Stunning Effectiveness of the Covid Vaccines

[Evo]

More on the UK study. Addressed above by @atyy but maybe this has more information for members to read.

(Reuters) - A British public health study has found that protection from either of the two most commonly used COVID-19 vaccines against the now prevalent Delta variant of the Coronavirus weakens within three months.

It also found that those who get infected after receiving two shots of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or the AstraZeneca vaccine may be of greater risk to others than under previous variants of the coronavirus.

Based on more than three million nose and throat swabs taken across Britain, the Oxford University study found that 90 days after a second shot of the Pfizer or Astrazeneca vaccine, their efficacy in preventing infections had slipped to 75% and 61% respectively.

That was down from 85% and 68%, respectively, seen two weeks after a second dose. The decline in efficacy was more pronounced among those aged 35 years and older than those below that age.

"Both of these vaccines, at two doses, are still doing really well against Delta... When you start very, very high, you got a long way to go," said Sarah Walker, an Oxford professor of medical statistics and chief investigator for the survey https://www.ndm.ox.ac.uk/covid-19/covid-19-infection-survey/results/new-studies.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/british-study-shows-covid-19-230707257.html

 

[Astronuc]

A few weeks ago, Lydia Rodriguez thought her body was strong enough to fight the Coronavirus without the vaccine.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/mom-died-covid-days-her-185417009.html
But after a week long gathering with family and friends, "she and other members of her family tested positive for the coronavirus. By the time Rodriguez, 42, changed her mind and asked for the shot, it was too late, her doctor said. A ventilator awaited her, her cousin Dottie Jones told The Washington Post."

Out of options, the Galveston, Texas, mother of four, asked her family to make a promise: "Please make sure my kids get vaccinated," Rodriguez, a piano teacher, told her sister during their last phone call.

Rodriguez died Monday - two weeks after her husband, Lawrence Rodriguez, 49, also died after Coronavirus complications. The couple fought the virus from hospital beds just a few feet from one another in a Texas intensive care unit, Jones said.

The couple had been married 21 years.

The case of the Rodriguez family echoes that of other unvaccinated patients who have begged their doctors for vaccine doses before being intubated.

"Lydia has never really believed in vaccines," Jones, 55, told The Post. "She believed that she could handle everything on her own, that you didn't really need medicine."

A neonatal nurse, Jones was familiar with the serious effects Covid-19 had on mothers and babies she treated at the Sugarland, Texas, hospital where she worked. She shared with Rodriguez how she had watched patient after patient be connected to a ventilator for weeks without much improvement.

 

[hutchphd]

The following is anecdotal food for thought:
The proliferation of the Delta variant among a fully vaccinated and very careful group is nontrivial. We have had a rolling infection among my family and friends here in Indianapolis over the past three weeks. More than half who were exposed are now symptomatic with moderate flulike symptoms and positive PCR. The minimum inferred incubation period was 4 days and the max was 9 days. No severe involvements as yet and and I trust the vaccine will do its secondary job.
Mask up. So far I'm unafflicted

 

[russ_watters]

My question is whether vaccination reduces the evolution of those processes which give our species a range of autoimmunological mutations?

Yup, from an evolutionary standpoint, vaccines make us weaker. And antibiotics make bacteria stronger.

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...
[snip]
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?

You're beating around the bush here, but what you are saying here is how do we know it wouldn't be better for humans in the long run to let COVID run its course so that in a few generations we are stronger for it, which may save more people.

No. Just...no. That's not how we do things. We don't let millions of people die because it might make the rest of humanity stronger over a much longer term by enough to offset those deaths. We do what we can, now, to save as many people as we can. That's not short-sighted because there's just absolutely no way to know what things will look like in 100,000 years. It would only be short-sighted if we knew and could predict with some accuracy that there was harm coming in the future.

[In fact, they are so new, the vaccines are not even properly licenced (at least here in the UK) but issued under emergency protocols...

