Let's go there: Are the unvaccinated the new Trumps?

How is it that you Trumpers think you can get away with trying to act like you are the victims while you literally are victimizing the majority of Americans.

We are now masking again TO SAVE YOUR LIVES because it’s the Christian like thing to do to protect you because you refuse to protect yourself and do something patriotic to get the country back open for business. If anything I think the media is too soft on you guys and I think the vaccinated people who are taking measures again to protect their fellow Americans deserve more appreciation.

At some people you guys just don’t deserve to continue to be coddled and babied in society. Grow the fu$k up.

 

Do you have link showing "accommodation" to the covid-19 virus is indeed what is going on for asymptomatic cases? I search for it again and what I found are all theories and guesses at this point. "Accommodation" is one of the theories but not the mainstream one. "Accommodation" itself does NOT exclude the immune system attacking the virus, putting it at bay if you will. The mainstream theory is the immune system fight off the virus quickly and can target it more specifically (vs a more general defense that causes symptoms), which is what vaccines do - they target the virus more specifically. There is some direct evidence of that with the covid-19 virus.

Links below.

From all I read, it's a mystery. And with that, I don't think we can at all conclude much about covid19 virus mutation in truly asymptomatic cases in unvaccinated vs vaccinated and using that as part of a reason to say we should have more targeted vaccination for fear of greater mutation in vaccinated hosts...

Some People Get Covid-19 and Never Feel a Thing: Why? (undark.org)

Asymptomatic cases are not unique to Covid-19. They occur with the regular flu, and probably also featured in the 1918 pandemic, according to epidemiologist Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London. But scientists aren’t sure why certain people weather Covid-19 unscathed. “That is a tremendous mystery at this point,” says Donald Thea, an infectious disease expert at Boston University’s School of Public Health.
Most assume it is the immune system fighting off the virus

The prevailing theory is that their immune systems fight off the virus so efficiently that they never get sick. But some scientists are confident that the immune system’s aggressive response, the churning out of antibodies and other molecules to eliminate an infection, is only part of the story.

These experts are learning that the human body may not always wage an all-out war on viruses and other pathogens. It may also be capable of accommodating an infection, sometimes so seamlessly that no symptoms emerge. This phenomenon, known as disease tolerance, is well-known in plants but has only been documented in animals within the last 15 years.

Disease tolerance is the ability of an individual, due to a genetic predisposition or some aspect of behavior or lifestyle, to thrive despite being infected with an amount of pathogen that sickens others. Tolerance takes different forms, depending on the infection. For example, when infected with cholera, which causes watery diarrhea that can quickly kill through dehydration, the body might mobilize mechanisms that maintain fluid and electrolyte balance. During other infections, the body might tweak metabolism or activate gut microbes — whatever internal adjustment is needed to prevent or repair tissue damage or to make a germ less vicious.

Researchers who study these processes rely on invasive experiments that cannot be done in people. Nevertheless, they view asymptomatic infections as evidence that disease tolerance occurs in humans. At least 90 percent of those infected with the tuberculosis bacterium don’t get sick. The same is true for many of the 1.5 billion of people globally who live with parasitic worms called helminths in their intestines. “Despite the fact that these worms are very large organisms and they basically migrate through your tissues and cause damage, many people are asymptomatic. They don’t even know they’re infected,” says Irah King, a professor of immunology at McGill University. “And so then the question becomes, what does the body do to tolerate these types of invasive infections?”

...

Much is still unknown about why there is such a wide range of responses to Covid-19, from asymptomatic to mildly sick to out of commission for weeks at home to full-on organ failure. “It’s very, very early days here,” says Andrew Read, an infectious disease expert at Pennsylvania State University who helped identify disease tolerance in animals. Read believes disease tolerance may at least partially explain why some infected people have mild symptoms or none at all. This may be because they’re better at scavenging toxic byproducts, he says, “or replenishing their lung tissues at faster rates, those sorts of things.”

The mainstream scientific view of asymptomatics is that their immune systems are especially well-tuned. This could explain why children and young adults make up the majority of people without symptoms because the immune system naturally deteriorates with age. It’s also possible that the immune systems of asymptomatics have been primed by a previous infection with a milder coronavirus, like those that cause the common cold.

​

You Probably Have an Asymptomatic Infection Right Now
No, not COVID-19. Many, many viruses can infect humans without making us sick, and how they do that is one of biology’s deepest mysteries.

