carthusian

5 anni fadiscuss

This appears to show that the mean IQ of pandemic cohorts is down by nearly 20 points to around 80, compared to the pre-pandemic testing averaging IQ of 100. This is almost impossible to believe, unless perhaps "social distancing" is just extremely devastating to early childhood education--is there any other previous studies showing such a drastic impact on isolated children though?

carthusian

5 anni fadiscuss

Even if vaccine prevents serious illness from the current strains, the ADE hypothesis is that the vaccine will enhance illness for future strains.

Also, once you get the vaccine, you don't build up more natural immunity. That's the point. The vaccinal immune response discourages the immune system from mounting a defense to the novel strain, instead it just pumps out antibodies for the Wuhan strain encoded in the vaccination. In the future, if these Wuhan antibodies cannot bind the new strains, the situation is obviously very dangerous, and much worse than not being vaccinated at all.

carthusian

5 anni fadiscuss

>Also recent studies have shown that the rate of mutation in a country is inversely correlated with vaccine coverage for Covid. [3]

This is nothing. A single arbitrary estimator, applied to a few dozen countries (no explanation why they were chosen), shows a statistically insignificant correlation without controlling for any of the thousands of confounding variables.

Normally I would bring up the look-elsewhere effect here too, but it seems hardly dignified to discuss this tweet/paper at that level.

The authors' affiliation is a 5-employee startup addressed at an office-sharing facility.

carthusian

5 anni fadiscuss

It does though. None of what these people stated makes any sense. It appears to be some sort of propaganda for popular science media. In any case, the logics of the different individuals quoted are completely contradictory, so the only conclusion is a lack of consensus, which I don't deny.

No one knows what the next strains will be, but it is most likely that the generic natural immunity is more robust than the vaccinal immunity that targets only one rapidly mutating part of the spike protein. This is what makes the vaccinal immunity, and NOT the natural immunity, susceptible to antigenic original sin.

Also, Topham's whole argument seems to assume the existence of perpetual "updated" vaccines, which is entirely hypothetical, and which I do not wish to depend on.

carthusian

5 anni fadiscuss

Mutations of the RBD that evade vaccinal immunity (which was long known):

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.04.006

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.03.013

Feasibility argument based on molecular modelling:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2021.08.010

Infection-enhancing antibody pathways exist:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.06.021

carthusian

5 anni fadiscuss

Natural immunity (which I already have) provides a much more generic defense because it targets all parts of the spike protein, and presumably other parts of the virus itself, many of which hardly mutate.

Vaccinal immunity targets only the receptor-binding domain of the spike protein. The RBD is, in fact, the most rapidly mutating part of the virus.

Therefore it is highly feasible that ADE will only affect the vaccinated and not those with natural immunity. So, yes, it is a valid argument against vaccination.

>If anything it is an argument for vaccination, since a highly vaccinated population will reduce the rate of mutation.

If the vaccine were known to be highly neutralizing, this would be a good point. Unfortunately that does not seem to be the case, though I admit it is still somewhat uncertain. If the vaccine is non-neutralizing, then, on the contrary, I expect a highly vaccinated population to increase the rate of immune-escaping mutation.

carthusian

5 anni fadiscuss

>Yes vaccines aren't 100% perfct but they are a whole lot better than nothing.

Not if ADE happens with future strains, and the evidence is mounting that it will.

comments