No, that's a disingenuous/incorrect/contradictory. The "emergency protocol" is is "properly licensed". That's why it exists. It takes into account a situation where the normal process is overly conservative and there is a compelling need for a different process. That's "proper". People are playing word games saying "authorized" isn't "approved" (or "licensed"), but they are just that; word games. Different doesn't mean improper.

(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).

This isn't true in the US at least. You can't sue the drug companies, but there is a government fund for compensation.

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...

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.

People do study such things of course. It's how we know about the antibiotics and bacteria evolving conundrum (though the issue is less significant for humans/vaccines). But it's really not relevant to the current pandemic.

 

[hutchphd]

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.

This strikes me as a very misguided argument. This same "logic" can be applied to any medical intervention which allows a potentially dying person to survive through childbearing age. How do you intend to ascertain these metrics? Do we stop all interventions until we know about the 100,000 year window. Or prohibit any potentially "saved" child from ever procreating?
In fact almost any change can be similarly discouraged. In fact there are also sociological changes which may have negative effect. The sudden rise of Poliomyelitis last century was an unexpected consequence of improving childhood hygiene. Did we decide to turn back the clock on hygiene? No we relied on Jonas Salk's brain.
While I believe we would do well to perhaps look out seven generations, the 100kyear requirement seems overly restrictive.

 

[cmb]

Yup, from an evolutionary standpoint, vaccines make us weaker. And antibiotics make bacteria stronger.

You're beating around the bush here, but what you are saying here is how do we know it wouldn't be better for humans in the long run to let COVID run its course so that in a few generations we are stronger for it, which may save more people.

No. Just...no. That's not how we do things. We don't let millions of people die because it might make the rest of humanity stronger over a much longer term

I am being misread.

I will quote myself;-

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.

No, that's a disingenuous/incorrect/contradictory. The "emergency protocol" is is "properly licensed". That's why it exists. It takes into account a situation where the normal process is overly conservative and there is a compelling need for a different process. That's "proper". People are playing word games saying "authorized" isn't "approved" (or "licensed"), but they are just that; word games. Different doesn't mean improper.

Not in the UK.

Medications (vaccines .. all other vaccines in use in the UK today) are governed by The Human Medicines Regulations 2012.

A manufacturer or suppler has to obtain a 'manufacturer's licence' and receive a 'marketing authorisation'.

Manufacturing of medicinal products​

17.—(1) A person may not except in accordance with a license (a “manufacturer’s licence”)—

(a)manufacture, assemble or import from a state other than an EEA State any medicinal product; or

(b)possess a medicinal product for the purpose of any activity in sub-paragraph (a).

Medications licenced under Regulation 17 are then authorised for sale under Regulation 46;

Requirement for authorisation​

46.—(1) A person may not sell or supply, or offer to sell or supply, an unauthorised medicinal product.

But otherwise, medications may be granted a temporary authorisation under Regulation 174;

Supply in response to spread of pathogenic agents etc​

174. The prohibitions in regulation 46 (requirement for authorisation) do not apply where the sale or supply of a medicinal product is authorised by the licensing authority on a temporary basis in response to the suspected or confirmed spread of—

It is given a temporary authorisation. My understanding is that the effect is that only the limited Government blanket protection, given under The Vaccine Damage Payment Regulations 1979 (as amended by latest amendments, now ceiling is £120,000) applies to the Pfeizer and Astra vaccines. Those companies themselves are immune from any claims against them because patients taking the vaccine are considered to do so by accepting it at their own risk.

1Payments to persons severely disabled by vaccination.​

(1)If, on consideration of a claim, the Secretary of State is satisfied—

(a)that a person is, or was immediately before his death, severely disabled as a result of vaccination against any of the diseases to which this Act applies; and

(b)that the conditions of entitlement which are applicable in accordance with section 2 below are fulfilled,

he shall in accordance with this Act make a payment of [F2the relevant statutory sum] to or for the benefit of that person or to his personal representatives.

In the UK the Moderna vaccine now has "marketing authorisation" ('not' temporary, as of about 6 weeks ago) so adverse effects are covered by the company itself.

