Covid vaccination status for CF members

[UFO]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

NOWHERE does that article say that vaccines can cause mutation. It only points out that in the vaccinated, IF a mutation arises (in the same way that they arise in any infected person) that the vaccine doesn't recognise, that new variant could multiply in that person.

In the immunocompromised (or in perfectly healthy people who just happen to be susceptible to COVID), a heavier infection of course presents more opportunity for mutation to occur.


Wow. Note to world - Greg needs to be spoonfed. Do we have to burp you too?

Why are you so rude to people?



Also true to form you guys play with semantics to deny anything that does not agree with your spoon fed propaganda that you suck up like muck - You really are like mushrooms and you love it.



"These mutations might be driven by antigenic drift, or by selection, either during natural infection or due to the vaccine itself."


There is also a shed load of research out there that points towards vaccines causing mutations in other illnesses.



Why are you guys always so defensive about simple research that does not agree with your point of view? time to broaden ones horizons and come out of the dark if you know what I mean

[GoinSumWare]

Originally Posted by requiem

If asymptomatic spread is an issue, a reduced duration shortens the window of exposure.

Asymptomatic also doesn't mean there isn't underlying damage that isn't immediately apparent, e.g. reduced lung capacity.

Asymptomatic also does not mean there IS underlying damage that isn't immediately apparent. You are making an assumption to buttress your position. Do you have any data to support it?

BTW due to Prop 65, passed by the government of California, pretty much anything you buy contains the following:

"WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm."

Does the fact that using a tennis racket or toaster containing that warning give you cause for concern?

[Greg K]

[QUOTE=Lake-Effect;3394022]

NOWHERE does that article say that vaccines can cause mutation. It only points out that in the vaccinated, IF a mutation arises (in the same way that they arise in any infected person) that the vaccine doesn't recognise, that new variant could multiply in that person.QUOTE]

Here you go:

" These mutations might be driven by antigenic drift, or by selection, either during natural infection or due to the vaccine itself."

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by UFO

"These mutations might be driven by antigenic drift, or by selection, either during natural infection or due to the vaccine itself."

I added some colour to help you out. Another word for selection is filtering. In this case the filtering is: the vaccine may reduce the reproduction of one or more types of the COVID virus, but not one of the mutations. So that mutation could reproduce as if the host wasn't vaccinated.

In other words - vaccines don't cause mutations, but they might let some mutations through.

If you're running around telling people that "vaccines cause mutations", implying that vaccines somehow increase the likelihood of mutations...you are the one commiting semantic crimes.

[Greg K]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I added some colour to help you out. Another word for selection is filtering. In this case the filtering is: the vaccine may reduce the reproduction of one or more types of the COVID virus, but not one of the mutations. So that mutation could reproduce as if the host wasn't vaccinated.

In other words - vaccines don't cause mutations, but they might let some mutations through.

If you're running around telling people that "vaccines cause mutations", implying that vaccines somehow increase the likelihood of mutations...you are the one commiting semantic crimes.

No. Your interpretation of that passage is not correct. You need to look at the context of the whole paragraph. Let's examine it below:

"Given that the antibody response to the spike protein is so focused, could mutations in these restricted sequences lead to a less efficacious vaccine, if the human immune response is specific to the vaccine sequence? These mutations might be driven by antigenic drift, or by selection, either during natural infection or due to the vaccine itself. When a virus is grown under the selective pressure of a single monoclonal antibody that targets a single epitope on a viral protein, mutations in that protein sequence will lead to the loss of neutralisation, and the generation of escape mutants. This sequence of events has been shown in the laboratory for polio, measles, and respiratory syncytial virus, and in 2020 for SARS-CoV-2"

The first bolded sentence segments ask the question whether the fact that the vaccines produce a very focused immune response could lead to mutations which reduce the efficacy of the vaccine. It then answers that question by stating how such mutations might be driven. It states two possibilities. One is antigenic drift and the other is via selection which happens during natural infection or selection due to the vaccine itself ( presumably because the vaccine promotes such a focused immune response). The underlined sentence after that is key to understanding this passage because it clearly states that it is in fact that selective pressure (of either natural infection or such a focused immune response of the vaccine) that leads to mutations and the generation of escape mutants.

