"FromTheRafters" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote on 6/8/2021 :

"FromTheRafters" wrote in message
...
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,

Vaccination doesn't deal with any virus, it gets the body's
immune system activated so you are much less likely to
be infected by the virus and so greatly reduces the
chance of the virus to mutate in that individual.

Yes, much less likely.

and it is not dealt with immediately. So, there is some shedding before
the virus is eliminated from the body.

In fact once the body's immune system has been activated
by the vaccination, you are far less likely to get infected at
all and so there isnt any shedding of the virus because that
can only happen if the virus is reproducing in the body.

Which it does, or else you were not 'infected' but merely 'exposed'.

Only in a tiny subset of those vaccinated so the
phucker's original is still completely wrong.

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.

But bacteria is, so what happens with bacteria and antibiotics
is nothing like what happens with vaccination and viruses.

They both mutate and evolve in an environment which shapes their behavior.

But with the vaccinated, far fewer of the virus
get to infect a host, and mutate and evolve, so
the phucker's original is still completely wrong.

The fact of being a living thing or not does not change that aspect.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

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.

And so is nothing even remotely like an antibiotic.

True. The effect of a hostile environment on behavior is the same though.

There is no hostile environment with the vaccinated, the virus gets
to infect far fewer people and so doesn't get to mutate and evolve.

Some pathogens with partial or no coverage by antibodies can and do
infect cells and reproduce.

Irrelevant to how vaccines and viruses work.

Wrong, it is how antibodies work to neutralize and mark pathogens,
including viruses, for eventual destruction by immune cells.

The virus doesn't get to infect cells and reproduce with the vast bulk
of the vaccinated, so the phucker's original is still completely wrong.