...
But for most of human existence, we didn’t know that viruses could infect us asymptomatically. We didn’t know how to look for them, or even that we should. The tools of modern science have slowly made the invisible visible: Antibody surveys that detect past infection, tests that find viral DNA or RNA even in asymptomatic people, and mathematical models all show that viruses are up to much more than making us sick. Scientists now think that for viruses, a wide range of disease severity is the norm rather than the exception.

A virus, after all, does not necessarily wish its host ill. A dead host is a dead end. The viruses best adapted to humans have co-evolved over millions of years to infect but rarely sicken us. Human cytomegalovirus is a prime example, a virus so innocuous that it lives in obscurity despite infecting most of the world’s population. (Odds are that you have it.) Infections with human cytomegalovirus are almost always asymptomatic because it has evolved a suite of tricks to evade the human immune system, which nevertheless tries its best to hunt the virus down. By the time humans reach old age, up to a quarter of our killer T cells are devoted to fighting human cytomegalovirus. Pathogens and immune systems are in constant battle, with one just barely keeping the other in check. In the rare instances when human cytomegalovirus turns deadly—usually in an immunocompromised patient—it’s because this equilibrium did not hold.
...
Some of the differences among patients’ interferon responses might be genetic. When Dutch doctors investigated severe COVID-19 cases in two pairs of brothers, they found that all four had a genetic mutation that impaired interferon production. The brothers, who were from two different families, were all healthy and young, from 21 to 32 years old. One of them died of COVID-19, and all four needed to be put on ventilators in an intensive-care unit. But their specific mutation is not common, and genetics are unlikely to completely explain the variation in COVID-19 cases. Every scientist I spoke with emphasized how little we know. “It would be an understatement to say we do not fully understand,” Alessandro Sette, an immunologist at the La Jolla Institute, told me.
...
Bertoletti and his colleagues were interested in virus-specific T cells that are essential to the adaptive-immune response. When they isolated these cells from blood samples, they found that asymptomatic patients had more specific and coordinated T-cell responses with high levels of an antiviral molecule and another that regulates other T cells. Their adaptive immunity looked more “fit,” Bertoletti told me. The sicker patients’ cells released a broader range of inflammatory molecules, suggesting that their immune response was less targeted.
...
​

 

I don't think it's for the lack of trying. It goes back to why some people (of the same age and general conditions) are deadly sick and some have zero symptoms (the great mystery of truly asymptomatic cases for this and other viruses). All we have now are general statistics plus a great many outliers that we do not understand. It's certainly would be helpful to understand this and it's very possible it might take years or longer to do so. I would love it if there is a day where there is a test that said, you are fine, no need to vaccinate, or you better vaccinate. Until then, the best tool is to vaccinate to statistically greatly reduce your chances of severe symptoms, hospitalization, and death from covid19 (and becoming a spreader).

 

As I stated before on this forum. When I woke up to Trump winning I had a premonition gut wrenching sadness feeling, fast forward to now and I see why.

 

You just knew that a good portion of America would idolize & adopt his personality and worldview? Is that what you mean?

It does make sense though. You are talking about a guy who is famous for suing people who he is already victimizing. There's one story about him suing a bank that he was literally defrauding, and not paying back the money they gave him. That's kind of this story in a nutshell.

 

Viruses are constantly mutating and mutation of viruses isn't something that is guided. It's a matter of chance any particular virus mutates to evade measures out to kill it. Most mutations are neutral.

Viruses will mutate in a host whether the host is attacking it or not.

 

This is a paper that says what @biina has been saying here re mutation. I’ve seen articles referencing this modeling. Granted, this is modeling and theory, but it’s out there and I know science folks who believe this is correct.

and no, I’m not a science person and can’t vouch for the legitimacy of this paper. Just putting it here for folks to read and assess.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95025-3

 

I reference this article some days ago. The summary I got out of if is high # of vaccinated along with high transmission greatly increase the chances of vaccine-resistance strain. Paper said it's counterintuitive, but it makes sense to me. High transmission leads to more chances of breakout cases which leads to higher chances of mutation within vaccinated host which leads to higher chances of that host spreading it. The paper suggested continuing policy to reduce spread (which you can interpret anything from mask to lockdown). It also said increased rate of vaccination decreases the chance, NOT deciding to only vaccinate a segment of the population (which was @biina position).

