It’s my understanding that they have yet to prove that the vaccines actually do prevent transmission. But I knew it was only a matter of time before the entire discussion turned to “do this out of love/concern for others”, regardless of the proof & regardless of what no one knows about possible longterm effects of the “vaccine”. They also don’t seem to have any idea how long the protective effects of the vaccine last. 3 months? Will we need boosters every 3 months? Every year? Is it possible that having COVID makes you more immune & for longer than the vaccine? If so, the most loving thing we could do for the vulnerable is to develop the most robust immunity possible, even if we have to deal with long Covid symptoms for many months. Also, being concerned about possible lifelong consequences of an experiential treatment is loving your neighbor as well. There are different opinions on these things and the pro-Covid “vaccine” among us don’t have the corner on love.
The vaccines have been very successful so far, so what is the problem? If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
Yeah - we do tend to be “pro-reality” around here. Call it a weakness of ours.
The virus replicates in lung cells and other cell types. Here is the RNA virus lifecycle:
The virus binds to the cell, moves into the cell, releases its RNA genome, has the RNA genome copied and genes expressed as mRNA, forms viruses on the surface of that cell, and then new viral particles are released that can infect other cells in the body or infect other people. One viral particle can turn into millions and millions of new viral particles.
During an infection, this process goes on for days or weeks. Your cells are constantly injected with RNA that produces new viral particles, and these particles contain the entire SARS-CoV-2 genome with its complement of 25 genes. With the vaccine you are injected with mRNA once, and that mRNA goes away within a day or so. The mRNA vaccine does not replicate, and it only produces one protein, the spike protein. The mRNA vaccine has a known sequence, unlike SARS-CoV-2 infections which could have any number of mutations, both known and unknown.
So let’s recap. With the virus you are injected with RNA for 25 viral genes over and over and over for a period of days to weeks at really high doses, along with a nasty immune reaction that is fatal in many cases. With the mRNA vaccine you are injected twice, a few weeks apart, and the mRNA goes away in a bout a day. The vaccine has just one gene of known sequence, and the immune reaction has not been fatal in anyone, although it does cause some discomfort (I personally had fever and vertigo, not fun).
So which do you think is more dangerous?
A study from Israel, out yesterday (preprint only): https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.16.21253686v1.full.pdf
The Pfizer vaccine gave 99% protection against symptomatic infection, 91% protection against any infection. So, yes, vaccines do prevent transmission. (It was pretty much inevitable that they would reduce transmission to some extent, but this looks very good indeed.)
The most we can say now is ‘longer than a few months’. A year is possible, but it will probably be longer than that.
Possible but not particularly likely, given the strength of the immune response to infection and these vaccines.
If vaccine protection really did only last a year, why would the loving thing be to get infected (and thereby possibly impose a longterm burden on society because of subsequent disability) rather than get vaccinated every year.
This has all provided me so much relief and hope.
It remains to be seen how this applies to the viral variants that are more effective at evading existing immunity. But vaccines targeted at them are in the pipeline, too.
Are the subsequent developments of these vaccines targeted at variants going to be easier to “roll out” than the first major ones were? Or do they all still face the same inevitable hurdles of needing three phases worth of trials and massive subsidy expenditure to help “make them happen”? One hopes that our 2nd or 3rd times around the block on this might be easier, but I don’t really know how that works.
As I read the current FDA guidance, full clinical trials will not be needed. What will be needed are smaller studies showing appropriate immune response and no new safety concerns.
The vaccine contains mRNA, which is the blueprint of the protein for the spikes. It is not a protein yet. A virus has the proteins on the surface of the lipid bubble and RNA within it. How can they be not that much different?
In both cases, the RNA is released into the cell and the spike protein is made from the RNA. The spike protein is processed in the Golgi and moved to the surface of the cell. This is the process that isn’t much different.
With the spike protein on the virus, from my understanding, it attaches to a receptor that allows it to enter. mRNA also attaches to this or some other receptor? They are not the same molecules. One is a protein and the other a chain of nucleic acid, composed of: a nitrogenous base, a five-carbon sugar and a phosphate group.
That is correct. The vaccine uses a lipid membrane that binds to cells indiscriminately.
The mRNA is inside the lipid bubble and is released into the cell after binding.
Both are chains of nucleic acids. The viral genome is RNA, and during an infection new spike protein is made in your cells using that viral RNA (or rather, a copy of that RNA). If new spike protein were not made then no new viral particles would have spike protein on them.
I would also like to ask you about effectiveness. The vaccine manufacturers are claiming upto 95% against the original coronavirus and a lesser extent against the variants. How do they test for effectiveness? How can they determine effectiveness?
I also want to criticize the 0% effective in the unvaccinated. That assumes we have no immune system. Both my younger sisters got the measles when we were in primary school and I had to look after them as my parents were busy in their shop. I would no doubt have got infected but I did not get the measles. I wouldn’t count myself as have zero effectiveness against a pathogen based on this experience at least.
@glipsnort linked to a study earlier which describes the methods they used:
From my understanding, they used medical records to see how many unvaccinated people were getting infected and how many vaccinated people were getting infected. The difference between the two tells you how effective the vaccine is.
People with perfectly functioning immune systems come down with COVID-19. There may be a few people who could have some protection from COVID-19, but that would seem to be rare given the spread of the virus. Innate immunity is not enough to prevent infection in most cases. You need adaptive immunity.
Thanks for your information about the virus entry.
With the mRNA, it is inside a lipid bubble. Does it get through the cell membrane because it is a lipid bubble and the membrane is made of lipids? Or can it also bind to the receptor?
The membranes fuse together. It looks like this:
There are other processes, like endocytosis, but the result is the same. What is inside the lipid bubble or viral particle is released into the inside of the cell.
Thanks for pointing me to the study I will read it.
From here: Coronavirus Update (Live): 122,075,704 Cases and 2,696,261 Deaths from COVID-19 Virus Pandemic - Worldometer (worldometers.info) There are around 122 million out of 7.5 billion who got sick. 2.6 million deaths and around 98 million recovered. Now I grant you there have been measures like social distancing etc., in place so we don’t know how many would have got sick without these measures.
But what I find utterly bizarre is that the USA has close to 25% of the cases and a huge number of deaths and they only have 5% of the world’s population. China on the other hand, with 20% or the world’s population, has only 5% of the cases. It is hard to understand.
Vaccine efficacy (and effectiveness) is measured relative to unvaccinated people. So 95% efficacy means that 95% fewer vaccinated people get sick (or get infected, or whatever the endpoint of the study is) than unvaccinated people. That doesn’t mean every unvaccinated person would get sick.
The Chinese government used draconian measures to stop the spread. People in some cities were effectively under house arrest. That would explain a lot of it.