health

Has Delta killed the herd immunity dream?

64 Comments
By Paul RICARD and Françoise KADRI

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2021 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

64 Comments
Login to comment

Has Delta killed the herd immunity dream?

Yes. But the more important question is- what is coming after Delta? a more dangerous strain? a lighter strain? we just don't know

4 ( +10 / -6 )

"Has Delta killed the herd immunity dream?"

No, people who can't be bothered to mask/distance or get the vaccine have killed the herd immunity dream.

5 ( +18 / -13 )

The narrative is constantly changing.

You mean reality, as it usually does. It must be confusing for people that base their living on eternally unchanging "truths" coming from some religious figure, but science is the way to study reality the closest it can get, so if conditions change then science has no other exit but to reflect those changes in their conclusions.

Once vaccines proved safe and effective it was natural to expect people would make the rational choice and opt for the hugely less risky option, specially because it also benefit their communities in general. Reality is that people do not act rationally.

Lack of adherence to social distancing measures for political gain made variants appear, which reduce the effect of immunity (both natural and by vaccines) and people are fooled into thinking COVID is not a risk while vaccines are, up to their beds in the ICU where reality tends to become much clearer.

2 ( +19 / -17 )

6 months ago they promised us the end of Covid thanks to vaccines and any questioning of that narrative at that time was deemed "misinformation"

What the inability to reach the goal of herd immunity means is that you and others who refuse to get vaccinated for no credible reason won't be able to hide behind the rest of us anymore. You'll have nothing to protect you against Covid and its multiple mutations except your own self-proclaimed purity of body, your quack "cures" and your ideology. That'll work, until it doesn't. You'll be isolated, unable to work in many areas of employment, unable to travel to most places, your (real) freedoms restricted. The people who are really responsible for the death of a dream that most of us long for are all those deniers and the pointless resisters of every measure taken to try and mitigate the effects of this pandemic, plus the so-called leaders and shadowy internet figures who encourage them. We know where the blame lies here, and it doesn't lie with the "they" you're trying to conjure up. It lies with the people who have carped and whined and deflected and squealed about loss of "freedom", without any understanding of what that word really means, for every one of the 18 months and more that the world has been going through this apparently endless pandemic.

2 ( +15 / -13 )

"The narrative is constantly changing."

It's a virus, not a story. That's what viruses tend to do.

7 ( +17 / -10 )

Weird how the writer initially casually mentions natural immunity from infection as contributing to herd immunity then complains about how vaccines aren't enough without ever mentioning natural immunity again.

It's just not discussed even to write it off, like in this section:

He said herd immunity hinged on two basic factors.

"That's the intrinsic infectiousness of the virus and the efficacy of vaccines to protect against infection. And at the moment, that efficacy isn't there."

Shouldn't at least the latest data on natural immunity also be considered? Even the BBC had a reasonable article on it:

"Neither gives you complete protection versus infection, but the immunity you get from either seems to protect you pretty well from serious illness," said Prof Finn, from the University of Bristol.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58270098?fbclid=IwAR2mTHOE1aj8H_huKMPfddMVYirVwmYlQo4UkMFn7BMmOCusG28LkAi4NMM

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

Lack of adherence to social distancing measures for political gain made variants appear

You can not blame "political gain" for viral mutation, or even "lack of adherence to social distancing measures" in situations of complete ignorance since the virus will still spread (albeit slower) even if people strictly stay 2 meters apart in every situation. The virus can survive an air-born situation beyond the golden 2 meter line and it gets around most flimsy masks too, the same way it also infects before the 8pm curfew.

Variants appeared because viruses mutate naturally as they spread. This is one "truth" science expects, and you know this.

And a lengthy, coordinated authoritarian lockdown everywhere on earth still won't stop the spread (and mutation) at this point from occurring in animals who also get Covid (like mink, dogs, and now deer), which can re-infect humans at a later date.

The genie is out of the bottle, and blame for mutation is pointless.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

You can not blame "political gain" for viral mutation, or even "lack of adherence to social distancing measures" in situations of complete ignorance since the virus will still spread (albeit slower) even if people strictly stay 2 meters apart in every situation. 

Virus spreading do not automatically results in new variants, as easy to see how there has been spreading in most countries of the world without each one having their own important variants.

What greatly facilitates the appearance of variants is the indiscriminate spreading that makes huge amount of cases appear in the same period, including people whose immune system can't defeat the infection for weeks, this makes variants appearing much more likely, and with wild spreading the new variants will find new host to propagate very easily.

Limiting the spreading makes this process much more difficult to occur, people with immune problems are protected from infection and opportunely treated so they never become incubators of escape mutants, much less spread them to other people.

