Rod Speed submitted this idea :
"FromTheRafters" wrote in message
...
Steve Walker explained on 6/8/2021 :
On 08/06/2021 04:08, FromTheRafters wrote:
Rod Speed was thinking very hard :
"FromTheRafters" wrote in message
...
Snit expressed precisely :
On Jun 7, 2021 at 6:35:00 PM MST, "FromTheRafters" wrote
:
Snit explained on 6/7/2021 :
On Jun 7, 2021 at 5:44:27 PM MST, "FromTheRafters" wrote
:
Snit was thinking very hard :
On Jun 7, 2021 at 12:44:04 PM MST, ""Rod Speed"" wrote
:
Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Commander Kinsey wrote
Doesn't giving a coronavirus vaccine to everyone increase
the chances of the virus mutating to avoid the vaccine?
Nope, it's the reverse of that, the virus can only mutate in
infected people and so the fewer that get infected, the less
the chance of it mutating.
Exactly!
So we should be using it sparingly.
Nope, we should be vaccinating as many as possible with the
best vaccines to reduce the number who get infected.
Yup. And they are nearing what they think is herd immunity in
New York. Amazing.
Dunno, nothing useful on that with
https://www.google.com/search?q=herd...ty+in+New+York
Gotta link ?
Did more looking into this. Need 70% to get to herd immunity:
It is COVID fatigue causing compromises I think, 85 to 90 percent
is better but 70 sounds more "doable" at this point in time. Not
enough IMO.
I have the same feeling -- but no evidence to back it.
https://www.biospace.com/article/exp...erd-immunity-/
I was thinking in terms of the US. But, yes, if there are mutations
where the
immunity is reduced then the idea of herd immunity goes out the
window.
A relevant part:
"At this point, data is not yet clear on whether the vaccines from
Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech, while highly effective at preventing
symptomatic disease, also stop the spread of the virus.
That part is just plain wrong.
https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/cli...cines-do-reduc
So the words 'reduce' and 'stop' are synonyms to you?
To be fair, reducing transmission may bring the rate down enough that the
virus cannot transmit to enough hosts and dies out, so a reduction could
cause a stop.
True, it could make the difference between exponential growth and
exponential decay but it does not change the fact that being vaccinated
does not mean you cannot host the virus such that it allows a vaccine
resistant strain to emerge from a population.
In fact vaccination dramatically reduces the risk of getting
infected and so being a breeding ground for mutations.
True.
It is sort of like the antibiotics and living germs.
Nothing like in fact. Vaccination doesn't kill all but
the best mutants, it stops the vast majority of the
vaccinated from getting infected and becoming
a host for the virus.
The virus has to get there to be dealt with, and it is not dealt with
immediately. So, there is some shedding before the virus is eliminated
from the body.
The doctor offers a course of antibiotics and you must stay the course to
kill the germs, giving up on the course prematurely can result in a
resurgence of resistant germs making the antibiotic ineffective and you
worse off than before.
Vaccination doesn't work like that because the vaccine
doesn't kill the virus,
Of course not, a virus isn't alive in the first place.
it just activates the immune system and stops most becoming infected.
It causes presenter cells to recruit generator cells to generate
antibodies to be ready to "detect" and attach to the (nearly) specific
pathogen by the shapes on its surface. Some pathogens with partial or
no coverage by antibodies can and do infect cells and reproduce. Having
the antibodies present before the 'wild' antigen invades gives your
system a head start but it is not the all or nothing proposition you
seem to think it is.