Please don't accuse me of not knowing the details and being disingenuous, if you are not able to put forward the precise details yourself. On the contrary, I would propose the press, Gov and pharmaceutical industries are more readily accused of disingenuous behaviour that they know patients only get limited liabilities but don't really want to go publicising it.

If you think I have that all wrong, I'd welcome your detailed explanation of why Regulation 174 even exists if it is not as I describe above.

But for more information on the specifics, you might want to review the UK Gov consultation on this very aspect of issues, which you can find here;-

https://www.gov.uk/government/consu...ovid-19-vaccines#civil-liability-and-immunity

To quote (I have made bold)..

Policy objectives​

The main policy objectives of these proposals are to:

1. ...
2. Clarify the scope of immunity from civil liability which regulation 345 of the HMRs puts in place for certain products whose unlicensed use is recommended by the licensing authority in response to certain specific types of public health threat, so that it clearly applies not just to manufacturers and healthcare professionals but also to the company placing an unlicensed medicine such as a vaccine on the market with the approval of the licensing authority – and to clarify the consequences on immunity, should there be a breach of the conditions imposed by the licensing authority.

 

[cmb]

This strikes me as a very misguided argument. This same "logic" can be applied to any medical intervention which allows a potentially dying person to survive through childbearing age. How do you intend to ascertain these metrics? Do we stop all interventions until we know about the 100,000 year window.

I refer to my self-quote above; I am fully, wholly and without nuance saying one should use vaccines and modern medications where they are licenced and proven.

I'm just saying that without knowing if they do cause species-level reductions in auto-immune strength, then the thread title might be considered premature.

If I declared 130 years ago that 19th century cars were emitting CO2, you might say, I guess, (and rightly critique) 'So, are you saying that all car manufacturing should stop until we know more?', and again I'd say 'no, that is not what I am saying. Go ahead, but be attentive to negative consequences (that might not even occur in our lifetimes)'.

I have made my points and it's all there, nothing more to say here. If you want to read something different to what I actually wrote, I can't really stop that happening.

 

[russ_watters]

I refer to my self-quote above; I am fully, wholly and without nuance saying one should use vaccines and modern medications where they are licenced and proven.

"licensed and proven' is a "nuance"/caveat.

I'm just saying that without knowing if they do cause species-level reductions in auto-immune strength, then the thread title might be considered premature.

If I declared 130 years ago that 19th century cars were emitting CO2, you might say, I guess, (and rightly critique) 'So, are you saying that all car manufacturing should stop until we know more?', and again I'd say 'no, that is not what I am saying. Go ahead, but be attentive to negative consequences (that might not even occur in our lifetimes)'.

The thread title is not premature. We have established expectations for vaccine safety and efficacy. These expectations were blown-up by the mRNA vaccines. It's not an over-statement to say people were stunned by these vaccines. I was/am.

I have made my points and it's all there, nothing more to say here. If you want to read something different to what I actually wrote, I can't really stop that happening.

What's making me skeptical and maybe the others is both that the question you are raising is odd at best (at worst it very at odds with dominant western moral philosophy) and the caveats on your support of the vaccine seem suspiciously purposely calibrated.

 

[russ_watters]

I am being misread.

I will quote myself;-

You've gone to great lengths to say what you aren't saying while avoiding saying what you are saying. So please say it. Why are we discussing evolution? Yup, we know that humans won't evolve to have better immune systems if we artificially boost them. What should we be doing with this knowledge that we aren't doing? And please don't say "more study". We already know it's true. So, what?

Not in the UK...

license...

temporary authorization...

That's disingenuous. It's word games. A different process exists for a reason, and that's not "improper".

My understanding is that the effect is that only the limited Government blanket protection, given under The Vaccine Damage Payment Regulations 1979 (as amended by latest amendments, now ceiling is £120,000) applies to the Pfeizer and Astra vaccines. Those companies themselves are immune from any claims against them because patients taking the vaccine are considered to do so by accepting it at their own risk.