This is like preventive measures and accidents, you can't avoid people having some accidents at work, but if you have measures in place to prevent and act on time you can prevent having frequent deaths because of them.

0 ( +10 / -10 )

Weird how the writer initially casually mentions natural immunity from infection as contributing to herd immunity then complains about how vaccines aren't enough without ever mentioning natural immunity again.

What is surprising about that? natural immunity comes only at the price of much higher risks compared with vaccination, thinking that exposing people to those risks is some kind of solution makes not sense when the purpose is to avoid those risks in the first place.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

Nobody talks in creating better vaccines, not those rushed, almost useless ones with a lot of side effects. As the author mentioned, the current vaccines are now at only 66% efficiency, and dropping each month.

Nobody also talks in creating antiviral medicine to treat infected pacients.

Social distancing, masks, alcool shots and other ridiculous funny "preventive measures" don't do almost nothing to finish this Pandemic. Just add more stress to the masses.

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

Is there not a possibility of updating the vaccines to be effective against Delta? It’s not a whole new virus, just a new strain, I thought?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Is there not a possibility of updating the vaccines to be effective against Delta? It’s not a whole new virus, just a new strain, I thought?

In theory the process is much simpler, specially for mRNA vaccines, that only need to modify the formulation while keeping the rest of the process without changes, the problem is that this small change has to be well thought, there is no meaning in making just a small change and see other variants appear immediately that can avoid some of the immunity, so a lot of data has to be examined to prevent this.

Nobody talks in creating better vaccines, not those rushed, almost useless ones with a lot of side effects. As the author mentioned, the current vaccines are now at only 66% efficiency, and dropping each month.

Preventing infection is not the main goal of the vaccines for COVID, the same as for many other vaccines already available, the main goal is to prevent serious complications and deaths, since the vaccines have been in development for more than 10 years and were tested on the same period of other already fully approved vaccines on the past saying they are rushed is simply false. So it is saying they are "almost useless" when it has been clearly proved they reduce complications, hospitalizations and deaths with very high efficacy, even for new variants.

Nobody also talks in creating antiviral medicine to treat infected pacients.

Yes they do, in scientific publications and professional discussion spaces, the same as other forms of therapies, preventive measures and vaccines, just because you don't frequent those spaces do not mean nobody else do. Mass media usually reports only when something has been already successful, which means the reports are terribly delayed when compared with primary sources.

Social distancing, masks, alcool shots and other ridiculous funny "preventive measures" don't do almost nothing to finish this Pandemic.

The scientific consensus is the opposite, the measures are not perfect but have a very important role preventing spreading, nameless people on the internet saying all the experts in the world are wrong are not exactly a valid argument against it.

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

Thanks China.

3 ( +11 / -8 )

since the vaccines have been in development for more than 10 years and were tested on the same period of other already fully approved vaccines on the past saying they are rushed is simply false.

I though covid had just been with us for a year and a half, how come the vaccines have been in development for 10 years? Did big pharma have a crystal ball or what?

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

I think Japan can achieve 90% vaccinated, but good luck hitting that number in the USA.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

We do not die because the virus kills us, we die because our own body kills us in a process called sepsis which literally dissolves our organs in a massive autoimmune event mediated by Cachexin, a master cytokine. This, really, is herd immunity. When the mammalian immune system was developing, the individual's greatest likelihood of death was by predation. The genepool uses the reliability of predation as a method of eliminating infected members of the genepool by, first, malaise which cripples the animal and greatly magnifies its probability of attracting a hungry predator, but continues on until the immune system itself, in a process very similar to apoptosis of infected cells in the organism, destroys the infected animal before it can infect its fellows. Permanent quarantine (social distancing), as it were. The genepool cares about a 'sick' individual about as much as we care about a cast off skin cell.

Our best example of unmitigated 'herd immunity' in our recorded history may be the "Black Plague' which simply exhausted the individuals in the available population susceptible to it. This was a major 'selection' event in modifying Human immune responses which removed those combinations unable to resist the parasite. And it is highly probable that much of our current genepool level 'resistance' has been determined by past events of just this sort. In a way that most may find distasteful, when we try to save a very sick victim of the virus, we are actually working 'against' Nature.

For those outraged by what they have been "told" that has proven to be wishful thinking, there are many verbal 'vaccines' in the perceptual space regarding believing what one is told by Authority, if one chooses to be 'vaccinated'. We are still very primitive in our understanding of these sorts of issues of disease and 'political credibility' (see: Snake Oil) pollutes almost all utterances by those who have 'credentials'.

