|
|
|
|
|
|
by henearkr
1270 days ago
|
|
|
Interesting, however the emergence of new strains would happen anyway and is not tied to the validity of this hypothesis (thus you could not e.g. use the appearance of new strains as a confirmation of it). But did you mean "strains that are not using the spike protein anymore to enter cells"? In which case, why do you think it would be harder to tackle than the original virus? In my opinion, the same work (developing again mRNA vaccines etc) could also apply to any other receptor, couldn't they? |
|
|
Yes, new mRNA vaccines could be produced and distributed, thereby generating even more tolerance as this article shows and making things even worse for people's immune systems if so. The point is these vaccines are generating resistance to the virus but at the same time, unlike traditional ones, they are making the immune systems tolerant of the virus. The infection is incompletely suppressed, symptoms are mild or imperceptible, but the virus is getting passed on despite being partly suppressed.
The emergence of new strains is favored when there is a large medium (the reservoir population of people, tolerant but infected and shedding) where the virus can proliferate (thus plenty of viral code copying, where mutations happen) and where there is selective pressure (i.e., an advantage to the new strain such as being able to enter cells even more effectively because of the lack of interference compared to the current strain) for a mutated virus to thrive.
It would be harder to tackle because it would be even more infective than the current strain (given the tolerance that has been introduced in the population) but at the same time more aggressive (because more cells being entered would mean more damage to the body) and maybe with different kinds of damage (because it could trigger autoimmune responses, they say, although I'm not sure how that argument goes).
I'm not an expert on this so I cannot elaborate further, but that's the idea as far as I grasp it. We'll see, I guess.