It is a difficult passage to comprehend, so no shame in getting it wrong. If you are not convinced of my interpretation have a look at the technical article referenced in footnote 8. It discusses this issue in much more technical detail.

https://elifesciences.org/articles/61312.pdf

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Greg K

No. Your interpretation of that passage is not correct. You need to look at the context of the whole paragraph. Let's examine it below:

"Given that the antibody response to the spike protein is so focused, could mutations in these restricted sequences lead to a less efficacious vaccine, if the human immune response is specific to the vaccine sequence? These mutations might be driven by antigenic drift, or by selection, either during natural infection or due to the vaccine itself. When a virus is grown under the selective pressure of a single monoclonal antibody that targets a single epitope on a viral protein, mutations in that protein sequence will lead to the loss of neutralisation, and the generation of escape mutants. This sequence of events has been shown in the laboratory for polio, measles, and respiratory syncytial virus, and in 2020 for SARS-CoV-2"

The first bolded sentence segments ask the question whether the fact that the vaccines produce a very focused immune response could lead to mutations which reduce the efficacy of the vaccine. It then answers that question by stating how such mutations might be driven. It states two possibilities. One is antigenic drift and the other is via selection which happens during natural infection or selection due to the vaccine itself ( presumably because the vaccine promotes such a focused immune response). The underlined sentence after that is key to understanding this passage because it clearly states that it is in fact that selective pressure (of either natural infection or such a focused immune response of the vaccine) that leads to mutations and the generation of escape mutants.

It is a difficult passage to comprehend, so no shame in getting it wrong. If you are not convinced of my interpretation have a look at the technical article referenced in footnote 8. It discusses this issue in much more technical detail.

https://elifesciences.org/articles/61312.pdf

Stop spoonfeeding him..

[jtsailjt]

To put it as simply and straightforwardly as possible , vaccinated people are much less likely than unvaccinated people to come down with Covid, and since mutations occur in people who are infected with Covid but don’t occur in people who are not infected, it follows that most mutations will occur in and be initially spread by unvaccinated people.

[Thumbs Up]

The vaccinated will be more likely to have asymptomatic covid and will be less likely to take precautions. We still have no real idea about the true count of breakthrough (got covid with the vaccine) cases. Some numbers are getting reported but it is early and the numbers tell us nothing without giving an idea of what percentage of the vaccinated are being tested. If the vaccine is only suppressing the symptoms but not killing the virus then we have a serious problem.

[davil]

speechless

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other...?ocid=msedgntp

[Bill Seal]

Reading this, my sweet 75yo wife opined "any stranger accosting my grand children is likely to end up missing a few teeth"

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Greg K

When a virus is grown under the selective pressure of a single monoclonal antibody that targets a single epitope on a viral protein, mutations in that protein sequence will lead to the loss of neutralisation, and the generation of escape mutants.
....
The underlined sentence after that is key to understanding this passage because it clearly states that it is in fact that selective pressure (of either natural infection or such a focused immune response of the vaccine) that leads to mutations and the generation of escape mutants.

Just to glance at the goalposts:

1. vaccination DOES NOT CAUSE or otherwise facilitate the creation of COVID mutations
2. vaccination reduces the chance of catching COVID, and by reducing the severity and duration of illness, reduces the opportunity for mutations to appear and propagate

The truth, stated briefly, is that widespread vaccination REDUCES the likelihood of successful new mutations. The mutations we're currently battling today all came from unvaccinated people, since the vaccines were not yet widely available.

Wading back into the weeds... What is selective pressure? It's a $10 way of saying that antibodies (from past illness, or a vaccine) act on one or a subset of the characteristics of that virus, but that some mutations which don't happen to have that set of target characteristics, are not suppressed by the existing antibodies. These are your escape mutants.

It is a difficult passage to comprehend, so no shame in getting it wrong. If you are not convinced of my interpretation have a look at the technical article referenced in footnote 8. It discusses this issue in much more technical detail.

https://elifesciences.org/articles/61312.pdf

Here's the gist of that article (in chunks):

... natural SARS-CoV-2 infection may often fail to induce sufficient B-cell expansion and maturation to generate high-titer neutralizing antibodies.The degree to, and pace at which SARS-CoV-2 might evolve to escape neutralizing antibodies is unclear. The aforementioned considerations raise the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 evolution might be influenced by frequent encounters with sub-optimal concentrations of potently neutralizing anti-bodies during natural infection.

Got that? The variability of natural COVID infection means that a consistently strong immunity to future infection is not guaranteed. This is why vaccination, with a uniformly strong dose of the "target", is more reliable for generating protection. And for reducing the opportunities for mutants to appear and propagate.

...The spike proteins on the surface of SARS-CoV-2 are considered to be prime antibody targets as they are accessible and have an essential role in allowing the virus to attach to and infect host cells.