"As expected, we found that a fast rate of vaccination decreases the probability of emergence of a resistant strain. Counterintuitively, when a relaxation of non-pharmaceutical interventions happened at a time when most individuals of the population have already been vaccinated the probability of emergence of a resistant strain was greatly increased. Consequently, we show that a period of transmission reduction close to the end of the vaccination campaign can substantially reduce the probability of resistant strain establishment. Our results suggest that policymakers and individuals should consider maintaining non-pharmaceutical interventions and transmission-reducing behaviours throughout the entire vaccination period."

 

To me, the key is the word “fast” in the idea that a fast rate of vaccination decreases probability of resistant strain. I don’t know whether the speed US vaccination program is fast or slow. The answer to that question is seems determinative as to whether the US approach heightens or limits the likelihood of a resistant strain. I don’t want to speak for @biina, but my sense is that he/she thinks we are slow.

Israel as a counter example would clearly be “fast”.

I suppose we won’t know until this plays forward. It’s a race against time, stupidity and chance.

 

Sweet do I have to sign up or it sounds like Im already playing!?

Not that any death choice is ideal but going while being intubated and fighting for that last breath seems really great way to end!
Woo hoo

 

So, it's just one model and its a theory, that make some sense to me. I didn't bother to see what they meant by fast, but I think ultimately, since we are experiencing (and elsewhere in the world with good % of the population vaccinated) very high transmission, it's "slow". Fast in that since might be quickly getting to herd immunity - don't know.. but if that's the case, that could be as high as 90% (or higher) now given Delta.

Personally, I don't put too much stock into the modeling at this time. It's extremely complicated with so many variables at play that isn't easy to model and we still do not know much about how much spread there is within vaccinated population.

 

we all know fox, gop, and maga are doing their best to stop and at the very least slow vaccination

 

Can you explain why the probability of mutation is higher in a vaccinated host and why the trade off is poor? Are you saying that a vaccinated asymptomatic person will cause more mutation than a non-vaccinated asymptomatic person?

Isn't more likely a person will be asymptomatic if they are vaccinated since their body can more readily fight off the infection before it replicates too much vs a non-vaccinated person?

 

@biina I had a response in mind, but I read some of the paper below and will post thoughts there. I do like the conversation and will try address particular parts from before if there's too big a disagreement.

One simple specific recommendation is to keep transmission low even when a large fraction of the population has been vaccinated by implementing acute non-pharmaceutical interventions (i.e. strict adherence to social distancing) for a reasonable period of time, to allow emergent lineages of resistant strains to go extinct through stochastic genetic drift. The implementation of non-pharmaceutical measures at a time of high vaccination can also help reduce infectivity when the efficacy of vaccines is not perfect69. Additional factors that may make these measures even more effective are: (1) increased and widespread testing, (2) rigorous contact tracing, (3) high rate of viral sequencing of positive cases58,70 and (4) travel restrictions. Finally, while our model formally considers only one homogenous population, our data also suggest that delays in vaccination in some countries relative to others will make the global emergence of a vaccine-resistant strain more likely. Without global coordination, vaccine resistant strains may be eliminated in some populations but could persist in others. Thus, a truly global vaccination effort may be necessary to reduce the chances of a global spread of a resistant strain.​

I read the abstract and conclusion and this part in particular falls in line to what I'm thinking (others can disagree). They want to reduce the number of infected, so promoting pre-vaccine policies (plus contract tracing and widespread testing) is recommended on top of people getting vaccinated.

That's the meta global level solution, but the reality is that vaccines aren't universal yet, and they are a logistical quagmire (Bill Gates and small pox eradication). When the scope is reduced on the national level, there is potential of increase vax resistant strains (which they inferred from observing flu shots). Despite that, I still think the global level risk of 5+ billion covid carriers mutating is larger than the ~1 billion or so vaccinated people who can potentially be carriers.

One problem mentioned in the article is that vaccinated people are more prone to flaunt said policies or lobby the government to return to a pre-quarantine economy. I don't think that's a cause to stop universal vaccine promotion, and that is more a messaging issue where the vaccine is not a "one and done" answer and more a safety belt.

Ofc other people here think "masks r muzzles" and thus I want to destroy America, so this isn't a clear debate with set lines. Everyone's tolerance and appetite for risk is different as are their mental models for the virus.

The other point is that when the vaccine resistant strain hits, we'd be back to square one but worse since we're essentially naked to the virus.

I guess what happens is: the clock for a new vaccine resets, we'll have a new lockdown, and potentially people get frustrated and rebel.

It seems like that already happened. People generally choose the easier answer when given a choice. Vaccine resistance means there aren't any choices. So they will do those quarrantine policies or risk dying at the hospital. Our hospital system is being stressed again because people chose not to vaccine, the most convenient solution compared to daily masking and isolation.

