Leaky vaccines are uncontrolled infection. Delta can be transmitted by vaccinated people. The point is, they will need to reformulate the vaccine to prevent this or it's fairly likely we will see further mutations. Given that there is immunity to the lesser strains, this leaves only one direction for those new strains to take - more virulence. So basically, there's a reduced chance of mutations that will prevail, but if one does occur, then it will likely be worse.

You conveniently omit the fact that vaccinated people are much less likely to contract delta (and subsequently transmit it) than unvaccinated. Even legitimately ‘leaky’ vaccines have been shown to reduce virulence (not increase it) in other diseases: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-020-0358-3

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...

"An aside, are you getting your information about vaccines from Joe Rogan?"

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...

The article you include is from 2015. It only shows that a leaky vaccine leads to a higher survival rate of the host (vs no vaccine). It does not show that leaky vaccines select for more virulent strains.

>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.

"Viral load is a common proxy for virulence."

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...

The Times of Israel article is still just conjecture. The only data is a quote from their ex-virus Czar saying selective pressure ‘could’ lead to the emergence of a vaccine resistant variant.

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.

"We know conclusively that large unvaccinated populations do lead to the emergence of more virulent strains."

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.

I know Elon Musk tweeted that out early in the pandemic but I don’t recall medical experts specifically making that claim. If some did, they were clearly wrong.

Ah, my wording was off. Some said it was a possiblity, not that it should.

Most likely from Brett Weinstein and Heather Heying. Two biology professors that are now full time podcasters. This particular theory is being advanced by a guy who dubiously claims to be the inventor of mRNA vaccines because he was the middle author of a paper in the ballpark of mRNA about 25 years ago.

I haven't heard of either of them. I merely brought this up as a point of discussing a possible issue. I feel the more we discuss things, the more we learn and can prepare for possible future issues. Unfortunately, it seems the debate is dominated by people on both sides who are treating possibilities as inevitabilities and preliminary data/results as idempotent facts to be applied to any future scenario regardless of the variables that might change.

Agree it’s important to discuss and debate the facts. However I think it’s unequivocal that anyone who can get vaccinated today should as quickly as possible.

>professors that are now full time podcasters

Shocking, the people peddling the crackpot theory also stand to profit from its proliferation.