That's a contradiction. If there's a government fund for redress, then people aren't accepting it at their own risk. Saying that pfizer/moderna aren't liable is not equivalent to saying that people individually accept the risk.

Please don't accuse me of not knowing the details and being disingenuous, if you are not able to put forward the precise details yourself.

I didn't say you don't know the details, I'm saying you are misrepresenting them (not necessarily on purpose). There's nothing for me to cite other than what you are saying and your own sources. You cite a source and they you say something that contradicts what your source is telling you.

[edit]
If it sounds like I'm getting triggered, I am. Part of the reason is that the three issues you raised at the same time have nothing whatsoever in common except that they are in the anti-vax playbook.

 

[Grasshopper]

Humans are already pathetically weak. We can maybe beat other animals at endurance running, and finger dexterity, but for the most part we are a joke. Except we have one thing no other animals do: the ability to change our environment to our whims.

The thing is, natural selection is blind. We, however, are not blind. When it all comes down to the nitty gritty, will win every evolutionary arms race, if we put all of our cognitive abilities and will to it. This includes the arms race against COVID-19.

You have to remember, we are fighting it with one hand tied behind out back. I believe that the second this “super bug” some of you fear arrives (if it ever does), and the death rate climbs high enough that even the anti-vaxors and anti-maskers start taking it seriously, humanity will do to the new Coronavirus what we did to polio. Every creature on this planet not directly involved in keeping us alive lives by the grace of humans. We could eliminate anyone of them. We could stomp SARS-CoV-2 into the ground if we attacked it with a unified front. And if it gets really bad, I expect we will.

The only question is how many people have to die first. And that is ultimately up to us.

What’s most likely to happen is we continue our half-assed effort and learn to live with it. But I’m just saying, if we really wanted to as a species, we’d completely eliminate it. That is what we do. Bears hunt, bees make honey, and we cheat the game of evolution.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

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.

This argument right here is the main point from evolutionary biology which is at odds with the rest of your arguments. You're arguing that modern medicine and vaccination are preventing genotypes with weaker immune systems from being culled from the human gene pool. However, in evolutionary terms, genetic diversity is a species' greatest defense against extinction, providing the basis for a population to adapt to changes to their environment. As you note above, apparently 'useless' mutations or even weakly deleterious mutations may provide the basis for the development of a new, beneficial trait in the future. Having a pandemic eliminate certain genotypes from the human gene pool reduces human genetic diversity and provides fewer avenues for future human evolution.

Indeed, experiments studying evolution in the lab demonstrate this point: researchers studied the ability for bacteria resitant to one antibiotic to evolve resistance to a new antibiotic under two conditions. In one condition, the researchers cultured the bacteria in the presence of a high concentration of the original antibiotic (to which they are already resistant) and in the other condition, they used a much lower concentration of the original antibiotic. The bacteria under weak selection (low antibiotic concentration) were more easily able to evolve resistance to the new antibiotic than bacteria under stronger selection. This difference in the "evolvability" of the bacteria comes about because mutations that facilitate evolution of resistance to the new antibiotic slightly compromise the ability of the bacteria to resist the original antibiotic. While these mutations are tolerated under weak selection conditions, they are eliminated from the gene pool under conditions of strong selection, thus making the evolution of new traits more difficult.

Translating these findings to humans, one might think that there could be mutations in humans that may slightly compromise peoples' immune systems now (such that they would be more susceptible to diseases like COVID-19 without vaccination), but these mutations could be beneficial under other conditions where they might aid in the evolution of new traits that could help in under different circumstances.

 

[cmb]

This argument right here is the main point from evolutionary biology which is at odds with the rest of your arguments. You're arguing that modern medicine and vaccination are preventing genotypes with weaker immune systems from being culled from the human gene pool. However, in evolutionary terms, genetic diversity is a species' greatest defense against extinction,

My argument does not hinge on whether that is true or not for vaccines/immunology, merely that we should seek to measure it over several generations. It would be speculative to assume either conclusion. As I mentioned, we have had vaccines for 'a few' generations, and we have had RNA vaccines for 'no' generations. I am not expecting to see any measurable effects on the population in the lifetimes of anyone who has taken this vaccine.

