Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Treatments and their effectiveness, herd immunity, masks, testing, etc.
thinksaboutit
Posts: 675
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:38 am

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by thinksaboutit »

Splatt wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 11:58 pm
thinksaboutit wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:00 pm 1. To get the population to high levels of immunity quicker than would happen through natural infection/recovery.
How on earth do you expect that to work with the main vaccine at 65% or so reduction in infection?

Its pretty much perfect to encourage escape mutants though.
2. To reduce the risk of a new peak and restrictions next winter.
Why would you expect that?
3. Infect and kill less people in the meantime.
The people likely to die are protected. Anyone else infected has about as much chance of getting seriously sick as they do being killed by cows.
What is wrong with this reasoning?
Because you see quite happy to allow others to increase the risk to their health and life to achieve these goals.
How is it morally or ethically justifiable to ask someone to place any extra risk on their health or life along with the discomfort of a vaccine and the very common side effects wiping them out for days?
"Sorry, you're just one of the hive. Do this and if it all goes wrong, tough. its for the good of the hive".

Its going to be a pretty hard sell to someone at no risk of a disease to get vaccinated (so injection, twice) likely suffer side effects making themselves sick and miss work for 1-5 days each time and increase their overall risk of health complications just to "protect" a group of people who, by being vaccinated, are already protected.

For this reason the Flu vaccine isn't mandatory (nor in fact rolled out to every single person as a matter of policy). It also goes against all basic tenets of public health policy going back a century.
Where are your "killed by cows" statistics?

Seriously, explain the escape variants theory, due to the AZ vaccine.

It's clear why a more transmissible variant would propagate faster than others and dominate.

But does a "partially immune" person really have worse natural immune response to a variant, than a non-immune person?
Does the AZ vaccine make people's response to the variant worse?

Splatt
Posts: 1576
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by Splatt »

thinksaboutit wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 11:27 am Seriously, explain the escape variants theory, due to the AZ vaccine.
This isn't hard.
When we TRY to create escape mutants we subject a population to increased but not too steep selection pressure.
Generally 50-60% lethality per generation.

The AZ has been assessed to be 65% (after 2 doses) by several studies and those figures are the ones modelled by SAGE (IC and Warwick).

So the vaccine is ineffective enough to apply good, directional selection pressure without being too much and attenuating spread too much.

Does the AZ vaccine make people's response to the variant worse?
For 484K variants AZs does nothing for peoples immune response. In that its useless.
T-cell response likely still works against severe infection but nothing against actual transmission or infection.

We have Pfizer and Moderna which in addition to having few fewer side effects are near sterilising in nature - they're very good.
Then we have AZ which isnt.

Zeppo595
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:06 am

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by Zeppo595 »

I have been reading that the MRNA vaccines protect against certain strains. But when exposed to the wild type, there are erratic responses. This is why trials did not work on animals.

If this really is the case, how the hell has this been seen as acceptable to vaccinate the entire population of earth with?

thinksaboutit
Posts: 675
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:38 am

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by thinksaboutit »

Splatt wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 3:52 pm
thinksaboutit wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 11:27 am Seriously, explain the escape variants theory, due to the AZ vaccine.
This isn't hard.
When we TRY to create escape mutants we subject a population to increased but not too steep selection pressure.
Generally 50-60% lethality per generation.

The AZ has been assessed to be 65% (after 2 doses) by several studies and those figures are the ones modelled by SAGE (IC and Warwick).

So the vaccine is ineffective enough to apply good, directional selection pressure without being too much and attenuating spread too much.

Does the AZ vaccine make people's response to the variant worse?
For 484K variants AZs does nothing for peoples immune response. In that its useless.
T-cell response likely still works against severe infection but nothing against actual transmission or infection.

We have Pfizer and Moderna which in addition to having few fewer side effects are near sterilising in nature - they're very good.
Then we have AZ which isnt.
Just using the words "selection pressure" is not an explanation.

