This is mostly about doing mass vaccinations in the middle of a pandemic with vaccines that are not very effective in preventing infection (and also requiring two spaced out doses). Apparently it provides ample opportunities for the virus to evolve and escape the immunity because it applies selection pressure in that direction without actually breaking transmission.
People like Dr Geert Vanden Bossche has been warning against this for almost a year now. But the vaccine fanatics attacked and discredited them for suggesting this possiblitly [1]
Well, the "takedown" seems to get emotional in parts, but I can't disagree with it, what is this kooky doctor (ha, smell my bias) expecting, a paranoia-proof vaccine that takes many years to develop, or a vaccine that works now?
> This particular coronavirus happens to have a proofreading mechanism that results in a low mutation rate compared to that of a lot of other RNA viruses, such as, for example, the influenza virus. Seriously, as a “vaccine expert”, how is it that Dr. Vanden Bossche does not know this? Even so, concern about immune escape is one reason why Pfizer, BioNTech, and Moderna used the entire SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, rather than specific segments of it that might serve as antigens, so that the polyclonal antibody immune response generated would be broad and unlikely to be “escaped” with single mutations—or even multiple mutations.
But the implication appear to be the virus is unlikely to get there, because of low rate of mutation. Which appear to be a very weak counter argument..
To my untrained eye, it also seem that mutations are not a straight road, but an open space, and it is not really possible to put predictions on when a thing, that is jumping around in a chaotic manner, will end up at a certain point, just based on how often it is moving...
I'm not trained either, but it seems like worrying that a human with a horse's head might be born anytime soon. And the mention of "proofreading mechanism" seems to suggest the DNA (or something?) rejects many of those chaotic mutations and don't duplicate them.
> worrying that a human with a horse's head might be born anytime soon.
But is there any advantage for a human to have a horse's head? I don't think. So it appears to be a very flawed analogy, on multiple levels.
Also you should consider that this proof reading mechanism is not a hard blocker for evolution, and it could be easily overridden by mutation that are highly favourable for the organism that posses it.
And the ability to evade vaccine immunity is specifically such a mutation, in a population which is immunised with non-sterilising vaccine.
This model completely disregards how far SARS-COV2 has already spread. It is now in virtually all countries, and probably in quite a few different mammal species there to boot.
The mutation rate is the same everywhere, and somewhere it's going to mutate to become even more infectious. And from there it will spread to the rest of the world. As has already occured.
Now, all is not bad: lethality in vaccinated people are lower than for the common flu, and the future selection pressure on SARS-COV2 is to be more infectious and give fewer symptoms.
I don't think models such as these should be used to guide policy. And policy should not be guided by attempts to reduce mutation pressure. It's futile and potentially fairly destructive.
10 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 37.4 ms ] threadPeople like Dr Geert Vanden Bossche has been warning against this for almost a year now. But the vaccine fanatics attacked and discredited them for suggesting this possiblitly [1]
[1] https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/countering-geert-vanden-bos...
> This particular coronavirus happens to have a proofreading mechanism that results in a low mutation rate compared to that of a lot of other RNA viruses, such as, for example, the influenza virus. Seriously, as a “vaccine expert”, how is it that Dr. Vanden Bossche does not know this? Even so, concern about immune escape is one reason why Pfizer, BioNTech, and Moderna used the entire SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, rather than specific segments of it that might serve as antigens, so that the polyclonal antibody immune response generated would be broad and unlikely to be “escaped” with single mutations—or even multiple mutations.
To my untrained eye, it also seem that mutations are not a straight road, but an open space, and it is not really possible to put predictions on when a thing, that is jumping around in a chaotic manner, will end up at a certain point, just based on how often it is moving...
But is there any advantage for a human to have a horse's head? I don't think. So it appears to be a very flawed analogy, on multiple levels.
Also you should consider that this proof reading mechanism is not a hard blocker for evolution, and it could be easily overridden by mutation that are highly favourable for the organism that posses it.
And the ability to evade vaccine immunity is specifically such a mutation, in a population which is immunised with non-sterilising vaccine.
Resistant to what? Last year's vaccines? So what?
There will be new vaccines if need be. The same as it is with the flu.
The mutation rate is the same everywhere, and somewhere it's going to mutate to become even more infectious. And from there it will spread to the rest of the world. As has already occured.
Now, all is not bad: lethality in vaccinated people are lower than for the common flu, and the future selection pressure on SARS-COV2 is to be more infectious and give fewer symptoms.
I don't think models such as these should be used to guide policy. And policy should not be guided by attempts to reduce mutation pressure. It's futile and potentially fairly destructive.