We DO know that the major route of transmission is the constant expression by Humans, in breathing and talking, of 'droplets', nanometer to micrometer sized 'spaceships' in which our parasite safely voyages from 'planet' (you) to 'planet' (me) and that 'masks' are the best interceptors of these vessels of virality. Albeit, "This, too, shall pass", the how and/or when is clearly unknown and our only hope is that "This" is not 'us'. But do not condemn our attempts, however poorly they reward us, because we are feeling our way in the dark and we at least have a bit more light and recourse than those flea bitten victims of The Plague. No one is yet shouting in the street "Bring out your dead..." and for that, if nothing else, we can be thankful.

-12 ( +3 / -15 )

Is there not a possibility of updating the vaccines to be effective against Delta?

Yeah, they can simply update the mRNA sequence. But they should still test its safety, to ensure that encoded spike protein does not cause too many adverse effects as it circulates throughout the body. They might wrongly claim that this testing would not be needed because the rest of the vaccine remains the same, that would be very worrying!

Anyway, by the time it's available, the Delta variant will likely be long gone.

Nobody also talks in creating antiviral medicine to treat infected pacients.

People are talking about certain repurposed drugs that have been proven to be very safe and shown in several studies to be very effective. Unfortunately, these voices are often silenced by those pushing the vaccinate-everyone narrative.

-8 ( +6 / -14 )

People are talking about certain repurposed drugs that have been proven to be very safe and shown in several studies to be very effective. Unfortunately, these voices are often silenced by those pushing the vaccinate-everyone narrative.

Not anymore, the drugs were never proved to have any positive effect against COVID, they were suggesting results that unfortunately were product of low quality research as well as some examples of unethical manipulations done by scientists that tried to make it appear as if the drugs were useful by fabricating or falsifying their data, at this point the evidence that accumulated with much better research indicates the drugs are not useful for COVID, nor they are as safe as people that are unable to properly examine science try to make them appear.

This is the reason why no recognized institution of science or medicine in the whole world actually says they are useful, it would be insane to think all of them would be in some kind of conspiracy to hide drugs from their own friends and family, specially when they have absolutely no problem recognizing the huge therapeutic value of effective drugs like dexamethasone, even if it is terribly cheap and easy to use, meaning billions are lost thanks to it.

0 ( +10 / -10 )

I though covid had just been with us for a year and a half, how come the vaccines have been in development for 10 years? Did big pharma have a crystal ball or what?

People that have no idea of how science advances keep thinking it can only react after something appears, in reality vaccines against coronavirus infection have been heavily developed since the first SARS scare, multiple approaches have been tried which let people understand commonalities between highly pathogenic coronavirus infections, including the fact that the spike protein is the most likely candidate that would let the virus adapt to infections on humans and that it was also the best target that produces neutralization, testing different variants for safety and efficacy on many different models, etc.

There is no need for crystal balls when science lets you predict what is going to be the best approach once a new coronavirus infection appears. It is extremely fortunate that actual scientists are not limited by the lack of imagination some people exhibit when thinking you can't begin to work on something until it has become a problem already.

0 ( +11 / -11 )

Are you kidding us? Globally, that was crystal clear an illusion right from the start, even with theoretical vaccine efficacies of 100% and vaccination progresses of 100% in only a few first world countries. Look, they not only deny vaccinations in principle, but sometimes even kill you in some populated areas or continents if you appear to be a doctor or hold a syringe in your hand, even if you ever could reach out to those ancient culture influenced tribes with a 4WD car and the vaccine still kept at applicable temperature. Would you take the deadly risk and go there , sacrificing yourself for the bigger whole thing called herd immunity, would you?

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Because Delta is so contagious, it will speed up herd immunity. After an encounter with Delta, the pandemic will effectively be over for you. Not to say the virus won't mutate, but when it does, you'll have some immunity such that getting infected won't kill you, and Sars-Cov2 will feel like nothing more than the common cold.

The more you try to avoid Delta, the longer the pandemic will drag on. Get your vaccine and return to normal. If you wish to go the natural way and fight it with vitamins and horse medicine, good luck.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Is there not a possibility of updating the vaccines to be effective against Delta?

And start vaccinating all over again...and again...and...

We can only hope that, at some time in the future, we can find a better way than year 1790CE's technology...perhaps a gut friendly, orally introduced, genetically modified microorganism producing a broad range of absorbable specific antibodies, or producing cell membrane passable miRNAs that would block viral protein expression...or...just fantasizing...

-12 ( +3 / -15 )

And start vaccinating all over again...and again...and...

Instead of what? getting infected again and again and again?

Nobody thinks the spike protein sequence can change indefinitely, at least not without losing the edge that makes COVID more dangerous than common cold coronavirus infections. Even now the best it has managed to do is unable to avoid the immunity produced against the "standard" virus enough to go back to the same rates of hospitalizations and deaths.