...It is unknown whether SARS-CoV-2 is able to efficiently evolve to evade antibodies in the same way [as HIV].Weisblum, Schmidt et al. addressed this question using an artificial system that mimics natural infection in human populations. Human cells grown in the laboratory were infected with a hybrid virus created by modifying an innocuous animal virus to contain the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, and treated with either manufactured antibodies or antibodies present in the blood of recovered COVID-19 patients. In this situation, only viruses that had mutated in a way that allowed them to escape the antibodies were able to survive. Several of the virus mutants that emerged had evolved spike proteins in which the segments targeted by the antibodies had changed, allowing these mutant viruses to remain undetected. ...These results show that SARS-CoV-2 can mutate its spike proteins to evade antibodies, and that these mutations are already present in some virus mutants circulating in the human population.

... in other words, the SARS-CoV-2 can mutate in ways that sometimes evade antibodies. NOTHING about vaccination causing MORE mutations, or otherwise helping mutations get a leg up.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

The vaccinated will be more likely to have asymptomatic covid and will be less likely to take precautions.

Not true; the vaccinated are much less likely to get COVID, period, and what illness they might catch will be less severe and of a shorter duration. And the vaccinated folks they hang around with are much less likely to catch it from them. And so on. That's "herd immunity", achieved through vaccination.

[Greg K]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

To put it as simply and straightforwardly as possible , vaccinated people are much less likely than unvaccinated people to come down with Covid, and since mutations occur in people who are infected with Covid but don’t occur in people who are not infected, it follows that most mutations will occur in and be initially spread by unvaccinated people.

I presume this is just your opinion based on your own logic, but from what I have read about mutations, it doesn't really make sense. Mutations, as I understand it, are generally driven by evolutionary pressure. A virus (or bacteria) that can easily reproduce will generally not be under much evolutionary pressure and consequently not mutate to become more infectious or virile over time ( think common cold, for example) It may, however, be more prone to mutation when, for example, a vaccinated person or a partially vaccinated person who has not yet developed full strength immunity gets infected. In such a case, much of the virus load will be destroyed but some more resistant variants will survive. If such a partially vaccinated infected person then infects another individual with that surviving variant, that variant will become dominant in an environment where there is evolutionary pressure put on the virus by the immune response of vaccinated individuals.

This is why it is crucial that vaccinated individuals continue to protect themselves against infection during the interim before reaching full vaccinated status. Not only because they may get sick, but more importantly because if they do get sick and shed the virus, it may add to more mutations in the general population.

This, I believe, is fairly general knowledge regarding mutations ( especially when it comes to antibiotic resistant bacteria) . and it is why some scientist were opposed to a mass vaccination effort during a pandemic where ubiquitous infection almost guarantees that numerous partially vaccinated individuals will likely get infected before reaching full immunity and may infect others with the surviving variants which would lead towards more resistant variants.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Yes, of course the vaccines weren’t designed to protect against all current variants that didn’t yet exist when the vaccine was developed. But fortunately they are effective most current variants. The fewer unvaccinated hosts there are available for the various forms to mutate in, the fewer variants we’ll see in the future. Thats why its so important that as many as possible be vaccinated as soon as possible. Until everyone gets on board with that I think you’re right that this threat will continue to evolve and so will the vaccines have to evolve and we’ll all have to get updated jabs in order to protect against these future variants. Inconvenient, but better than just letting covid circulate unchecked and evolve until a particularly deadly variant wipes out hundreds of millions rather than “just” millions.

You also mentioned that some states were seeing a high in the number of cases but thats no reflection on the vaccines because its not the vaccinated folks who are driving these numbers up.

The vaccination progress is not being reduced at this time by the people that chose not to be vaccinated. It's the lack of sufficient supply of vaccine. The poor eligibility rules will certainly cause millions of deaths that could have been avoided if those most likely to spread were vaccinated first. Unfortunately age was the criteria used. Of course I'm speaking for what happened in the US. Could be different elsewhere.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Greg K

Mutations, as I understand it, are generally driven by evolutionary pressure. A virus (or bacteria) that can easily reproduce will generally not be under much evolutionary pressure and consequently not mutate to become more infectious or virile over time ( think common cold, for example) It may, however, be more prone to mutation when, for example, a vaccinated person or a partially vaccinated person who has not yet developed full strength immunity gets infected.

Viral mutations "happen". Evolutionary pressure (aka natural selection) is simply another way to say that the mutations that confer advantage will survive and spread. And the useless or non-beneficial mutations die out.

SARS-CoV-2 is an RNA virus, which has high propensity to mutate, compared to DNA viruses.

Vaccines do not 'drive' mutations; the antibodies they generate fight the virus; they are another set of hurdles that a mutation must get over, to survive and propagate.