[mikem170]

> Thus, if a large part of the population remains unvaccinated, the virus has more room room to evolve than necessary given we have easy access to effective and safe vaccines.

Word was that Omicron diverged from an earlier version of covid in mice, over the course of about a year, then jumped into humans [0].

I think this detracts quite a bit from the point you were trying to make above, since we are not vaccinating mice, nor all the other animals that harbor covid such as bats, cats, dogs, primates, and deer [1].

Since we can't vaccinate or destroy all of the non-human hosts for this coronavirus, and the virus already has evolved in animals and made the jump to humans a couple of times, I don't agree that the point you made above is relevant.

[0] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/covid-19-did-omicr...

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/...

[kmonad]

Interesting. Indeed animal hosts could be problem. I would counter two points:

1) Assuming animals were a major source of variants, it quantitatively but not qualitatively changes the problem. Until we know the quantities, I do not see how you can assert relevance.

2) The references you provide say Omicron came most likely from a human with prolonged infection. The paper proposing a intermediate variant in mice is interesting, but considered unlikely (your reference: "Evolutionary biologist Mike Worobey, Ph.D., of the University of Arizona in Tucson, said the most plausible theory remained that Omicron evolved in an immune-compromised patient with a protracted [SARS-CoV-2] infection.")

Viral replications are the only scenario where variants can emerge naturally. Duration of disease and severity of disease are correlated with load and total viral replications. Vaccination reduces both at the population level. A vaccinated person therefore will on average be a less likely source of a variant. How much this weighs against other factors when deciding on policy is impossible for me say, but I would insist it is not irrelevant based upon current knowledge.

[mikem170]

I would agree that it is not irrelevant. My language there may have been too strong.

I was probably thinking that the other factors (personal protection, hospital capacity, and the political question of mandates) seem so much more significant to me. There's lots of lesser factors (side effects, the immuno-compromised, social cohesion, etc).

I guess I kind of looked at variants as a wash, given they are so much out of our control and there are many unknowns. It's in the realm of possibility that the current vaccines could leave us more susceptible to future variants (a la original antigenetic sin). Hard to make a decision on less significant unknowns.