[Kryptid]

But it could recognise the cell membrane as foreign

Not necessarily. Red blood cells from Type O blood don't have antigens on their surface, which is what allows them to be used in transfusion to any other blood type as there won't be an immune response. So membranes alone don't always generate an immune response.

Dysexlia

Understood. Sorry for asking.

What antigens do pollen have? Or cat hair or dog hair? None as fair as I am aware, yet all elicite an immune response as allergy.

Interestingly enough, they actually do: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3587276/ and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2419384/

[Jolly2 (OP)]

But it could recognise the cell membrane as foreign

Not necessarily. Red blood cells from Type O blood don't have antigens on their surface,

Ok you are going to have to be more specific as to what you call an antigen,  because apparently anything seen as foreign is considered an antigen under some definitions. Clearly Type 0 blood has a foundational quality that all bodies see as self, rather then it not having antigens on its surface, the surface is an antigen if the body doesnt recognize it as self, and not of it does. Not necessarily,  a virus would have to mimic a Typo 0 blood cell membrane. So clearly a cell wall of a virus would be seen as an antigen and therefore  inactivated vaccines would induce more immunological responses then the mRNA, the cells presenting the spikes are human.

which is what allows them to be used in transfusion to any other blood type as there won't be an immune response. So membranes alone don't always generate an immune response.

Dysexlia

Understood. Sorry for asking.

Nothing to say sorry for.

What antigens do pollen have? Or cat hair or dog hair? None as fair as I am aware, yet all elicite an immune response as allergy.

Interestingly enough, they actually do: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3587276/ and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2419384/

Having investigated what is considered an antigen, that being anything seen as foreign , inherently pollen is an antigen, still you're reference of antigens was relative to the S Protein,  the surface of a cell is also an antigen if the body doesnt recognize it as self.

[Kryptid]

Ok you are going to have to be more specific as to what you call an antigen

Dictionary.com defines an antigen as, "a toxin or other foreign substance which induces an immune response in the body, especially the production of antibodies."

Clearly Type 0 blood has a foundational quality that all bodies see as self, rather then it not having antigens on its surface

If that was true, then putting type O blood in a person who has type A blood would produce an immune response because the O blood doesn't have the "foundational quality that all bodies see as self". That isn't what happens, though.

Not necessarily,  a virus would have to mimic a Typo 0 blood cell membrane.

In order to do that, they would have to get rid of their spike proteins and therefore render themselves non-infectious.

So clearly a cell wall of a virus would be seen as an antigen

I don't see how you've made that case.

the surface of a cell is also an antigen if the body doesnt recognize it as self.

That's the big "if". I don't know if a viral membrane sans the spike proteins trigger an immune response or not.

[evan_au]

What antigens do pollen have? Or cat hair or dog hair? None as fair as I am aware...

Your body can potentially recognize any protein as an allergen (and sometimes even non-proteins, like sugars).
- A crucial part of "training" the immune system is to kill off any antibodies which cross-react with your own cells (part of this training occurs in the thymus gland)
- So any random protein that you may encounter in your lifetime could potentially be recognised by some antibodies (unless that antibody has already been eliminated during training)
- Fortunately, most foreign bodies, whether virus or cat hair or blood cells have many proteins exposed on their surface, so you probably have antibodies that can recognise some of these proteins, in at least one of many possible orientations.
- Whether they become an actual antigen depends on whether something alerts the immune system that this protein is a hostile invader.

Red blood cells from Type O blood don't have antigens on their surface...

Red blood cells express many proteins on their surface.
- The A & B proteins are just 2 of them; and people with blood type O don't carry either of them.
- The Rh protein is another one. Rh- blood type doesn't have this one.
- in total, there are about 50 membrane proteins in a red blood cell
- About half of these are known to cause an immune reaction in rare blood types (ie if transfused blood carries one of these proteins, and you don't, that can cause a severe reaction to a subsequent blood transfusion containing this protein).
- So it wouldn't be right to say that Blood Type O don't have any antigens on their surface, or that everyone sees Type O blood cells as "self".
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_blood_cell#Membrane_proteins

clearly a cell wall of a virus would be seen as an antigen and therefore  inactivated vaccines would induce more immunological responses then the mRNA

I agree with this.