We can only hope that, at some time in the future, we can find a better way than year 1790CE's technology...

Your examples are not better, they are just more complicated, that is a completely different thing. If your solutions bring more problems that what they solve they can't be called solutions at all.

0 ( +10 / -10 )

Was always more hope than fact once we started getting mutations. Actually seems greater immunity is granted by having had Covid rather than one of the many vaccines. Studies now show that to be scientific fact.

But

I guess we could carry on locking down and forcing masks and vaccines on the public because that clearly works also.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Herd immunity" is not, nor could ever be, an acceptable solution to a highly variable parasite which can and does mutate to find the 'holes' in a genepool's defenses and having only one tool in the toolbox, 'vaccination', is not exactly a sophisticated armamentarium. Is it?

Why not? it has been the solution to several other pathogens that fit the description, JEV has multiple genotypes with literally hundreds of variants and the vaccine has been perfectly adequate to avoid having encephalitis outbreaks (in countries that keep their vaccination rates high) even when it is maintained by natural reservoirs. The virus keep finding holes and producing infections and fevers, but not encephalitis cases, which is the whole point of vaccination. Herd immunity for COVID that turn the disease into just another human cold coronavirus infection is a perfectly possible and desirable outcome born from herd immunity.

How we doing for an HIV vaccine thirty years on, sport?

HIV has special difficulties for vaccination that are in no way shared by SARS-CoV-2, coronaviruses do not infect immune cells reducing the immune response, don't integrate to escape nor they are still infective even with wild variations of the protein that mediate the whole process. Just because HIV can't be beaten (yet) by vaccination it does not mean other virus can, as they do, and COVID can become one of those cases.

I think the Wright Brothers might be pertinent in a discussion regarding 'more complicated' and efficacy

Sorry if your overly complicated examples that bring only disadvantages without compensating with more efficacy were so easily criticized, but trying to correct the experts on public health with terribly inadequate knowledge of the topic (which also makes you not get a reference on a user name in a site with frequent post editions) frequently has this consequence. Thinking you have better solutions than the best experts of the world, is a much better example of arrogance.

-1 ( +10 / -11 )

People are talking about certain repurposed drugs that have been proven to be very safe and shown in several studies to be very effective.

Colostrum...below, and numerous others including the research papers themselves if searched

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210604/New-research-focuses-on-cows-milk-as-a-possible-source-of-COVID-19-control.aspx

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Oh, sorry, from your posts I couldn't possibly have imagined you to be an "expert on public health"

It is not me the one that developed the vaccines instead of your overly complicated options, why would you be correcting me?

is just incoherent. And isn't virusrex just a tad arrogant?

No, it is not, but you would not know it because you are not getting the reference, just inferring from what little you know, which is why you don't reach correct conclusions, the same as with your opinion on vaccines. For anybody that can get the reference the comment is not incoherent at all.

If your comments were "iddle suggestions" you would not be so invested in defending them, you would simply accept they are not comparable with actual solutions being implemented. If someone says "I like chocolate" and someone else says "chocolate is not a balanced snack" why would the first person reacts against this? it would be meaningless, but if the first person actual intention is to impose his personal opinion then it would invest time and effort trying to defend his preference, some people even after being informed that yes, actually chocolate would not be a balanced snack after all.

Also, your crystal ball is terribly broken, none of your imaginations are even close, try to focus on the arguments because trying to divinate what other people are or do is apparently not your strong point. Big hint, if an argument proves you wrong or mistaken it is irrelevant what the person that used that argument is, you would still be mistaken.

1 ( +12 / -11 )

And start vaccinating all over again...and again...and...

Instead of what? getting infected again and again and again?

Natural infection has been shown to produce robust, long-lasting, broad immunity.

-5 ( +9 / -14 )

Natural infection has been shown to produce robust, long-lasting, broad immunity.

And have much higher risks than vaccination including in healthy young people, which makes it pointless as a measure to avoid getting those higher risks on the first place. Does amputation as a measure to avoid losing a limb makes sense to you?

1 ( +11 / -10 )

Are you in fact a virologist? Note: This question is sincere and is in no way meant as a challenge...

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

Natural infection has been shown to produce robust, long-lasting, broad immunity.

And have much higher risks than vaccination including in healthy young people,

The evidence says otherwise, regardless of how much you want to push the vaccines on everyone. Young healthy people are better off avoiding the vaccines, they are not worth the risks.

-5 ( +8 / -13 )

The evidence says otherwise, regardless of how much you want to push the vaccines on everyone. Young healthy people are better off avoiding the vaccines, they are not worth the risks.

The risks from covid were higher than the risks of the vaccine. Both my kids have had both jabs now. Well worth it.

