It isn't. Vaccines exert evolutionary pressure favouring variants that escape vaccine induced antibodies. Whether or not that pressure results in an escape variant falls to chance but this chance is weighted. For example, say a variant has a geometric change brought about by different nucleotides in its spike but this change costs more to synthesize, this variant would be outcompeted in most situations. But say that more expensive sequence (less favourable enthalpy and entropy) happens to evade the antibody 90% of people have, well it has become incalculably more competitive and has an easier time passing between hosts.
Is it guaranteed to happen? No. Are there human created pressures favouring it? Yes.
Most people know how this works from paying some attention to antibiotic resistant bacteria. Same principle. Ubiquitous antibiotics applied evolutionary pressure. It took a long time but viruses get more rolls of the dice in less time.
This isn't even getting into the vaccinee's immune response to variants. If an antigen is similar to something you've encountered many times, the body tends to produce a best fit. Sort of. We're back to entropy and enthalpy. The path of least effort. If the body has thousands of flathead screwdrivers, it's going to try to screw in the Philips with a flathead instead of putting Philips heads into production. Unless something is so different that it doesn't register, such as a hexagonal screw.
The worry here is that a variant escapes enough to replicate relatively unhindered while highly boosted individuals are unable to mount a suitable response due to flooding the body with the answer to 2019's spike. The one we applied massive selectors against the existence of because we didn't restrict vaccines to comorbid and/or elderly groups. Presumably because Canada was greasing its way past human rights violations by mandating against everyone instead of singling out the people who needed it.
You are source trolling against basic evolutionary and life science principles. The ideas of epitopes, enzymes(catalysts), protein synthesis, erroneous transcription, viral stability VS replication errors AS WELL as the physics of thermodynamics (entropy and enthalpy) AND the mathematical idea of weighted causalities.
There's something called the 'Parachute Paradigm' to address people like you. It goes like this:
"This observation has come to be known as the parachute paradigm: We tend to accept the claim that parachutes reduce injury among people who leap from airplanes, but this effect has never been proved in a randomized study that compares an experimental parachute group to an unlucky parachuteless control".
You are dismissing long established theories, and in some case LAWS, because they haven't been repeated in a narrow context. It's akin to arguing that you might fall up instead of down when entering or exiting a newly designed vehicle. There could be confounding variables that might cause this or the appearance of it (wind tunnel? electromagnetism?) but we wouldn't retread the path and study it before the anomaly happened.
A highly mutable coronavirus stabilizing and never escaping the evolutionary pressure of ubiquitous vaccination that offers bloodborne resistance without mucosal resistance would be the anomaly. This is before getting into the pathology of COVID-19 where it fuses cells into multinucleated masses instead of lysing them which allows for more replication before detection. This is before considering animal reservoirs. And, of course, immunocompromised people who will get infected and allow for many more replication cycles (rolls of the dice) before the host immune system gets ahead of the infection. In these cases, the winning roll will be the one that alters the spike protein without crippling the virus's ability to enter cells to the point that it loses the race against the host's immune system.
I didn't mean to throw you off like that. It's an honest question: Can you say what the rate of variant production / survival would be without vaccines?
I can speak to what I have learned. I believe that what I have learned is based on repeatably verifiable empirical observation. Based on that, I will say:
In theory survival rates would be better if vaccines were only deployed to at-risk populations. They're typically deployed to healthy populations only when eradication is on the table due to the virus in question being genetically stable.
The theoretical basis would be that healthy populations would get hit hard and fast and provide enough naive hosts that there wouldn't be evolutionary pressure on escape. It'd likely go the normal route of becoming more specific to the upper respiratory tract which makes it spread faster while being milder. While this is happening, vaccinated at-risk people get infected and benefit from vaccination long enough to make it to the hospital to get cleared by monoclonal antibodies. Fewer elderly people die in this scenario.
What follows is political/economic opinion:
And with profit to be made from naive hosts, there is incentive to treat people who are sick so we don't have a reason to forget how protease inhibitors and coronavirus replication works so existing treatments are allowed to be deployed while magic bullets are aggressively refined that do what they do more specifically.
I think that something extremely perverse happened regarding treatments.
I think that politicians went ham on vaccinating everyone because western governments have codified human rights and coercing just the elderly and sick and disabled would have been shot down in court. Attacking everyone equally and repeating lies and propping up epidemiologists to feign misunderstanding of their own discipline as a white lie to get the few who should be treated treated. Not that they gave much of a fuck past hiding the embarrassing low capacity of our health systems to absorb hundreds of extra critically ill people on a national scale. The PHO's mandates were to keep healthcare from breaking. Saving people and not persons.
