Immune evasive Covid could be avoided if fast vaccine/social distancing done

[PainRack]

Ooooh. Let's talk evolution



https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01281-8



Essentially, in an ideal world without antivaxers, rapid deployment as seen in Biden vaccination schedule and public acceptance of getting vaccinated, evolutionary pressures would have retarded the evolution of immune evasive mutations .





Granted, this was likely impossible given the vaccine shortages worldwide. However, idiots who constantly abuse science documentation of selection ignores that well, the very same mutation that avoids vaccine antibodies also avoid natural immunity antibodies.







In other words, the Nurgle cult as exemplified by Rand, the Republicans, Joe Rogan and etc is evil incarnate as I expressed repeatedly on SB

[aerius]

Granted, this was likely impossible given the vaccine shortages worldwide. However, idiots who constantly abuse science documentation of selection ignores that well, the very same mutation that avoids vaccine antibodies also avoid natural immunity antibodies.

This is true with conventional vaccines where the antibodies from vaccination are the same as the ones resulting from natural infection. The covid vaccines don't work like that (unless you got Sinovac), they target the S-protein portion of the virus alone and there's nothing to deal with the N-protein. Natural immunity targets both the S and N-proteins of the virus, the latter is the key since it's far slower mutating than the S-protein, and furthermore, there's fewer mutations available there before the the virus becomes non-viable.

All real world studies have shown that covid evades vaccination a lot more easily than it does with natural immunity.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 21262415v1

[Tribble]

Granted, this was likely impossible given the vaccine shortages worldwide. However, idiots who constantly abuse science documentation of selection ignores that well, the very same mutation that avoids vaccine antibodies also avoid natural immunity antibodies.

This is true with conventional vaccines where the antibodies from vaccination are the same as the ones resulting from natural infection. The covid vaccines don't work like that (unless you got Sinovac), they target the S-protein portion of the virus alone and there's nothing to deal with the N-protein. Natural immunity targets both the S and N-proteins of the virus, the latter is the key since it's far slower mutating than the S-protein, and furthermore, there's fewer mutations available there before the the virus becomes non-viable.

All real world studies have shown that covid evades vaccination a lot more easily than it does with natural immunity.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 21262415v1

If that is the case, why don’t the vaccines target both? Or at least the one that mutates less?

[bilateralrope]

All real world studies have shown that covid evades vaccination a lot more easily than it does with natural immunity.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 21262415v1

When should we expect that second paper to complete peer review ?

If that is the case, why don’t the vaccines target both? Or at least the one that mutates less?

Probably because the vaccine affects which mutations spread. Mutations on the protein the vaccine targets can help evade the vaccine, allowing them to spread. Mutations on the other protein don't evade the vaccine, so they won't spread among a vaccinated population.

[aerius]

If that is the case, why don’t the vaccines target both? Or at least the one that mutates less?

We tried that in the past after SARS and ran into problems in the animal study phase. The vaccines either had very limited effectiveness or they caused ADE which killed almost all the lab animals when they were challenged with the actual virus following vaccination. We could never make an effective coronavirus vaccine which didn't cause ADE, and they eventually figured out it was something in the N-protein which was causing this issue.

When covid came along the Western world went with making vaccines which omitted the N-protein to avoid the ADE problems, China kept tinkering with the balance between effectiveness and ADE and came up with Sinovac which was about 50% effective compared to the 90-95% of the Western vaccines. But then they found out that injecting a complete killed virus into the bloodstream has a bunch of issues of its own.

[PainRack]

Granted, this was likely impossible given the vaccine shortages worldwide. However, idiots who constantly abuse science documentation of selection ignores that well, the very same mutation that avoids vaccine antibodies also avoid natural immunity antibodies.

This is true with conventional vaccines where the antibodies from vaccination are the same as the ones resulting from natural infection. The covid vaccines don't work like that (unless you got Sinovac), they target the S-protein portion of the virus alone and there's nothing to deal with the N-protein. Natural immunity targets both the S and N-proteins of the virus, the latter is the key since it's far slower mutating than the S-protein, and furthermore, there's fewer mutations available there before the the virus becomes non-viable.

All real world studies have shown that covid evades vaccination a lot more easily than it does with natural immunity.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 21262415v1

insofar as I know, your data is now obsolete since Omicron is from different lineage than Delta, so, previous infections with Covid alone offers less protection than vaccine induced or vaccine+infection induced.