3 ( +11 / -8 )

The evidence says otherwise, regardless of how much you want to push the vaccines on everyone. Young healthy people are better off avoiding the vaccines, they are not worth the risks.

But yet again you fail to produce evidence that support his false information. The medical and scientific community of the world recommend the vaccines even to young healthy people and have the data to support those recommendations.

On the other hand you say the opposite, based on... nothing.

-1 ( +10 / -11 )

Are you in fact a virologist? Note: This question is sincere and is in no way meant as a challenge...

What importance does that have? again, focus on the arguments. They hold weight by themselves, it does not matter if they are used by a Nobel prize or an elementary school kid.

-1 ( +10 / -11 )

The variance which emerges, does not have an infinite possibility of forms. It is limited to those means which are successful, while still retaining the structure of SARSCoV-2.

To assert 'young people' are better off without the vaccine is incredibly ignorant - all scientific evidence and fact indicates the young should be vaccinated - as illustrated in papers published in JAMA, Lancet and other journals addressing immunology, virology and medicine as a whole, with genuine, peer-reviewed studies.

Citing bogus remarks about 'natural infection' is not only disingenuous - but there are no studies that determine natural infection is superior to vaccines - let alone considering the fact you have to become ill with the virus in order to obtain 'natural immunity'. Polio anyone?

Unbelievable. The utter nonsense cited in regards to vaccines - which devalues their use and effectiveness. Let alone that the individuals asserting anti-vaxx positions are opining with absolutely no evidence, essentially are professing a lie as truth.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

"Herd immunity" is obviously not well understood by our public voices who, themselves, are not 'scientists' but administrators and politicians trying to mollify people to whom they have oversold their own qualifications and now are dancing on the fire of their own previous failed pronouncements and seek to dump responsibility onto the backs of those now being infected by a much more powerful variant their previous ideas were 100% responsible for creating, accompanied by empty headed sycophants using these same sources to convince others of their own 'wisdom' while those who heeded the voices previously and felt 'safe' let down their guard and found, and are daily more finding, those previous words empty and, in the worst cases, fatal, not to mention being made silent carriers of death to those around them. It's everybody else's fault...

But yet again you fail to produce evidence that support his false information. The medical and scientific community of the world recommend the vaccines even to young healthy people and have the data to support those recommendations.

On the other hand you say the opposite, based on... nothing.

Lots of harsh words, but mostly just a lot of wind which blows no good. "The medical and scientific community of the world" as seen through the eyes of a blowhard who themselves just ASSERTS nothing but seems to see THEIR OWN claims as the word of G-d. And this "establishment" one claims to know so well has, themselves, not been doing well against our new companion who seems to be sneering at us and teaching us how little we really know.

What importance does that have? again, focus on the arguments. They hold weight by themselves, it does not matter if they are used by a Nobel prize or an elementary school kid.

Of course, seen as a 'challenge'. Just trying to be nice in the face of ignorant blather on the level of an "elementary school kid" whose main aim is not to understand and share but to ARGUE, BELITTLE, BULLY, but above all to prove themselves RIGHT whether they are or not. Sadly, that's what religions do. Science co-operates and discusses and educates. Not much of that to be seen here. In any case, the answer, given the response, can be nothing but "NO".

-7 ( +5 / -12 )

Herd immunity" is obviously not well understood by our public voices

Why focus on politicians if the actual experts say the same thing? it is irrelevant that someone else says the same thing if the people that know the most about the topics are saying that reaching herd immunity is positive and desirable.

Lots of harsh words, but mostly just a lot of wind which blows no good.

Since every insitution of medicine and science in the world are the ones saying this your opposite opinion is in comparison nothing. You want to say they are all wrong? present the data that proves so. You don't have that data? sorry but then the experts are a much more trustable source than you. They are not saying that they know everything that is to know about the disease, but that the recommendations are based on the best information available now, against which you offer absolutely nothing.

Of course, seen as a 'challenge'. Just trying to be nice in the face of ignorant blather on the level of an "elementary school kid" whose main aim is not to understand and share but to ARGUE,

Again, you made no effort to discredit the arguments that prove you wrong, simply saying "you are wrong because I say so" is completely devoid of value. Anyone that is intellectually honest would immediatly recognize that not having any argument to prove the opponent wrong is an extremely strong indication that the one that is mistaken is yourself. Science discuss educate based on the evidence, of which the experts have mountains. Trying to say the opposite without any evidence is just arrogance and not being able to accept that ignorance is a terribly bad basis to discuss a topic. This kind of attitude is the one that makes people try to give importance to the person that says something, as if that would change the value of an argument, something obviously wrong.

Again, focus on the arguments that prove you wrong, you can't refute them? then you have to accept your beliefs were mistaken, even if you don't like it.