SARS-CoV-2 has four structural proteins, known as the S (spike), E (envelope), M (membrane), and N (nucleocapsid) proteins; the N protein holds the RNA genome, and the S, E, and M proteins together create the viral envelope

So a whole virus vaccine might generate antibodies against the E & M proteins, as well as the S protein.
- The partial virus vaccines would just generate antibodies to the S protein.
- Antibodies to the S protein would prevent the virus from invading a cell ("neutralising antibodies"); antibodies to E & M proteins would not prevent infection, but might alert the immune system that something suspicious is going on...
- Note that having 3 protein targets instead of just 1 possibly means that there will be 3 times as many side-effects to the vaccine. ie 3 times the chance that the vaccine could mess up some biological process when you are vaccinated.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Structural_biology

[Kryptid]

All right, thanks for the clarification about blood cells.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

What antigens do pollen have? Or cat hair or dog hair? None as fair as I am aware...

Your body can potentially recognize any protein as an allergen (and sometimes even non-proteins, like sugars).
- A crucial part of "training" the immune system is to kill off any antibodies which cross-react with your own cells (part of this training occurs in the thymus gland)
- So any random protein that you may encounter in your lifetime could potentially be recognised by some antibodies (unless that antibody has already been eliminated during training)
- Fortunately, most foreign bodies, whether virus or cat hair or blood cells have many proteins exposed on their surface, so you probably have antibodies that can recognise some of these proteins, in at least one of many possible orientations.
- Whether they become an actual antigen depends on whether something alerts the immune system that this protein is a hostile invader.

Red blood cells from Type O blood don't have antigens on their surface...

Red blood cells express many proteins on their surface.
- The A & B proteins are just 2 of them; and people with blood type O don't carry either of them.
- The Rh protein is another one. Rh- blood type doesn't have this one.
- in total, there are about 50 membrane proteins in a red blood cell
- About half of these are known to cause an immune reaction in rare blood types (ie if transfused blood carries one of these proteins, and you don't, that can cause a severe reaction to a subsequent blood transfusion containing this protein).
- So it wouldn't be right to say that Blood Type O don't have any antigens on their surface, or that everyone sees Type O blood cells as "self".
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_blood_cell#Membrane_proteins

clearly a cell wall of a virus would be seen as an antigen and therefore  inactivated vaccines would induce more immunological responses then the mRNA

I agree with this.

SARS-CoV-2 has four structural proteins, known as the S (spike), E (envelope), M (membrane), and N (nucleocapsid) proteins; the N protein holds the RNA genome, and the S, E, and M proteins together create the viral envelope

So a whole virus vaccine might generate antibodies against the E & M proteins, as well as the S protein.
- The partial virus vaccines would just generate antibodies to the S protein.
- Antibodies to the S protein would prevent the virus from invading a cell ("neutralising antibodies"); antibodies to E & M proteins would not prevent infection, but might alert the immune system that something suspicious is going on...
- Note that having 3 protein targets instead of just 1 possibly means that there will be 3 times as many side-effects to the vaccine. ie 3 times the chance that the vaccine could mess up some biological process when you are vaccinated.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Structural_biology

Thanks evan the statics I saw for the inactivated virus vaccine were lower then the flu vaccine, with 24 million people vaccinated.

What about regulatory B cells macrophages and cytotoxic B cells wouldn't they also be more involved with an inactivated virus, compared to simply the spike proteins presented by the mRNA vaccine on the infected cell?

Could you also confirm exactly what happens with the mRNA vaccines, do they simply present spike on the infected cell? or does the cell release the S proteins into the blood stream? I have seen conflicting explanations and would like some clarification about the actual technology involved. Ofcourse I suppose it could be both depending on which mRNA vaccine is being deployed.

Last question do you think an inactivated virus nasal spray would be a more effective vaccine,  simply because it would mimic the usual mode of transmission for covid?

[set fair]

They contain approximately the whole vaccine, try looking them up on Wiki.

Perhaps you've misunderstood me. I'm not arguing that all current vaccines against COVID are mRNA vaccines. What I'm saying is that they all rely on antigen recognition.

The spike protein is not the only antigen, there are, for example, nueclocasid proteins which can be targetted, resulting in lysis. Not all spike antibodies are streralising and not all sterilising antibodies target the spike.

[evan_au]

do you think an inactivated virus nasal spray would be a more effective vaccine,  simply because it would mimic the usual mode of transmission for covid?

I agree that having COVID-sensitive antibodies and white blood cells patrolling your nasal passages and lungs for a COVID infection would be more effective at blocking infection ...
- than (say) just having them patrol your arm muscle
- Certainly the idea of vaccinating your gut against orally ingested viruses has been successful in the past.