What I'm saying is that last year was our rock bottom, and I'd rather repeat it with everyone in the US getting vaccinated but hit with a new immune strain than whatever the hell is going on right now where we lockdown to save dummies who didn't have to land in ICUs with a vaccine that still works.

 

What it sounds like they are recommending is that things like social distancing and mask mandates should've remained in place until the population was fully vaccinated.

 

I think the theory is that because it’s a vaccinated person getting it enough to create viral load that can spread, it must be a variant… which causes more variant mutations…. Which I would say duh… we are already dealing with a deadly variant.

The variant theory can best be seen actually by looking at Brazil who has had multiple waves where there should have be close to herd immunity levels but new variants give the country wave after wave.

I’m not sure what this is an argument for other than time travel but what logic does tell us is that we definitely will need a booster shot by the end of the year most likely and this time Governors like Abbott will fight the effort to save the lives for his own political ambitions. You think the vaccine was turned into a conspiracy theory nightmare… just wait till we have to then get a booster.

Covid is going nowhere for a really long time. 40% of this country just wants to see the world burn so they can make their way to heaven sooner and leave this liberal hell where they are forced to have black neighbors and have a gay character in a Disney movie.

 

I'll say this; my wife and I are fully vaccinated (pfizer). I won't let my kids near it until we know a lot more. I also understand people that won't do it until the FDA fully puts their name behind it. That's a fair position to take. In that instance they should wear a mask. How private Businesses want to treat the situation should be up to them. Pretty simple to me

 

Intelligent, reasonable and responsible. Insert applause hands emoji.

Sadly, I think this represents the vast MINORITY of adults who have declined to get vaccinated.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/misinf...0ozwtkepe9f&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

A False Narrative About ‘Misinformation’ and Covid Vaccines
The evidence suggests resistance is based largely on pre-existing attitudes, not bad information.

By Robert M. Kaplan
Aug. 3, 2021 6:32 pm ET

The idea that recent, deliberate misinformation campaigns created hesitancy to the Covid-19 vaccine appears itself to be misinformation.

Over the past year the Stanford Clinical Excellence Research Center has asked representative samples of the U.S. population about the likelihood they would accept vaccines. A poll completed in August 2020 showed that about 20% of the population reported they were very unlikely to take a vaccine even if the evidence suggested it was safe and effective. Another 15% said they were unlikely to take it. Those two categories add up to approximately the percentage of adults yet to get a first dose a year later.

Without even knowing there would be a vaccine, more than a third of the population told us they were not planning to accept it.

The study was repeated in late December 2020 after highly impressive results from clinical trials led the Food and Drug Administration to give emergency-use authorization for two vaccines. News cycles prior to our December survey were dominated by stories on the potential for vaccines. Still, about 35% said they were unlikely or very unlikely to take the vaccine. The numbers are almost identical to those seen in August when vaccine potential had not received public scrutiny.

The Stanford finding that 20% would be very unlikely to take the vaccine is consistent with a variety of other studies. Monthly polls by the Kaiser Family Foundation show the percentage saying they will definitely not take the vaccine or take it only if required has held steady at around 20%.

Our studies also looked at demographic factors related to self-reported vaccine hesitancy. Older adults, women, Asian-Americans, and college graduates were more likely to say they would take the vaccine, while African-American and Hispanic respondents were more hesitant. And even before it was known if a vaccine would ever be available, Biden supporters were significantly more likely than Trump followers to say they would get the shot.

We also looked at the likelihood people would take the vaccine under a variety of hypothetical circumstances. To our surprise, information on the expected side effects and benefits had only small effects. All told, many people made up their minds long before vaccines were available.

The internet is awash with misinformation about the vaccines. But data distortion seems to have little effect on vaccine uptake. Well over a year ago, 35% told us they wouldn’t take the vaccine, and they have kept their word. The recent increase in vaccine uptake appears to be among people who initially said they would “wait and see.”

In politics, voters choose their loyalties early. After they do, expensive and exhausting campaigns affect few voters. Vaccine acceptance may similarly be determined by the groups we align with rather than evidence—or false information—about the vaccine itself.

Mr. Kaplan is a faculty member at Stanford University’s Clinical Excellence Research Center, a former associate director of the National Institutes of Health, and a former chief science officer for the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
​

 

Thanks. I think we all want to get back to normal and it's really unfortunate that people are drawing lines in the sand over this. It's not hard to look around at what's going on and be responsible.