[solinent]

I hate to be that person, but I'm personally more worried about the virus mutating under the increased selection pressure. We only defeated polio with a >99% effective vaccine, and the research for this vaccine isn't even available.

[saalweachter]

Is this really a concern?

Pruning gene lines from the gene pool only benefits the surviving individuals if it leaves resources on the table for these survivors to be fruitful and multiply, growing to exploit their new niche.

If there are variants of COVID-19 the vaccine doesn't protect against, is there any reason to think they would have been crowded out by the original variants? Wouldn't their ability to bypass immunity to the original version apply equally well to the immunity gained as a result of sickness as to the immunity gained from a vaccine?

[solinent]

I have no clue, I'm not an expert. I just don't see any discussion on this topic and it concerns me. Historically, I don't see any vaccine which was effective against such a virulent virus, unless it had a much higher rate of immunity. I'd gamble on 5% odds if the reward was high enough, so 95% immunity sounds good but it's only half as strong 97.5% immunity, for example.

I do know that the immunity may only be temporary--1 out of 20 cases of the most virulent strains may then have a larger substrate to mutate within, but I'm not sure if you can get many strains at once, for example. I do know that the flu mutates each year, and I guess I'm basing this whole "increased selection pressure could cause more mutations" on that fact. When there is less available space for the virus to propagate, it's only chance of survival is to be able to infect those who are already immune.

In my opinion, we have an immune system crisis here--we need to focus on eating better and exercising more: we have to fight this virus with every tool we've got, but if we wait a few more months it's possible that we'll get a stronger vaccine. I suspect that's why it ended sooner in certain places--I doubt any measure we can take have had any real effect due to the virulence of COVID--it's in the air and on surfaces and lives there for days, and is transmitted by asymptomatic carriers--so your uber eats driver driving in their car with the AC will infect your food etc.

[whimsicalism]

> immunity gained from a vaccine

99% effectiveness from natural immunity vs 90-95% for vaccine

[saalweachter]

Yeah, but isn't that the vaccine only provoking an immune response that leads to immunity in 90-95% of the people to whom it is administered? Not that the immunity, when gained, is less?

[whimsicalism]

This is a relevant and good question that I don't know the answer to.

[Turing_Machine]

Unlike older vaccines (such as polio vaccine) which generally used weakened or killed whole virus particles (and which occasionally produced infectious cases, due to the virus not being as weak or dead as intended), this vaccine contains no whole virus particles and thus cannot result in an infectious case.

It contains RNA that cause the patient's cells to emit proteins normally produced by the viral infection (which can then be recognized by the immune system), but contains none of the genetic material required to produce standalone infectious virus particles.

This is a new thing; these will the first vaccines using this technology to be approved.

The chairman likely isn't worried about the vaccine itself producing infections, but rather does not know whether a vaccinated patient might also develop an active infection before the vaccine takes effect.

[whimsicalism]

Not that I agree with GPs concern, but this comment doesn't address it whatsoever.

[Turing_Machine]

It absolutely does address it.

The Pfizer chairman is saying he doesn't know whether you can get a spreadable COVID-19 infection after the vaccine has been administered, but before it takes full effect.

That's an entirely different thing from the vaccination CAUSING an infectious case of COVID-19.

[whimsicalism]

> That's an entirely different thing from the vaccination CAUSING an infectious case of COVID-19.

If you read carefully, you'd see that's not the concern.

[FruityCoconut]

There is absolutely 0% chance I'll be letting that anywhere near my family. And I was a biomedical scientist formerly.

Over my dead body (one way or another).

[mandelbrotwurst]

Why?

[FruityCoconut]

The risks far outweigh the rewards. We're deliberately injecting ourselves with foreign genetic material that hijacks our cells' machinery to produce viral proteins by design. For my consent, I don't have anywhere near enough faith yet in the people hastily developing such technology, their employers striving to be first to market, or the bureaucrats desperate to give their electorates the impression that they have everything under control.

Maybe if I lived in a large, diverse city, I would be forced to consider it (I would far more likely move my family somewhere safer). But where I am fortunate to live, it makes absolutely no sense.