So, for now, we take it and future generations will determine this.

The counter argument to mine is not as many as you have put. The counter argument you should offer is 'we should have no regard for any effect of vaccines on evolutionary autoimmunology and never seek to measure it, because we are so confident', which would surely be a political and not a scientific conclusion?

I would have thought the basic line that 'we don't see any problems with this new technology, let's get on and do it, and we're so clever there will be no consequences' would be worn thin by now, but it seems to still be a well-trodden and well-regarded POV.

 

[cmb]

That's disingenuous. It's word games. A different process exists for a reason, and that's not "improper".

That's a contradiction. If there's a government fund for redress, then people aren't accepting it at their own risk. Saying that pfizer/moderna aren't liable is not equivalent to saying that people individually accept the risk.

Not at all a contradiction. The difference is in the quantum of the liability.

One route (the proper, licenced route) leads to unlimited liability.

The other route, the £120,000, was put in place precisely because drug companies were dodging any liability at all, but HM Gov refused take on the full liability of a 3rd party company.

I can assure you that £120,000 is not remotely enough, by a couple orders of magnitude, for someone who suffers a mid-life onset of a life-changing disability.

No, sorry. People are NOT being informed of the difference. To discover your claim is capped at £120,000 when you suddenly find you need life-long care is a joke of the worst kind. To discover you accepted this risk yourself when taking the vaccines (because you didn't read the patient information material very well) is not acceptable in my view.

I don't have a 'calibrated' hidden agenda, it is the political establishment that has chosen to go down a route of temporary authorisation without disclosing in a clear and reasonable manner that this changes the limits of liability.

If they did make that clear, if they said 'this is not licenced at the moment but we have temporarily approved it', which is a fact, so can only be supressed for political reasons and not scientific ones, then I'd certainly have no reasonable such point to make on this subject. But they don't.

Let me ask these questions; the purpose of the slow approval and licencing protocol is so that any problems can be seen and weeded out on a smaller initial group before the new medicine is distributed to the wider population. But it already is being distributed to the wider population, so what is the point of the 'normal' authorisation process now? Why not just fully license and authorise it now, under Regulation 46 and not 174, if it is so guaranteed and assured?

 

[atyy]

Discussions about the interplay of vaccination and viral evolution

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/202...have-changed-pandemic-what-will-virus-do-next
Evolving threat: New SARS-CoV-2 variants have changed the pandemic. What will the virus do next?
Kai Kupferschmidt

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6540/363
Epidemiological and evolutionary considerations of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dosing regimes
Saad-Roy CM, Morris SE, Metcalf CJE, Mina MJ, Baker RE, Farrar J, Holmes EC, Pybus OG, Graham AL, Levin SA, Grenfell BT, Wagner CE.

 

[hutchphd]

. The counter argument you should offer is 'we should have no regard for any effect of vaccines on evolutionary autoimmunology and never seek to measure it, because we are so confident', which would surely be a political and not a scientific conclusion?

Thank you for defining a stupid counter-argument and then refuting it: Straw Men are usually introduced with more finesse and so sometimes seem reasonable.

 

[cmb]

Thank you for defining a stupid counter-argument and then refuting it: Straw Men are usually introduced with more finesse and so sometimes seem reasonable.

Well, the point is my starting axiom is so plain obvious and stupid I didn't think it needed to be explained/defended. I am trying to say nothing more than;

'we should have no regard for any effect of vaccines on evolutionary autoimmunology and never seek to measure it, because we are so confident'

Are we in agreement on that stupid-obvious axiom, then, because that's all I actually wrote (seems, I did very badly) on that aspect?