But the effects of the vaccine doesn't just stay in your arm muscle; the antibodies and white blood cells sensitized by the vaccine do patrol throughout your bloodstream, and any tissues adjacent to capillaries (which includes lungs and nasal passages).

I disagree that an inactivated virus mimics the usual mode of transmission for COVID:
- The fundamental difference being that live COVID infects cells, while an inactivated virus does not
- Vaccine designers try to compensate for this essential difference by adding an "adjuvant" which causes cell damage and inflammation, mimicking the impact of a real infection.

You then have to look at the site of administering the vaccine.
- If you get a bad reaction to a vaccine in your arm muscle, it could cause soreness and pain in your arm for a few days. In extreme cases, it may even make it hard to drive.
- If you get a bad reaction to a vaccine in your gut, it could cause diarrhea, vomiting or cramps for a few days. In extreme cases, you may lose a kilo.
- If you get a bad reaction to a vaccine in your nose and lungs, it could kill you within minutes. Unlike driving, breathing is an essential service.
- Inhaling an adjuvant (which is designed to cause inflammation) into your lungs would be a bad idea!
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunologic_adjuvant

[Colin2B]

Could you also confirm exactly what happens with the mRNA vaccines, do they simply present spike on the infected cell? or does the cell release the S proteins into the blood stream? I have seen conflicting explanations and would like some clarification about the actual technology involved. Ofcourse I suppose it could be both depending on which mRNA vaccine is being deployed.

One of the Harvard videos is very much simplified for layviewers. What really happens is that the vaccine makes the cell create both spikes and spike fragments inside the cell. The spikes migrate to the cell surface where they protrude and activate the immune system. At a later time the cell will die releasing any remaining spikes or fragments and these are mopped up by the now activated immune system.
When you quoted the BW video you didn’t follow up on the primary source which was a Salk study, not Berkley. If you had followed up the primary source rather than quoting the secondary you would have got a lot more detail. One thing to note is that the spikes have 2 forms, a prefusion (prior to infecting a cell) and this changes to the postfusion form on attacking a cell. The vaccines produce prefusion spikes and stabilise them into this state, so they do not attack body tissue as the viral spikes in the Salk study do. There are other ways in which the mRNA vaccines can change the spikes which makes them harmless which is one of the big advantages of this method.

So, did BW imply that the vaccine spikes will attack body tissues? Or did you fail to follow up and assume it would? Either way it’s false news.

Last question do you think an inactivated virus nasal spray would be a more effective vaccine,  simply because it would mimic the usual mode of transmission for covid?

You have already asked this before:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81480.msg627477#msg627477
Perhaps read that reply as well as that from @evan_au

do you think an inactivated virus nasal spray would be a more effective vaccine,  simply because it would mimic the usual mode of transmission for covid?

- If you get a bad reaction to a vaccine in your nose and lungs, it could kill you within minutes. Unlike driving, breathing is an essential service.
- Inhaling an adjuvant (which is designed to cause inflammation) into your lungs would be a bad idea!
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunologic_adjuvant

It’s also worth reading up on the dangers of using killed virus, a lesson learnt the hard way. It’s why you can’t rely on a technique just because it has been around a while.

“In 1966, a decade after RSV was discovered, US National Institutes of Health researchers began testing an RSV vaccine made of a virus killed with formalin—an aqueous solution of formaldehyde. The trial was a disaster, McLellan says. Although infants who got the vaccine developed antibodies against the virus, they were not protected from infection. Instead, the vaccine seemed to make the disease worse. Some 80% of infants who got the shot were hospitalized after an RSV infection, compared with 5% of infants in the control group. Two vaccinated babies died from the infection. The tragedy tainted the RSV vaccine field for decades.”

[Jolly2 (OP)]

do you think an inactivated virus nasal spray would be a more effective vaccine,  simply because it would mimic the usual mode of transmission for covid?

I agree that having COVID-sensitive antibodies and white blood cells patrolling your nasal passages and lungs for a COVID infection would be more effective at blocking infection ...
- than (say) just having them patrol your arm muscle
- Certainly the idea of vaccinating your gut against orally ingested viruses has been successful in the past.

But the effects of the vaccine doesn't just stay in your arm muscle; the antibodies and white blood cells sensitized by the vaccine do patrol throughout your bloodstream, and any tissues adjacent to capillaries (which includes lungs and nasal passages).

I disagree that an inactivated virus mimics the usual mode of transmission for COVID:

I wasnt suggesting that an inactived virus did, I was suggesting a nasal spray would mimic the natural form of transmission,  not the type of vaccine used to do it.