What is the actual mechanism that explains it?

It's easy to see why a vaccine tackling variant A only allows variant B to be the dominant variant (higher proportion of the whole), but it doesn't necessarily mean the quantity of variant B is actually higher because variant A is lower.

amanuensis
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2021 1:32 pm

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by amanuensis »

Splatt wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 3:52 pm

We have Pfizer and Moderna which in addition to having few fewer side effects are near sterilising in nature - they're very good.
I disagree.

CDC's own work on 'properly investigated infection rate' showed there to be a protection from infection of about 80%-90% for Pfizer and Moderna. That's not near sterilising, not even close.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm

There haven't been many trials like this one -- most are based on reported infections and aren't so robust. This trial used regular testing of all participants to identify all infections.

Oh, except that it isn't a very good trial. They've mucked things up by having a study which tracks infections in a cohort as they get vaccinated -- at the start of the trial all participants (4,000 or so) were unvaccinated; by the end of the trial only 1,000 or so were unvaccinated. This would be fine except that during the study period covid case rates in all of the trial locations plummeted by about 80% or so. Thus the unvaccinated data is skewed towards the period where there were many infections in the area, while the vaccinated data is skewed towards the end of the trial when there were considerably fewer covid infections. Their reported effectiveness is going to be far lower than the 80-90% they found -- I'd estimate at about 60% effective max.

Sure, 60% effective at infection reduction is okay, but only in terms of disease control in the vulnerable. It is pathetic in terms of disease control in general. The results absolutely don't support universal vaccination. Now, the missing information is 'but how infectious were they once infected?', but if it is similar to '60%' then assuming R0=3 and e=0.6 the herd immunity threshold becomes 111%, ie, herd immunity becomes impossible. And that's with the original (non partial vaccine escape) variant; herd immunity via vaccination is a pipe-dream for the escape variants.

It would be nice if someone out there could do a similar study but actually do some decent analysis on the data (and use a proper control group).

I suppose I would agree that AZ is even worse as a vaccine.

NeilW
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2020 7:07 am

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by NeilW »

thinksaboutit wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 5:47 pm
What is wrong with this reasoning?
It's what I call the "Halal meat" manouvre. Most people don't care whether meat is Halal or not, but some people *really* care. Therefore you get widest traction by pandering to the minority who will kick up an unholy fuss otherwise.

Same with Kosher salt, wearing masks everywhere and vaccinating millennials.

Splatt
Posts: 1576
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by Splatt »

amanuensis wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 2:17 pm I suppose I would agree that AZ is even worse as a vaccine.
The surge testing due to SA in London highlights that.
The outbreak started in a fully vaccinated care home.
Although nobody got seriously sick, just about everyone got infected.

So quite clearly there their AZ placebo stopped serious illness (likely T cell mediated) but failed to have any useful effect on infection or transmission.

In the normal world this outcome would be fine - nobody is getting very sick. Job done.
But the government is obsessed with case count and AZ has proven yet again there is no way its going to have a big effect on cases due to its very low efficacy.

Splatt
Posts: 1576
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by Splatt »

thinksaboutit wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 2:02 pm Just using the words "selection pressure" is not an explanation.
Plenty of explanations but i assume you skipped GCSE Biology.

Just as when we're TRYING to encourage specific traits in a lab you create an environment hostile to wild type and one which is slightly less hostile to the mutant required.

Over time the wild type dies off and the mutate takes its place as its R0 is significantly higher than the original strain.

Most infections do not cohabit - you tend to get one and its first come first served.

As can be seen utterly clearly on nextstrain you can see where variants have arrived and taken over in every country and region. Its nature.

You're giving an escape mutant a competitive advantage, its going to spread and take over, causing more infections than wild type which struggles to survive.

Over time this mutant acquires more and more mutations, a better ability to escape again and the process continues.

Its happened since the dawn of time and continues to do so.