 

[Grasshopper]

Discussions about the interplay of vaccination and viral evolution

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/202...have-changed-pandemic-what-will-virus-do-next
Evolving threat: New SARS-CoV-2 variants have changed the pandemic. What will the virus do next?
Kai Kupferschmidt

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6540/363
Epidemiological and evolutionary considerations of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dosing regimes
Saad-Roy CM, Morris SE, Metcalf CJE, Mina MJ, Baker RE, Farrar J, Holmes EC, Pybus OG, Graham AL, Levin SA, Grenfell BT, Wagner CE.

The first article mentions several times how important “lottery tickets” are for the virus to get lucky and hit on beneficial mutations. It is so disheartening that so many of us are handing SARS-CoV-2 the opportunities for mutations that it needs, with vaccine refusal, mask wearing refusal, proudly flaunting stupidity as they defy common sense and breathe down each other’s throats.

“My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge.” Is it ironic that the people who know the Bible front and back are going to fulfill that scripture?

 

[OmCheeto]

The first article mentions several times how important “lottery tickets” are for the virus to get lucky and hit on beneficial mutations. It is so disheartening that so many of us are handing SARS-CoV-2 the opportunities for mutations that it needs, with vaccine refusal, mask wearing refusal, proudly flaunting stupidity as they defy common sense and breathe down each other’s throats.

“My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge.” Is it ironic that the people who know the Bible front and back are going to fulfill that scripture?

Indeed:
"His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

 

[Grasshopper]

Indeed:
"His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

Well, I was quoting out of context, but the general principle is obvious.

Sidenote: if you've ever regularly attended a fundamentalist Assemblies of God church, as I did most of my life, using scripture out of context (and word origins as well) is a weekly thing. There is usually a theme (especially one that can be applied to daily life), which of course is needed in order to get the message to stick, so I do not begrudge them this. But nonetheless, the practice is fairly common based on the anectdotal evidence I've seen through probably thousands of sermons in dozens of very fundamentalist churches.

 

[Astronuc]

Regarding vaccine efficacy,

Thanks to the success of vaccination, smallpox was eradicated, and no cases of naturally occurring smallpox have happened since 1977. The last natural outbreak of smallpox in the United States occurred in 1949.

I seem to recall that it's been a while since children were innoculated against smallpox (Variola major and Variola minor).
https://www.cdc.gov/smallpox/about/index.html

Smallpox was an infectious disease caused by one of two virus variants, Variola major and Variola minor.[7] The agent of variola virus (VARV) belongs to the genus Orthopoxvirus.[11] The last naturally occurring case was diagnosed in October 1977, and the World Health Organization (WHO) certified the global eradication of the disease in 1980.[10] The risk of death after contracting the disease was about 30%, with higher rates among babies.[6][12] Often those who survived had extensive scarring of their skin, and some were left blind.[6]

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox

The origin of smallpox is unknown. The finding of smallpox-like rashes on Egyptian mummies suggests that smallpox has existed for at least 3,000 years. The earliest written description of a disease like smallpox appeared in China in the 4th century CE (Common Era). Early written descriptions also appeared in India in the 7th century and in Asia Minor in the 10th century.

https://www.cdc.gov/smallpox/history/history.html

Smallpox and other viruses decimated populations of native Americans, and many folks perished over three millenia, yet since 1977, no cases have been reported, and smallpox is considered eradicated, and there is no further need for vaccination.

Similarly, polio has largely been eradicated in the US. It now shows up sporadically in unvaccinated populations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio#Afghanistan_and_Pakistan

Many people fully recover. In those with muscle weakness, about 2 to 5 percent of children and 15 to 30 percent of adults die.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio

So two cases of success at eradicating a virus that had been persistent for ~3000 years or significantly reducing the prevalence of a virus that apparently also persisted for at least 3000 years through vaccination. Chronic exposure to polio did confer immunity to some, but not others. Without a vaccine, one would be playing Russian roulette with one's life, or the lives of ones friends, family members or dependents.

 

[russ_watters]

One route (the proper, licenced route) leads to unlimited liability.

You really need to stop saying the word "proper"/"improper" like that. Governments are following established procedures. That's completely proper.