My preference to inactivated virus vaccines is based more on the point that there are as you stated more then one  s protein type and the dealing with the whole virus would cause a more varied immune response.

- The fundamental difference being that live COVID infects cells, while an inactivated virus does not
- Vaccine designers try to compensate for this essential difference by adding an "adjuvant" which causes cell damage and inflammation, mimicking the impact of a real infection.

You then have to look at the site of administering the vaccine.
- If you get a bad reaction to a vaccine in your arm muscle, it could cause soreness and pain in your arm for a few days. In extreme cases, it may even make it hard to drive.
- If you get a bad reaction to a vaccine in your gut, it could cause diarrhea, vomiting or cramps for a few days. In extreme cases, you may lose a kilo.
- If you get a bad reaction to a vaccine in your nose and lungs, it could kill you within minutes. Unlike driving, breathing is an essential service.
- Inhaling an adjuvant (which is designed to cause inflammation) into your lungs would be a bad idea!
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunologic_adjuvant

That's why we have trails.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Could you also confirm exactly what happens with the mRNA vaccines, do they simply present spike on the infected cell? or does the cell release the S proteins into the blood stream? I have seen conflicting explanations and would like some clarification about the actual technology involved. Ofcourse I suppose it could be both depending on which mRNA vaccine is being deployed.

One of the Harvard videos is very much simplified for layviewers. What really happens is that the vaccine makes the cell create both spikes and spike fragments inside the cell. The spikes migrate to the cell surface where they protrude and activate the immune system. At a later time the cell will die releasing any remaining spikes or fragments and these are mopped up by the now activated immune system.
When you quoted the BW video you didn’t follow up on the primary source which was a Salk study, not Berkley. If you had followed up the primary source rather than quoting the secondary you would have got a lot more detail. One thing to note is that the spikes have 2 forms, a prefusion (prior to infecting a cell) and this changes to the postfusion form on attacking a cell. The vaccines produce prefusion spikes and stabilise them into this state, so they do not attack body tissue as the viral spikes in the Salk study do. There are other ways in which the mRNA vaccines can change the spikes which makes them harmless which is one of the big advantages of this method.

So, did BW imply that the vaccine spikes will attack body tissues? Or did you fail to follow up and assume it would? Either way it’s false news.

What's fake news? The study that found the S proteins damaged cells in hamsters?

BW was discussing this again today, there is an anchor built into the S Protein that is meant to prevent it entering the blood stream. However as Bret pointed out this is a novel treatment and it's not clear these anchor will always function as they should, so defenders of the technology are arguing from a best case scenario.  I suppose your position is that the S proteins will never come into contact with an Ace2 receptor hence there is no need for concern. Which isn't 100% clear, when the cells die they will release the proteins or could and if the anchors fail to work they will also release them. Bret also raised concerns about the level of damage as it appears the telomeres of the hamsters are possible longer then normal thus allowing the hamsters to have greater cell regeneration, which would show Lower amounts of damage compared to using normal hamsters with normal telomeres.

I really wish you wouldn't jump on fake news as a way to dismiss a point of discussion.

Last question do you think an inactivated virus nasal spray would be a more effective vaccine,  simply because it would mimic the usual mode of transmission for covid?

You have already asked this before:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81480.msg627477#msg627477
Perhaps read that reply as well as that from @evan_au

do you think an inactivated virus nasal spray would be a more effective vaccine,  simply because it would mimic the usual mode of transmission for covid?

- If you get a bad reaction to a vaccine in your nose and lungs, it could kill you within minutes. Unlike driving, breathing is an essential service.
- Inhaling an adjuvant (which is designed to cause inflammation) into your lungs would be a bad idea!
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunologic_adjuvant

It’s also worth reading up on the dangers of using killed virus, a lesson learnt the hard way. It’s why you can’t rely on a technique just because it has been around a while.

“In 1966, a decade after RSV was discovered, US National Institutes of Health researchers began testing an RSV vaccine made of a virus killed with formalin—an aqueous solution of formaldehyde. The trial was a disaster, McLellan says. Although infants who got the vaccine developed antibodies against the virus, they were not protected from infection. Instead, the vaccine seemed to make the disease worse. Some 80% of infants who got the shot were hospitalized after an RSV infection, compared with 5% of infants in the control group. Two vaccinated babies died from the infection. The tragedy tainted the RSV vaccine field for decades.”

Rather a moot point when we now have inactivated virus vaccines that are showing the lowest side effects or all the current vaccines available, if I saw clear evidence to the contrary I would raise concerns.

