms with the ultimate goal of developing in vitro-transcribed mRNA for protein therapy. Her groundbreaking investigation of RNA-mediated immune activation and her co-discovery that nucleoside modifications suppress immunogenicity of RNA unlocked the opportunity for the therapeutic use of mRNA. She and Drew Weissman co-invented and patented the use of nucleoside-modified mRNA, a key discovery that made possible the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines developed by BioNTech/Pfizer and Moderna/NIAID.

Drew Weissman, MD, PhD
Professor of Medicine
Perelman School of Medicine
University of Pennsylvania
Dr. Weissman is professor of medicine at the Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania. He received his graduate degrees from Boston University School of Medicine. Dr. Weissman, in collaboration with Dr. Katalin Karikó, discovered the ability of modified nucleosides in RNA to suppress activation of innate immune sensors and increase the translation of mRNA containing certain modified nucleosides. The nucleoside-modified mRNA-lipid nanoparticle vaccine platform Dr. Weissman’s lab created is used in the first two approved COVID-19 vaccines produced by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna. They continue to develop other vaccines that induce potent antibody and T cell responses with mRNA-based vaccines. Additionally, Dr. Weissman’s lab develops methods to replace genetically deficient proteins, edit the genome, and specifically target cells and organs with mRNA-LNPs, including lung, heart, brain, CD4+ cells, all T cells, and bone marrow stem cells.

 

[Grasshopper]

Just to be clear, that is about effectiveness against symptomatic infection. The important point is protections against severe illness, which may have dropped, but remains high 88-93% in Israeli estimates, and 91-98% in UK estimates. From that point of view, boosters might be required only in vulnerable populations eg. seniors and immunocompromised.

Why are boosters useful if they don't account for new variants? (or do they?) Is it simply to restimulate the immune response? Does that mean the human body "forgets" previous vaccinations?

 

[Bystander]

Why are boosters useful if they don't account for new variants? (or do they?) Is it simply to restimulate the immune response? Does that mean the human body "forgets" previous vaccinations?

Which vaccinations? Tetanus? Yes. Polio? Not so far. Flu(s)? Yearly. Pneumonia? Depends; Prevnar, two shots, year apart, "yes but..."

 

[Grasshopper]

Which vaccinations? Tetanus? Yes. Polio? Not so far. Flu(s)? Yearly. Pneumonia? Depends; Prevnar, two shots, year apart, "yes but..."

Referring specifically to the COVID vaccinations, however, I suppose it applies generally. I'm taking your "yes" to mean that the human body does indeed "forget" the immune response, and that it's not just because there are new variants, but also because the human body's immunity from the vaccine wanes over time.

 

[BWV]

@atyy, what are you sceptical about, exactly?

I am not putting forward a 'theory' I am just explaining why I think it is relevant to try to measure and monitor the impact of vaccines (and antibiotics, in fact all modern medical science) on people's autoimmunology over several (dozens of) generations.

This feels a lot like someone saying in the 1800's 'Hey, you know, we're using a technology here that's never been done, we're taking fossil fuels out of the ground and putting carbon back in the atmosphere that is part way through the carbon cycle back into the ground. Should we monitor how much CO2 affects the atmosphere?' and you saying 'Sceptical about that! The atmosphere is really big and one of these new fangled 'cars' won't have any effect on that.'.

I'm just saying to assume it is zero effect might be unwise. I am NOT saying don't go ahead with modern medicine, take the treatments that are proven until there are any signs that there is an adverse effect but do at least look for long-term (multi-generational) adverse effects.

I think really it is the thread title that has prompted my points here, I mean, if someone were to look back on late 19th century writing and see "Stunning effectiveness at internal combustion engine reducing horse pollution", maybe we can be a bit more humble about such accolades without the benefit of time to prove them out?

So name one vaccine where the long term negative consequences outweighed the benefits

I am too old to have received a chicken pox vaccine, so got the disease. Thanks to nature, I am now susceptible to shingles, something my vaccinated kids will never face.

The reality is opposite of what you describe - these viruses - measles, small pox, chicken pox, etc all can cause well known long term complications. For example, about 1 child out of every 1,000 who get measles will develop encephalitis (swelling of the brain) that can lead to convulsions and can leave the child deaf or with intellectual disability. On the other hand, there are no known long term detrimental effects of the MMR vaccine.

Similarly, it looks like contracting COVID can lead to long term adverse effects. Sure no one will know for sure if the COVID vaccines cause problems for a few people 30 years from now, but one would have to either be statistically illiterate or just a lying anti-vax scumbag to think that somehow the risk / return tradeoff is not overwhelmingly in favor of the vaccines.

 

[atyy]

Why are boosters useful if they don't account for new variants? (or do they?) Is it simply to restimulate the immune response? Does that mean the human body "forgets" previous vaccinations?

The current vaccines produce neutralizing antibodies and T cell responses that are effective to various degrees against variants.

Neutralizing antibodies prevent infection. The levels fall naturally over time, so even without variants, we expect the vaccines to become less effective against infection. Variants also mean that a given antibody level will be less effective. Against the Delta variant, the antibodies are less effective, but still effective, so a booster that raises antibody levels can raise protection against infection. The antibody levels can be expected to naturally fall again. And we can expect new variants to continually arise that will eventually render antibodies quite ineffective against infection.

T cell responses help to prevent severe disease. These responses are more resistant to variants, so the ability of the vaccines to protect against severe disease will decline over time with new variants, but at a much slower rate than the ability of vaccines to protect against infection by new variants. A booster also increases T cell responses.

There are separate reasons for giving boosters (not everyone calls additional doses boosters, but I won't be particular).

For the immunocompromised and seniors, the first two doses might not have been effective enough to develop T cell responses that protect well against severe disease. Boosters can develop more effective protection against severe disease.

For healthy people, boosters can temporarily boost neutralizing antibody levels and so increase protection against infection. One can imagine successful policies in which prevention of infection is not a big goal. However, in countries in which not enough people are vaccinated (and the hospitals are filling up), a booster for those who are willing might reduce the rates of infection, and thus of transmission.