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

And, regarding "references", to paraphrase Giordano Bruno on the pyre, "Still, it's NOT WORKING!" We need alternatives, new approaches, not just the same old ideas nor people shouting "Man will never fly!" at every new suggestion. Perhaps a sojourn into what we are recently learning regarding the close and positive co-operative associations between our immune system and our gut flora:

"The gut microbiota that resides in the gastrointestinal tract provides essential health benefits to its host, particularly by regulating immune homeostasis. Moreover, it has recently become obvious that alterations of these gut microbial communities can cause immune dysregulation, leading to autoimmune disorders."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3337124/

or what we are finding in the cell regarding the roles of miRNAs (miRNA?), for example:

"The major difference between siRNAs and miRNAs is that the former inhibit the expression of one specific target mRNA while the latter regulate the expression of multiple mRNAs. A considerable body of literature now classifies miRNAs as RNAi molecules."

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Small_interfering_RNA

or:

"Small interfering RNA (siRNA), sometimes known as short interfering RNA or silencing RNA, is a class of double-stranded RNA non-coding RNA molecules, typically 20-27 base pairs in length, similar to miRNA, and operating within the RNA interference (RNAi) pathway."

or:

"siRNA is a synthetic RNA duplex designed to specifically target a particular mRNA for degradation. While siRNA provides the opportunity to induce gene knockdown in a variety of cell lines, their utility is limited to cells that are amenable to transfection of synthetic oligonucleotides."

https://www.thermofisher.com › blog › what-is-rnai

Gotta try to keep up there, fella...

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

Your references are not supporting your specific points, obviously COVID is not an autoimmune disorder, so avoiding having those problems would improve nothing the infection, the effect of siRNA depends on them being delivered to the vast majority of the cells where the effect is desired, while mRNA vaccines can be expressed in any cell and the systemic effect will be enough to protec the individual. Not to mention that you would need to continuously support siRNAs the whole time the infection is active, in levels impossible to maintain and targeting specifically the infected tissue responsible of the pathology without giving the well known negative side effects of transfecting off target tissue like the liver.

Once again, this is elementary knowledge that anyone working on molecular biology knows perfectly well, and that has much more difficulties, side effects and disadvantages of the approaches that have been extremely efficient in fighting the infection, which is using the self regulating immunity elicited by limited antigenic stimulus.

You may thing you are discovering something new and useful, in reaility you are just mentioning old knowledge that has no practical usefulness for COVID and that would require people dying for years in order to be developed, without any guarantee to result in even something even comparable with the current vaccines. New ideas can easily be much worse than the current ones, specially when the people coming out with them don't have the knowledge to even consider their disadvantages, just trusting they are much smarter than the experts that are not trying these approaches.

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

What the Delta variant has done is expose the uncomfortable truth that many have been warned about.

https://fee.org/articles/harvard-epidemiologist-says-the-case-for-covid-vaccine-passports-was-just-demolished/amp?__twitter_impression=true

”The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a ‘Don’t try this at home’ label,” the Scientific American reported Thursday.

“The newly released data show people who once had a SARS-CoV-2 infection were much less likely than vaccinated people to get Delta, develop symptoms from it, or become hospitalized with serious COVID-19.”

Put another way, vaccinated individuals were 27 times more likely to get a symptomatic COVID infection than those with natural immunity from COVID.”

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

What the Delta variant has done is expose the uncomfortable truth that many have been warned about.

Yes, that truth is that some people don't understand the that the purpose of getting immunity is to avoid the risk of infection in the first place. Once again some people don't see the contradiction of saying that getting a limb amputated protects the person from losing that limb later.

If the vaccines can prevent a large part of the higher risks of laters infections without giving the elevated risks of getting the infection in the first place that still means the vaccines are the much better option. There is no advantage whatsoever on getting infected (and all the risks) in order to get protection from precisely those risks.

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

"Yes, that truth is that some people don't understand the that the purpose of getting immunity is to avoid the risk of infection in the first place. Once again some people don't see the contradiction of saying that getting a limb amputated protects the person from losing that limb later."

Read the links and data before commenting is my advice.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

A more contagious variant will move through accessible hosts faster. That is not entirely a negative thing. Lockdowns have suppressed the natural spread of the virus spinning out the pandemic. 1918 was shorter and faster, but with more deaths.

With vaccines the numbers of dead will still be very low for a pandemic. We may need more Covid care wards, but governments have had 20 months to build them. Delta is becoming universal, so we can lose the border blocks. There is no point to them any more, when the same variant is on both sides of the border.

Wearing a mask and sensible behaviour will reduce your chance of catching covid. A vaccine will considerably reduce your chance of having severe health problems from it. Boosters will do what they say and increase levels of protection.