The other route, the £120,000, was put in place precisely because drug companies were dodging any liability at all, but HM Gov refused take on the full liability of a 3rd party company.

I can assure you that £120,000 is not remotely enough...

You're moving the goalposts/bait and switching. What you said that I objected to is that the individuals are assuming "all of the risk" (emphasis yours). That's patently false. Whether £120,000 is enough isn't the point. The point is that £120,000 isn't zero.

Let me ask these questions; the purpose of the slow approval and licencing protocol is so that any problems can be seen and weeded out on a smaller initial group before the new medicine is distributed to the wider population. But it already is being distributed to the wider population, so what is the point of the 'normal' authorisation process now? Why not just fully license and authorise it now, under Regulation 46 and not 174, if it is so guaranteed and assured?

Two ways to answer:

• That's how the procedure is written and violating procedure would be "improper".
• The fact that it's already been widely distributed does not alleviate the need to dot the i's and cross the T's. It's still important to finish the studies and document the results.

I feel like you're more concerned with being able to stick it to the pharma companies than you are about whether the vaccine is actually safe!

The counter argument to mine is not as many as you have put. The counter argument you should offer is 'we should have no regard for any effect of vaccines on evolutionary autoimmunology and never seek to measure it, because we are so confident', which would surely be a political and not a scientific conclusion?

Nobody is saying we shouldn't study anything and everything people can think of. But as far as I can see, you haven't made an action-based argument so there is nothing for us to counter. You are merely implying that maybe it would be better to just let diseases run their course.

[edit/add]

Well, the point is my starting axiom is so plain obvious and stupid I didn't think it needed to be explained/defended. I am trying to say nothing more than;

'we should have no regard for any effect of vaccines on evolutionary autoimmunology and never seek to measure it, because we are so confident'

Are we in agreement on that stupid-obvious axiom, then, because that's all I actually wrote (seems, I did very badly) on that aspect?

Yes, of course we are. The reason we are questioning you on it is that it is so obvious that it seems pointless to bring it up. If it doesn't lead to action relevant to the current pandemic or the handling of future pandemics(seasonal flu?), then why did you even bring it up?

Note that this sub-discussion started with a spurious analysis/claim you made about people adapting to fight-off COVID, causing the mortality rate to drop. It seems like you started with a faulty belief/premise that we can rapidly adapt (not even evolve -- currently living humans) to fight off a disease ourselves, which leads to a question about whether vaccines do more harm than good in the long run (so we should consider not vaccinating).

 

[atyy]

Similarly, polio has largely been eradicated in the US. It now shows up sporadically in unvaccinated populations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio#Afghanistan_and_Pakistan

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-...-causes-more-infections-than-wild-virus-66778
In rare instances, the live virus in oral polio vaccines can mutate and become infectious, causing new outbreaks.

"“It’s actually crazy because we’re vaccinating now against the vaccine in most parts of the world,” Vincent Racaniello, a virologist at Columbia University, tells NPR, “not against wild polio, which is confined to Pakistan and Afghanistan.”"

 

[Grasshopper]

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-...-causes-more-infections-than-wild-virus-66778
In rare instances, the live virus in oral polio vaccines can mutate and become infectious, causing new outbreaks.

"“It’s actually crazy because we’re vaccinating now against the vaccine in most parts of the world,” Vincent Racaniello, a virologist at Columbia University, tells NPR, “not against wild polio, which is confined to Pakistan and Afghanistan.”"

Here's another question I have for the biologists, since you mentioned this: would a virus or other infection that has been with humans for eons be easier to get rid of or control, since they have never experienced the pressure modern humans would put on them through vaccines and other measures? And would novel viruses/infections maybe have an advantage over these long term parasites because they haven't been conditioned through eons to be extremely well adapted to historical human behavior?

I ask this because polio got destroyed by us when we utilized the fruits of the scientific method against it, and currently influenza is being pushed to the margins with the new behavior caused by the novel coronavirus.

