|
|
|
|
|
by naasking
1662 days ago
|
|
> individuals who were both previously infected and vaccinated were still able to neutralize the mutant virus. Mainly because of the infection, not the vaccination. Infection trains your immune response to detect multiple factors of the virus, the mRNA vaccines are only for the spike protein which has considerable mutations in later variants like this one. Arguably, traditional dead-virus vaccines might provide better long-term protection for this reason, but we went all-in on the new tech. |
|
T-cells on the other hand don't diversify as much but they recognize primarily the host MHC section of the MHC-antigen complex, so they're already somewhat insensitive to mutations in the protein. The T-cells stimulated by vaccine or virus aren't special in that regard.
Arguably it doesn't really matter. If you get infected with this spike it is still going to have pretty much the same shape as the spike in the vaccine (after all even the mutated versions still need to bind to ACE2 and can't vary that broadly) and your vaccine-trained T-cells will still bind fine to the antigen-MHC complex that the spike forms.
There's this idea that antibodies and immune responses are like a key fitting perfectly into a lock where any pin being wrong doesn't unlock the lock, and that's just false. The immune system has a need to fuzzy match against antigens because it evolved against adversaries which mutate and attempt to reinfect.
You're pushing a narrative that spike-only vaccines are worse in the face of mutation, and there's just no evidence of that. On the other hand mRNA spike-only vaccines allow creating a very strong humoral response to the spike protein in the absence of significant side effects and their efficacy has been so far across the board superior to inactivated virus or viral-vector vaccines.