It's another virus. We live in a world with plenty already. HIV, Hepatitis and several common STDs with kill you without medical treatment, and in tropical areas there are many more lethal diseases. vCJD was really bad and may not have gone away - the long-gestation variant may soon become more evident. And there are plenty of other ways to expire from RTAs to DIY accidents. Life involves risk and always has done.

Get vaccinated, wear a mask, behave as sensibly as you can and get on with life.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Read the links and data before commenting is my advice.

It may surprise you but the links are not precisely information that just came up, and the problem is the invalid conclusion made in the comment, not in the original information. Specially in context with this article (that obviously is about herd immunity and how to get it, not about vaccine passports) Vaccines still protected very nicely from death and important complications with the huge advantage over the natural infection of having much lower risks for the health.

What part of the article do you think contradicts this? a quote would be necessary because nothing in it even comes closer to justify recommending infection instead of vaccination.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

What is Delta? Better let’s quickly talk and think about AY.3 , AY.3.1 or C.1.2 & co. That is surely more worth a discussion than about a never to reach herd immunity or only the attacking and doubting each other’s opinions, details, expertise.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Over and Out.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

Natural infection has been shown to produce robust, long-lasting, broad immunity.

Earth calling.

In just 18 months, over 4.5 million people worldwide have died of COVID. People will continue to die of COVID. In particular, it is the unvaccinated who are going to die.

In the UK, with 135,000 deaths since the start of the pandemic, and 6.8 million total cases, it was estimated that over a million people were suffering from long COVID in the four week period ending 6 March 2021.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/prevalenceofongoingsymptomsfollowingcoronaviruscovid19infectionintheuk/1april2021

Death and long term sickness is where natural infection can lead. You'd benefit from reading a little about the link between the body's immune response and the emergence of long COVID, seeing as you're so wildly optimistic about disease conferring natural immunity, while blithely choosing to ignore all the consequences of disease.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

1918 was shorter and faster, but with more deaths.

It stretched over two years, finishing in spring 2020, so not necessarily shorter.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

The newly released data show people who once had a SARS-CoV-2 infection were much less likely than vaccinated people to get Delta, develop symptoms from it, or become hospitalized with serious COVID-19.

Not altogether surprising. They are those who by definition survived the first infection and are now equipped with the necessary antibodies to defeat it. The risk is what is involved in gaining natural immunity in the first place - you might die before gaining it.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Natural infection has been shown to produce robust, long-lasting, broad immunity.

Natural infection has also been shown to produce death and long-covid.

Oh sorry, were you purposefully skipping this extremely relevant point? My bad.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

I have stated previously that the narrative could fall apart in the next flu season. But the attempts to keep forcing it will fail at an increasing rate.

The Delta variant and all subsequent variants will reveal a fact already clear to many professional immunologists: We are facing and should be bracing for a pandemic of the vaccinated.

Israel registers almost 11,000 COVID cases, marking new record - The Jerusalem Post

https://www.jpost.com/health-and-wellness/israel-registers-almost-11000-cases-in-a-day-marking-new-record-678227

25% of Israelis on their 3rd shot in one of the most vaccinated countries, and infection skyrocketing. Adjacent Palestinian with very little vaccination and next to zero new infections.

Figure it out.

Historically respiratory pandemics usually diminish after 12 to 18 months. Not this one. Let’s see how long they can stumble through the Greek alphabet dispensing boosters and creating damage.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Im not gonna play "scientist"... Too many people already playing.

The data (hospital admissions/recovery rates/deaths) suggests otherwise...Delta spreads yes,

But i don't see anything worth worrying about anymore.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

The Delta variant and all subsequent variants will reveal a fact already clear to many professional immunologists: We are facing and should be bracing for a pandemic of the vaccinated.

So, the same as other diseases that have been controlled by vaccination then.

Having infections and mild disease is not a problem when hospitalization and deaths get reduced importantly, enough to make the risk comparable with other infectious diseases, specially if we are talking about first generation vaccines that work even against variants for which it was not designed.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Natural infection has been shown to produce robust, long-lasting, broad immunity.

Earth calling.

In just 18 months, over 4.5 million people worldwide have died of COVID. People will continue to die of COVID.

And the vast majority (almost all) of those who died from covid had comorbidities. My main point is that it is not a good idea to vaccinate everyone or to force everyone to get vaccinated. If you are young and healthy, the risk of vaccination is comparable to or greater than the risk of covid. And if you have already recovered from Covid, then getting the vaccine makes no sense; you get no real benefit from it, only the risks of adverse reaction.

In particular, it is the unvaccinated who are going to die.