 

[PeroK]

Well, the point is my starting axiom is so plain obvious and stupid I didn't think it needed to be explained/defended. I am trying to say nothing more than;

'we should have no regard for any effect of vaccines on evolutionary autoimmunology and never seek to measure it, because we are so confident'

Are we in agreement on that stupid-obvious axiom, then, because that's all I actually wrote (seems, I did very badly) on that aspect?

Enough already!

 

[bhobba]

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.

Data has come in from Isreal about third doses. It is so interesting I will start a separate thread.

Thanks
Bill

 

[cmb]

Enough already!

Yes. I am done, didn't really want it to go that far.

 

[atyy]

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58270098
Is catching Covid now better than more vaccine?
NOTE: "now" means after being fully vaccinated, NOT before being fully vaccinated

This article is relevant to highly vaccinated populations (ie. not the USA). In such populations, it is reasonable to imagine boosters only for vulnerable populations (immunocompromised, seniors) for whom vaccine efficacy against severe disease is not high. But in populations where vaccine efficacy against severe disease is high, could we just allow people to get infected, ie. COVID really becomes just like flu or even a common cold after a while?

 

[bhobba]

But in populations where vaccine efficacy against severe disease is high, could we just allow people to get infected, ie. COVID really becomes just like flu or even a common cold after a while?

That is the view of my GP when we get high vaccination rates. With one exception - people like me that are immunocompromised and have a higher chance of death. But he still thinks here in Aus; everyone will eventually get the third dose because the government has more or less said that is how it plans to use the Novavax vaccine it has ordered. He has been my doctor for 40 years and holds many older fashioned views different from the current orthodoxy.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Astronuc]

What we actually know about the vaccines and the delta variant​

https://www.vox.com/coronavirus-covid19/22630979/covid-19-vaccine-booster-shots-delta-variant
Covid-19 vaccines still are effective in preventing hospitalization. But vaccinated people are more likely to get sick than before.

And we're still learning, and the virus is still mutating.

 

[Astronuc]

FDA gives full approval to Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine​

https://abc7chicago.com/pfizer-vaccine-fda-approval-date-covid-full-second-dose-timing/10969159/
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/fda-gives-full-approval-to-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine

Original source (Aug 23) - https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-vaccine-pfizer-approval-1361ff61d06b815652a08a7cc0683a72

https://www.fda.gov/emergency-prepa...omirnaty-and-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine
https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download

 

[Astronuc]

Good essay on vaccination for SARS-Cov-2:

Role in the transmission chain: Vaccinated vs. unvaccinated​

https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/role-in-the-transmission-chain-vaccinated

 

[atyy]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03744-4
Antibody epitopes in vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopaenia
Angela Huynh, John G. Kelton, Donald M. Arnold, Mercy Daka & Ishac Nazy
Nature 596: 565–569 (2021)
"Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopaenia (VITT) is a rare adverse effect of COVID-19 adenoviral vector vaccines. VITT resembles heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia (HIT) in that it is associated with platelet-activating antibodies against platelet factor 4 (PF4); ... Our data indicate that VITT antibodies can mimic the effect of heparin by binding to a similar site on PF4; this allows PF4 tetramers to cluster and form immune complexes, which in turn causes Fcγ receptor IIa (FcγRIIa; also known as CD32a)-dependent platelet activation. These results provide an explanation for VITT-antibody-induced platelet activation that could contribute to thrombosis."

 

[merlinbennie]

The Delta variation was also shown to be less susceptible to “sera from naturally immunised individuals,” implying that persons who have already been infected with the virus may not be protected against reinfection with the Delta form.

 

[nsaspook]

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections​

Every adult that hasn't been infected greatly benefits from vaccination but it seems natural immunity will be an important fact in ending the pandemic.

 

[Astronuc]

natural immunity

Can it be achieved with exposure to a killed virus as opposed to a live virus? Is natural immunity achieved through exposure to the 28 proteins of the virus as opposed to the one or two proteins in a vaccine?