The WHO is citing the Qatar studies as well as the Denmark where infection with BA.1 offers protection against severe disease, but obviously doesn't offer protection against reinfection with BA.2.

https://www.who.int/publications/m/item ... april-2022

[aerius]

insofar as I know, your data is now obsolete since Omicron is from different lineage than Delta, so, previous infections with Covid alone offers less protection than vaccine induced or vaccine+infection induced.

The WHO is citing the Qatar studies as well as the Denmark where infection with BA.1 offers protection against severe disease, but obviously doesn't offer protection against reinfection with BA.2.

https://www.who.int/publications/m/item ... april-2022

Let's look at the key points of the Qatar study.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2200133

The median interval between previous infection and PCR testing among cases and controls was 279 days (interquartile range [IQR], 194 to 313) for analysis of the alpha variant, 285 days (IQR, 213 to 314) for analysis of the beta variant, 254 days (IQR, 159 to 376) for analysis of the delta variant, and 314 days (IQR, 268 to 487) for analysis of the omicron variant.

The effectiveness of previous infection in preventing reinfection was estimated to be 90.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 60.2 to 97.6) against the alpha variant, 85.7% (95% CI, 75.8 to 91.7) against the beta variant, 92.0% (95% CI, 87.9 to 94.7) against the delta variant, and 56.0% (95% CI, 50.6 to 60.9) against the omicron variant.

Overall, in a national database study in Qatar, we found that the effectiveness of previous infection in preventing reinfection with the alpha, beta, and delta variants of SARS-CoV-2 was robust (at approximately 90%), findings that confirmed earlier estimates.1-3 Such protection against reinfection with the omicron variant was lower (approximately 60%) but still considerable. In addition, the protection of previous infection against hospitalization or death caused by reinfection appeared to be robust, regardless of variant.

So for natural infection, we're looking at 56% effectiveness against Omicron at 10 months following the initial infection.

Looking at the numbers for vaccines
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2119451

Between November 27, 2021, and January 12, 2022, a total of 886,774 eligible persons infected with the omicron variant, 204,154 eligible persons infected with the delta variant, and 1,572,621 eligible test-negative controls were identified. At all time points investigated and for all combinations of primary course and booster vaccines, vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease was higher for the delta variant than for the omicron variant. No effect against the omicron variant was noted from 20 weeks after two ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 doses, whereas vaccine effectiveness after two BNT162b2 doses was 65.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 63.9 to 67.0) at 2 to 4 weeks, dropping to 8.8% (95% CI, 7.0 to 10.5) at 25 or more weeks. Among ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 primary course recipients, vaccine effectiveness increased to 62.4% (95% CI, 61.8 to 63.0) at 2 to 4 weeks after a BNT162b2 booster before decreasing to 39.6% (95% CI, 38.0 to 41.1) at 10 or more weeks. Among BNT162b2 primary course recipients, vaccine effectiveness increased to 67.2% (95% CI, 66.5 to 67. at 2 to 4 weeks after a BNT162b2 booster before declining to 45.7% (95% CI, 44.7 to 46.7) at 10 or more weeks. Vaccine effectiveness after a ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 primary course increased to 70.1% (95% CI, 69.5 to 70.7) at 2 to 4 weeks after an mRNA-1273 booster and decreased to 60.9% (95% CI, 59.7 to 62.1) at 5 to 9 weeks. After a BNT162b2 primary course, the mRNA-1273 booster increased vaccine effectiveness to 73.9% (95% CI, 73.1 to 74.6) at 2 to 4 weeks; vaccine effectiveness fell to 64.4% (95% CI, 62.6 to 66.1) at 5 to 9 weeks.

All vaccines are worthless against Omicron after 20-25 weeks. Even with boosters, most combos are down to the 60% range after 10 weeks and the most common combo of Pfizer-Pfizer is down at 45%.

Natural immunity is still far better than 2 shots and no booster, and around the same as 2 shots plus a booster.

Finally, let's look at page 8 of the WHO report which you've linked.
https://www.who.int/docs/default-source ... nload=true

Higher rates of reinfection have been reported for Omicron as compared to other SARS-CoV-2 variants. Reinfection with
BA.2 following BA.1 has been associated with mild disease in Denmark 8 while in Qatar, previous infection with one of the
Omicron Pango lineages was found to potentially confer protection against infection with other Omicron Pango lineages:
94.9% (95% CI: 88.4-97.8%) protection against BA.2 following infection with BA.1, and 85.6% (95% CI: 77.4-90.9%) protection
against BA.1 following infection with BA.2

Contrary to what you've claimed, infection with BA.1 provides strong protection against BA.2 and vice-versa.

[PainRack]

Concede:)