Oh the vaccinated are also dying from Covid, for now. But it is only the vaccinated who are dying from the vaccination...

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

And the vast majority (almost all) of those who died from covid had comorbidities. My main point is that it is not a good idea to vaccinate everyone or to force everyone to get vaccinated.

Nobody is being forced to vaccinate, and the experts of the world completely contradict your baseless recommendation and explicitly say young healthy people do benefit from being vaccinated.

You keep repeating that young people are in greater risk from the vaccine from covid, but when asked to prove it you always end up keeping silent, if you are unable to defend this false information, what is the point in repeating it? Your silence is the best evidence that it is false.

Oh the vaccinated are also dying from Covid, for now. But it is only the vaccinated who are dying from the vaccination...

Not really no, the huge benefit on prevention of deaths surpass the excess of deaths on vaccinated compared with unvaccinated people so much that there is no doubt left that the vaccines are saving much more lives than what antivaxxer propaganda want to misrepresent.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

the vast majority (almost all) of those who died from covid had comorbidities.

You've changed your story. Originally, it was "Natural infection has been shown to produce robust, long-lasting, broad immunity."

Now it's "Natural infection has been shown to produce robust, long-lasting, broad immunity, except in people with comorbidities."

My main point is that it is not a good idea to vaccinate everyone or to force everyone to get vaccinated.

Your main point was that getting infected gives better immunity. That's unmistakably arguing for people to catch (and spread) the disease. At the same time, you ignore the millions of deaths caused by COVID, the long term damage and chronic illness that affects many millions more, and all the other negative consequences of the COVID pandemic - those we've seen already, and those still to come. Are we halfway through yet? Who knows. Certainly not you.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Your main point was that getting infected gives better immunity. That's unmistakably arguing for people to catch (and spread) the disease.

I thought he was very clear. If you already recovered from an infection, there is no need to get the vax.

And if you are young and healthy the risk of the vax is comparable to the risk from the virus.

BTW, if you are vaxxed, you can still catch and spread the virus.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

I thought he was very clear. If you already recovered from an infection, there is no need to get the vax.

That is not a conclusion of the article, specially because not all infections are the same nor the immunity is predicted to be everlasting, specially against variants.

And if you are young and healthy the risk of the vax is comparable to the risk from the virus.

That is still completely false, the risk from the vaccine is extremely low, impossible to even compare with the much greater risk coming from the infection.

BTW, if you are vaxxed, you can still catch and spread the virus.

In the same way that even if you wear a seat belt and have airbags in your car you can still die in an accident. The important part is that the risk decreases, which is still a very desirable outcome.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

BTW, if you are vaxxed, you can still catch and spread the virus.

Oh. That must be what it means when clinical trial reports say things like "The first primary objective analysis is based on 170 cases of COVID-19, as specified in the study protocol, of which 162 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group versus 8 cases in the BNT162b2 group."

This has been completely not baffling scientists for like, at least a century. They've even got a name for it: efficacy. How useful!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I wonder how many people here are actually qualified (professionally, that is) in the field of virology?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

BTW, if you are vaxxed, you can still catch and spread the virus.

Oh. That must be what it means when clinical trial reports say things like "The first primary objective analysis is based on 170 cases of COVID-19, as specified in the study protocol, of which 162 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group versus 8 cases in the BNT162b2 group."

This has been completely not baffling scientists for like, at least a century. They've even got a name for it: efficacy. How useful!

Yeah, out of 20,000 unvaccinated, 162 got Covid-19; while out of 20,000 vaccinated, 8 got Covid-19.

But I believe that is only looking at those with symptoms and with the previous variant.

Recent data from Israel indicates the vaccine is only about 40% effective at preventing an infection with the Delta variant; and this protection does not last very long. And Fauci himself stated that when it comes to people infected with the Delta variant, those who are vaccinated have the same viral load in the nasopharynx as the unvaccinated; i.e. same transmissibility.

So yes, if you are vaxxed, you can still catch and spread the virus. Not baffling at all...

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

So yes, if you are vaxxed, you can still catch and spread the virus.

Yes, this has been understood as a factor in vaccination since, like, Louis Pasteur (d. 1895).

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Recent data from Israel indicates the vaccine is only about 40% effective at preventing an infection with the Delta variant; and this protection does not last very long.

So it is as other vaccines, not extremely effective at preventing infection, much better at preventing heavy symptoms and excellent at protecting from death.

So yes, if you are vaxxed, you can still catch and spread the virus. Not baffling at all...

And if you get medical treatment you can still die, but the same as the vaccines your chances (of surviving and even to stop spreading the infection) are much better. People with common sense can understand that things do not need to be 100% effective to be much better than the alternative.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites