Jump to content


Coronavirus - Part Two.

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, MuteWitness said:

If the vaccine does not stop people getting the virus or spreading the virus then what is the rush ? as long as those at risk are vaccinated that should be the focus.   All the talk about people having to have the vaccine and every person who dares to ask a question about it on the news is just put down as "anti vax" so there is no sensible discussions.  

The vaccines enables antibodies to be created that attack incoming incoming viruses.

The virus therefore cannot replicate in the vast quantities within the body.

This reduces the opportunity for the virus to spread.

It also reduces the chances of harmful mutations.

If a person cannot take the vaccine then we must all help to protect them.

If they can take the vaccine but refuse it is quite correct for society to challenge them as to the basis of their reasoning, asses the potential impact and decide on suitable strategies to mitigate harm.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

It also reduces the chances of harmful mutations.

 

It has been reported that they are not sure if just having the first vaccine will allow more mutations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, apelike said:

There is a theory by a Japanese guy that Darwin was wrong to assume that natural selection was the driving force behind evolution. He proposes that it's actually molecule mutations that is the driving force something which can now easily be seen to occur in the coronavirus.

When Darwin and Wallace published their new version of Evolution they proposed Natural Selection as the reason but they had no mechanism. Later discoveries provide the mechanisms -which are still evolving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, El Cid said:

It has been reported that they are not sure if just having the first vaccine will allow more mutations.

they'll say that to get people to make sure people get their second jab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks promising that vaccines help reduce transmission but it is still early days.

Scientists believe virus mutations are more likely if infection rates are still high in a partially vaccinated population (some people having one vaccine only and a large number still not vaccinated at all). That is one reason why I think the government are taking a gamble opening up all schools at once next week. 
Great as vaccines are the government are relying on them too much. We should be holding out with restrictions just a few weeks longer until infection rates are right down and more people are vaccinated.  Infection rates have been falling consistently but they are still 4 times higher than they were last May when lockdown restrictions were relaxed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, redruby said:

It looks promising that vaccines help reduce transmission but it is still early days.

Scientists believe virus mutations are more likely if infection rates are still high in a partially vaccinated population (some people having one vaccine only and a large number still not vaccinated at all). That is one reason why I think the government are taking a gamble opening up all schools at once next week. 
Great as vaccines are the government are relying on them too much. We should be holding out with restrictions just a few weeks longer until infection rates are right down and more people are vaccinated.  Infection rates have been falling consistently but they are still 4 times higher than they were last May when lockdown restrictions were relaxed.

agree its too early to ease things - especially to let the kids back and also to be booking holidays etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Mutation ,doesn't necessarily mean "worse".

If scientists get cracking it might be possible to get the virus to mutate itself out of existence.

Quote

On the other hand, their mutation rates are an exploitable Achilles’ heel: researchers and clinicians can increase RNA virus mutation rates using nucleoside analogues, and a 3–5-fold increase in mutation rate causes lethal mutagenisis in human-infecting viruses like polio virus and influenza.

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000003#pbio.3000003.ref002

Edited by petemcewan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the vaccine contained the virus would it be better against different mutations ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Mutewitness.

If you read the last but one paragraph. It might answer your question.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/can-the-covid-19-vaccine-beat-the-proliferation-of-new-virus-mutations

 

“These data highlight the prospect of reinfection with antigenically distinct variants and may foreshadow reduced efficacy of current spike-based vaccines.”

mRNA vaccines can be modified quickly to address emerging variants. 

Edited by petemcewan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, petemcewan said:

Mutewitness.

If you read the last but one paragraph. It might answer your question.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/can-the-covid-19-vaccine-beat-the-proliferation-of-new-virus-mutations

 

“These data highlight the prospect of reinfection with antigenically distinct variants and may foreshadow reduced efficacy of current spike-based vaccines.”

 

Quotes from a magazine referring  to a scientific article written two month ago may not be as informative as we need.

The actual  impact  and  response to the  South African and other variants can be found in more 'up to date' and  'readable' sources such as :

BMJ's Coronavirus (covid-19) Hub or

Nature briefing(not just Covid matters)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, petemcewan said:

Annie Bynnol

Mutewitness asked a question in 4451.

 Live Attenuated ,Inactivated or mRNA.In your opinion ,which one of them is best at dealing with mutations ?

I woudn't dare try and give an opinion as events, discoveries, distribution, innovations, techniques and a myriad of other considerations come to play when trying to protect a population. 

The question you ask  is unanswerable as " ...best..." cannot be defined.

E.g. does "...best..." mean for the survival of an  individual, an age group, for a geographical area, globally, speed, cost, time, economy etc., etc.

Like the Johnson & Johnson, the combining of established and new techniques are delivering impressive results. More will follow.

 

What I do say is that we need to keep up to date with information from reliable sources at a level that we can understand.

The British Society for Immunology section on Coronavirus provides information at many levels. You can follow the latest developments in an abridged form in Nature before they become mangled by the media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

X