But we now have vaccines they had not.
Is the loss of advantages (if they are) like different population density and spread, travel, nutrition, etc. compensated by our vaccines so that we can hope for the same ending ?
I read a lot that covid-19 would turn into a milder flu as time passes by and as the virus naturally evolves to become more infectious but less lethal. But this is not what happened.
I was confident until Delta happened and newspaper headlines started mentioning a fourth wave (most articles I read about Spanish flu only mentioned a third wave).
Today, as far as I am concerned, all bets are off.
I am vaccinated with what I consider the best option available at the time (mRNA, maybe protein based vaccine would have changed my mind) and the way things are now I'll keep wearing a mask indoor, at work, in public transport for a long time and follow all the other recommendations. And I am not in the US, I live in one of the less impacted (at the moment) European country.
Not because they wanted to, but because they had to - for economical and political reasons. Just like they stripped off all measures during Christmas for political goodwill, and it caused the death of thounsands.
Very few were, and are, willing to end this pandemic.
One thing was made very clear: politicians will do anything - ANYTHING - to keep themselves in power. This pandemic turned to the worst when it became a political weapon. They placed too much hope on the vaccine, when it should have been considered one valuable tool to end this pandemic, not the final fix for it.
Only time will tell the long term effects of these decisions.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/countering-geert-vanden-bos...
https://www.deplatformdisease.com/blog/addressing-geert-vand...
https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/covid-19-vaccines-don...
Most probably current vaccines will have to be updated, but evidence do not yet point towards this being a bigger problem.
It also begs the question, what point is the parent trying to make here? That we should just let covid rip so it kills off all the vulnerable?
They also showed that the cumulative genomes shed where higher for vaccinated birds vs unvaccinated birds when dealing with more virulent strains. And that this did influence the sentinel infections. Yes, that's due to death. It still shows that if mutations become statistically more likely with the cumulative genome shedding, then leaky vaccines do not prevent this and the genomic pool will be skewed more to the virulent side than it would have been otherwise. That's all pretty definitive. Now, does that definitely support that a specific outcome will occur, like vaccines causing more sereve strains- no.
Although this is kind of besides my point - that the two studies are not in conflict and perhaps the two parties are arguing two separate topics.
An aside, are you getting your information about vaccines from Joe Rogan? Unsurprisingly, the medical advice of a comedian is totally wrong: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/andreamorr...
No.
That article mentions Mareks disease in its argument. Yes, it's true that vaccinated chickens will reduce viral load compared to unvaccinated chickens. That's not something I'm arguing. Viral load is not the same as virulence, although it could be a good indicator depending on the other variables. You would have to look at viral load (or fatality rates really) in the unvaccinated population for each strain to determine if the disease has gotten more virulent over time (Mareks has). Nor am I saying people shouldn't get vaccinated.
What I am saying is that the vaccines should be updated to prevent the breakthrough infections, otherwise we do have some risk of additional mutations occurring. It may be true that vaccination reduces viral load compared to unvaccinated people, but the measure that matters in this conversation is what that load looks like between strains. Delta is more virulent, producing up to 1000x the viral load. Unless the vaccine reduces viral load by 1000x or greater, then vaccinated people with delta would have the same or greater chance of infecting someone else as someone who is not vaccinated and has the original strain.
We are seeing more virulent strains. These emerged prior to widespread vaccination. But it seems even with widespread vaccination, there may be enough transmission to generate new mutations (Isreal is 80% vaccinated and they are seeing another wave including breakthroughs).
So really, the only thing I take issue with, aside from your personal attacks, is that your following statement isn't really true, and the article doesn't support protection against development of more virulent strains, but merely that there is lower viral load when vaccines are involved.
"Even legitimately ‘leaky’ vaccines have been shown to reduce virulence"
http://epidemics.psu.edu/articles/view/leaky-vaccines-promot...
>Nor am I saying people shouldn't get vaccinated.
Viral load is a common proxy for virulence. Your comments all read as casting doubt on vaccination. It's proving to be incredibly effective at reducing death and severe disease.
>But it seems even with widespread vaccination, there may be enough transmission to generate new mutations (Isreal [sic] is 80% vaccinated and they are seeing another wave including breakthroughs).
You provide no data to support this assumption. What is clear is that there will definitely be more transmission without vaccines.
>What I am saying is that the vaccines should be updated to prevent the breakthrough infections
They are being updated rapidly. That is a great advantage of mRNA technology.
The measure is only relevant if the other variables don't change. If we want to measure virulence compared to other strains, then you have to do that using all unvaccinated people, or all vaccinated people. Otherwise, the numbers don't matter when changing multiple variables.
"It's proving to be incredibly effective at reducing death and severe disease."
Which is good, but not very relevant to the discussion of genesis of new strains.
"They are being updated rapidly. That is a great advantage of mRNA technology."
Do you have any info on this? There does not seem to be any trials that I have heard of. Plus, the CDC/FDA have not yet recommended boosters for most people, let alone a different formulation.
"But it seems even with widespread vaccination, there may be enough transmission to generate new mutations (Isreal [sic] is 80% vaccinated and they are seeing another wave including breakthroughs)."
"You provide no data to support this assumption."
https://www.timesofisrael.com/a-vaccine-defiant-israeli-muta...
We know conclusively that large unvaccinated populations do lead to the emergence of more virulent strains. We also know that mass vaccination reduces mortality significantly so it’s the best option available today.
An updated mRNA booster would undoubtedly be a good thing and I suspect it will come in the next year.
Then why were the experts saying that virulence should go down over time at the beginning of the pandemic? It seems that either side would just be conjecture.
Shocking, the people peddling the crackpot theory also stand to profit from its proliferation.
..or whatever is going on.