It isn't. Vaccines exert evolutionary pressure favouring variants that escape vaccine induced antibodies. Whether or not that pressure results in an escape variant falls to chance but this chance is weighted. For example, say a variant has a geometric change brought about by different nucleotides in its spike but this change costs more to synthesize, this variant would be outcompeted in most situations. But say that more expensive sequence (less favourable enthalpy and entropy) happens to evade the antibody 90% of people have, well it has become incalculably more competitive and has an easier time passing between hosts.
Is it guaranteed to happen? No. Are there human created pressures favouring it? Yes.
Most people know how this works from paying some attention to antibiotic resistant bacteria. Same principle. Ubiquitous antibiotics applied evolutionary pressure. It took a long time but viruses get more rolls of the dice in less time.
This isn't even getting into the vaccinee's immune response to variants. If an antigen is similar to something you've encountered many times, the body tends to produce a best fit. Sort of. We're back to entropy and enthalpy. The path of least effort. If the body has thousands of flathead screwdrivers, it's going to try to screw in the Philips with a flathead instead of putting Philips heads into production. Unless something is so different that it doesn't register, such as a hexagonal screw.
The worry here is that a variant escapes enough to replicate relatively unhindered while highly boosted individuals are unable to mount a suitable response due to flooding the body with the answer to 2019's spike. The one we applied massive selectors against the existence of because we didn't restrict vaccines to comorbid and/or elderly groups. Presumably because Canada was greasing its way past human rights violations by mandating against everyone instead of singling out the people who needed it.
Can you say what the rate of variant production / survival would be without vaccines?
You are source trolling against basic evolutionary and life science principles. The ideas of epitopes, enzymes(catalysts), protein synthesis, erroneous transcription, viral stability VS replication errors AS WELL as the physics of thermodynamics (entropy and enthalpy) AND the mathematical idea of weighted causalities.
There's something called the 'Parachute Paradigm' to address people like you. It goes like this:
"This observation has come to be known as the parachute paradigm: We tend to accept the claim that parachutes reduce injury among people who leap from airplanes, but this effect has never been proved in a randomized study that compares an experimental parachute group to an unlucky parachuteless control".
You are dismissing long established theories, and in some case LAWS, because they haven't been repeated in a narrow context. It's akin to arguing that you might fall up instead of down when entering or exiting a newly designed vehicle. There could be confounding variables that might cause this or the appearance of it (wind tunnel? electromagnetism?) but we wouldn't retread the path and study it before the anomaly happened.
A highly mutable coronavirus stabilizing and never escaping the evolutionary pressure of ubiquitous vaccination that offers bloodborne resistance without mucosal resistance would be the anomaly. This is before getting into the pathology of COVID-19 where it fuses cells into multinucleated masses instead of lysing them which allows for more replication before detection. This is before considering animal reservoirs. And, of course, immunocompromised people who will get infected and allow for many more replication cycles (rolls of the dice) before the host immune system gets ahead of the infection. In these cases, the winning roll will be the one that alters the spike protein without crippling the virus's ability to enter cells to the point that it loses the race against the host's immune system.
I didn't mean to throw you off like that. It's an honest question: Can you say what the rate of variant production / survival would be without vaccines?
You’re a boomer terrified of the flu 😂😂
🪦⚰️Stay fat. Stay terrified. Get your sudden death booster. 🪦⚰️
😘
I can speak to what I have learned. I believe that what I have learned is based on repeatably verifiable empirical observation. Based on that, I will say:
In theory survival rates would be better if vaccines were only deployed to at-risk populations. They're typically deployed to healthy populations only when eradication is on the table due to the virus in question being genetically stable.
The theoretical basis would be that healthy populations would get hit hard and fast and provide enough naive hosts that there wouldn't be evolutionary pressure on escape. It'd likely go the normal route of becoming more specific to the upper respiratory tract which makes it spread faster while being milder. While this is happening, vaccinated at-risk people get infected and benefit from vaccination long enough to make it to the hospital to get cleared by monoclonal antibodies. Fewer elderly people die in this scenario.
What follows is political/economic opinion:
And with profit to be made from naive hosts, there is incentive to treat people who are sick so we don't have a reason to forget how protease inhibitors and coronavirus replication works so existing treatments are allowed to be deployed while magic bullets are aggressively refined that do what they do more specifically.
I think that something extremely perverse happened regarding treatments.
I think that politicians went ham on vaccinating everyone because western governments have codified human rights and coercing just the elderly and sick and disabled would have been shot down in court. Attacking everyone equally and repeating lies and propping up epidemiologists to feign misunderstanding of their own discipline as a white lie to get the few who should be treated treated. Not that they gave much of a fuck past hiding the embarrassing low capacity of our health systems to absorb hundreds of extra critically ill people on a national scale. The PHO's mandates were to keep healthcare from breaking. Saving people and not persons.