My simplistic understanding of escape mutations is that if a vaccination (or the body’s immune system) kills only a certain percentage of the virus, say 90%, then the 10% that survive will naturally be those that are more resistant to the vaccine. The surviving viruses will pass on their resistance to their offspring, and will breed a new variation that is resistant to vaccines (or the body’s immune response).
I have seen it posited that vaccines could actually make the covid-19 problem worse because the vaccine doesn’t kill all of the virus, and the ones that escape and survive and multiply are the ones that are resistant to the vaccine. The vaccine-resistant strains could do even more damage and be even harder to control.
So, I have two questions:
1) Is my simplistic understanding of escape mutations anywhere close to correct? Or is it so far off, that my second question doesn’t even make sense?
2) So, if escape mutations occur when the virus isn’t completely killed off, wouldn’t escape mutations be just as likely to occur from a naturally occurring infection as from a vaccine, which means you aren’t any worse off in terms of escape mutations with the vaccine as opposed to escapes from natural antibodies or T-cells.
I can think of two possible reasons, why this might not be so. I’m not sure if these reasons are even true, much less whether they have any explanatory value, so I’d love to hear from some people who have a better understanding than I do.
a) Natural immunity does a better job of completely killing most of the viruses, so fewer viruses escape to spawn mutations.
b) Vaccines rely on antibodies only, while natural immunity includes T-cells which provide a more general defense against viruses.
Any comments are welcome. Thanks.
Gregl I will leave the answers to your questions to the experts on here but just a note wanksock has said the experimental vaccines provide 97% against the rona..the survival rate from the rona is 99.1 % ..basic maths why would you have an experimental vaccine when your own bodies defences have a higher success rate and the experimental vaccines are killing and harming people at an alarming rate..
You couldn't make it up..
🙄
Mia,
To me, vaccine efficacy rates are confusing and non-intuitive. But I think when they claim that a vaccine is 97% effective, they mean that a vaccinated person has a 97% lower risk of getting ill than a non-vaccinated person. If your chances of getting ill are small regardless, then they will need to vaccinate a lot of people in order to prevent a single illness.
And they have no idea about those figures because they are experimental vaccines never been used on humans before so they have no idea. But they do not that the survival rate without the experimental vaccines is 99.1% so why have vaccines when there was a small percentage that the virus was fatal too?so ruin 99.1 % of the populations lives..vaccinate 100% of the population is save how many?what percentage?and vacvinate them with the experimental vaccines and kill and injure huge numbers in the process..for what?save them from the rona with a 99.1 % survival rate but take your chances of death or injury from our experimental vaccines which is higher than the percentage we save from getting the rona..
We all know the end goal has nothing to do with the rona..
My simplistic understanding of escape mutations is that if a vaccination (or the body’s immune system) kills only a certain percentage of the virus, say 90%, then the 10% that survive will naturally be those that are more resistant to the vaccine. The surviving viruses will pass on their resistance to their offspring, and will breed a new variation that is resistant to vaccines (or the body’s immune response).
I have seen it posited that vaccines could actually make the covid-19 problem worse because the vaccine doesn’t kill all of the virus, and the ones that escape and survive and multiply are the ones that are resistant to the vaccine. The vaccine-resistant strains could do even more damage and be even harder to control.
So, I have two questions:
1) Is my simplistic understanding of escape mutations anywhere close to correct? Or is it so far off, that my second question doesn’t even make sense?
2) So, if escape mutations occur when the virus isn’t completely killed off, wouldn’t escape mutations be just as likely to occur from a naturally occurring infection as from a vaccine, which means you aren’t any worse off in terms of escape mutations with the vaccine as opposed to escapes from natural antibodies or T-cells.
I can think of two possible reasons, why this might not be so. I’m not sure if these reasons are even true, much less whether they have any explanatory value, so I’d love to hear from some people who have a better understanding than I do.
a) Natural immunity does a better job of completely killing most of the viruses, so fewer viruses escape to spawn mutations.
b) Vaccines rely on antibodies only, while natural immunity includes T-cells which provide a more general defense against viruses.
Any comments are welcome. Thanks.
Whilst we are specifically discussing viruses, it’s worth noting that ‘escape mutations’ following inappropriate, or incomplete medication against bacteria also happens - typically with antibiotics, which is why they always prescribe a minimum time - say 7 days, to reduce the risk of things like MRSA emerging. It also seems to be less ‘popular’ to dish them out as well. In the past, one of my dentists often prescribed 7 days of various antibiotics, but I think that does not happen as often as it did a couple of decades ago.
The so-called ‘vaccines’ on offer (which we are warned on the paperwork that they do not actually prevent infection as such, but they mitigate the symptoms) might create similar problems, if they are a half-cock attack that encourages mutation by the virus under consideration.