Its exactly the same as bacterial resistance. MRSA and so on only thrive because they can replicate better in the toxic environment of antibiotics.
If you REMOVE that pressure quite often they die off as its energetically unfavourable for them. But not always.

P1 is dominant now in Brazil for the simple reason that its outcompeted wild-type and is capable of causing some reinfections.
Selection pressure gave it that boost to start with.

Its highly likely B.1.1.7 first came about due to similar pressures.
It's easy to see why a vaccine tackling variant A only allows variant B to be the dominant variant (higher proportion of the whole), but it doesn't necessarily mean the quantity of variant B is actually higher because variant A is lower.
It does *for those particular conditions*. If those conditions change maybe not but this is literally natural selection in action here. It then provides a starting point to acquire more mutations and more fine tune its skills.

thinksaboutit
Posts: 675
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:38 am

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by thinksaboutit »

Splatt wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:30 pm
amanuensis wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 2:17 pm I suppose I would agree that AZ is even worse as a vaccine.
The surge testing due to SA in London highlights that.
The outbreak started in a fully vaccinated care home.
Although nobody got seriously sick, just about everyone got infected.

So quite clearly there their AZ placebo stopped serious illness (likely T cell mediated) but failed to have any useful effect on infection or transmission.

In the normal world this outcome would be fine - nobody is getting very sick. Job done.
But the government is obsessed with case count and AZ has proven yet again there is no way its going to have a big effect on cases due to its very low efficacy.
I thought you approved of people getting infected, in preference to the under 50's getting vaccinated.

So just consider the case where everyone gets AZ vaccinated, people catch the SA variant don't get seriously ill. Everyone becomes immune!

Surely this is better than them not being vaccinated and some getting seriously ill and dying?

thinksaboutit
Posts: 675
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:38 am

Re: Why vaccinate people under 50 years of age?

Post by thinksaboutit »

Splatt wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:39 pm
thinksaboutit wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 2:02 pm Just using the words "selection pressure" is not an explanation.
Plenty of explanations but i assume you skipped GCSE Biology.

Just as when we're TRYING to encourage specific traits in a lab you create an environment hostile to wild type and one which is slightly less hostile to the mutant required.

Over time the wild type dies off and the mutate takes its place as its R0 is significantly higher than the original strain.

Most infections do not cohabit - you tend to get one and its first come first served.

As can be seen utterly clearly on nextstrain you can see where variants have arrived and taken over in every country and region. Its nature.

You're giving an escape mutant a competitive advantage, its going to spread and take over, causing more infections than wild type which struggles to survive.

Over time this mutant acquires more and more mutations, a better ability to escape again and the process continues.

Its happened since the dawn of time and continues to do so.

Its exactly the same as bacterial resistance. MRSA and so on only thrive because they can replicate better in the toxic environment of antibiotics.
If you REMOVE that pressure quite often they die off as its energetically unfavourable for them. But not always.

P1 is dominant now in Brazil for the simple reason that its outcompeted wild-type and is capable of causing some reinfections.
Selection pressure gave it that boost to start with.

Its highly likely B.1.1.7 first came about due to similar pressures.
It's easy to see why a vaccine tackling variant A only allows variant B to be the dominant variant (higher proportion of the whole), but it doesn't necessarily mean the quantity of variant B is actually higher because variant A is lower.
It does *for those particular conditions*. If those conditions change maybe not but this is literally natural selection in action here. It then provides a starting point to acquire more mutations and more fine tune its skills.
No I did not do Biology. That's why I am asking. Too busy with Physics and Maths etc.

Still not explaining why a new variant has higher R0, simply because it's cousin has been supressed.
If there are 2 variants with identical R0's in a population, they both prosper identically.
Remove one, why does the remaining one benefit?..

There needs to be a mechanism to explain this.

If it is really true, that infection with Variant A, prevents infection with variant B, then this offers some explanation.
Is this true, and is there any evidence in the case of Covid?

Post Reply