Anyway as I was suggeting before the best way to vacinate would be to extract a persons blood expose that blood in a laboratory to the pathogen you seek to give immunity to, monitor that macrophages Bcells etc have responded and killed the pathogen, then to reinject the educated blood into the person, in theory you induce an immune response with  no side effects at all, as they are simply receiving their own blood, with cells that are now aware of the virus that can then educate the rest of the immune system.

Aside from that, we should be investing fair more money and research into effective treatments almost all the research funding has been dedicated to vaccine development currently, and vaccines could during a pandemic increase variations, leading to more vaccines against the variants  an effective treatment could end the pandemic altogether.

[Kryptid]

and vaccines could during a pandemic increase variations

I've already explained that isn't how that works. More vaccinated people means fewer opportunities for the virus to replicate and therefore fewer opportunities to mutate.

an effective treatment could end the pandemic altogether.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. You'd end the pandemic far more quickly by keeping people from getting sick in the first place than you would by waiting for them to get sick and then treating them. By the time people show symptoms, they have exposed themselves to others and thus have given the virus an opportunity to reach more hosts. That represents a bigger threat for generating mutants than vaccines do.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

and vaccines could during a pandemic increase variations

I've already explained that isn't how that works. More vaccinated people means fewer opportunities for the virus to replicate and therefore fewer opportunities to mutate.

That's one perspective, but immune escape is still a potential issue.

an effective treatment could end the pandemic altogether.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

The virus is now endemic in almost every country. Time for prevention has passed.

You'd end the pandemic far more quickly by keeping people from getting sick in the first place than you would by waiting for them to get sick and then treating them. By the time people show symptoms, they have exposed themselves to others

Not if they have effectively social distances. Besides if there was an over the counter covid treatment people would take it and stay home.

and thus have given the virus an opportunity to reach more hosts. That represents a bigger threat for generating mutants than vaccines do.

And the vaccines as Fauci has been pointing out wont prevent transmission and so he is saying vaccinated people still have to social distance and wear masks. A treatment would mean taking the treatment and then having no risk of transmission.

[Kryptid]

That's one perspective

It's the correct perspective. It's a fundamental matter of logic that things mutate less when they replicate less.

The virus is now endemic in almost every country. Time for prevention has passed.

I never said anything about preventing it from entering countries. What we can (and should) prevent is more people from catching the virus.

Not if they have effectively social distances.

Which is why it has been so strongly advised. It obviously isn't fixing everything on its own, though. There are scenarios where it simply isn't practical to stay 2 meters apart from everyone else at all times.

Besides if there was an over the counter covid treatment people would take it and stay home.

Ahem:

By the time people show symptoms, they have exposed themselves to others

And the vaccines as Fauci has been pointing out wont prevent transmission and so he is saying vaccinated people still have to social distance and wear masks.

When you brought this up elsewhere, I posted a link that showed that the vaccines do, indeed, reduce the likelihood of transmission. Did you not read that? When did Dr. Fauci make the statement that you claim he made? What did he say exactly? According to this source: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/mar/08/instagram-posts/misleading-video-suggests-dr-anthony-fauci-said-va/ what Dr. Fauci actually said was that he "wasn't sure" whether the vaccine would prevent infections or not (apparently, he must have made that statement before the studies of viral load in vaccinated people were completed). That has very different implications than your claim that he said it won't prevent transmission.

So unless you can supply a direct quote where Fauci stated that the vaccines won't prevent transmission (and it had better be more recent than this: https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-vaccines-may-decrease-spread-of-covid-lower-viral-load-2021-2), cut it out with the misinformation.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

That's one perspective

It's the correct perspective.

Clearly some debate that.

It's a fundamental matter of logic that things mutate less when they replicate less.

Things mutate when they have the opportunity or the pressure to do so, lower quantity infections doesn't necessarily have to imply less mutations. Not logic its assumption.

The virus is now endemic in almost every country. Time for prevention has passed.

I never said anything about preventing it from entering countries. What we can (and should) prevent is more people from catching the virus.

But it's now endemic, so calls for prevention are rather nonsense, your calling for limitation of spreading not prevention.

Not if they have effectively social distances.

Which is why it has been so strongly advised. It obviously isn't fixing everything on its own, though. There are scenarios where it simply isn't practical to stay 2 meters apart from everyone else at all times.

Besides if there was an over the counter covid treatment people would take it and stay home.

Ahem:

By the time people show symptoms, they have exposed themselves to others

And the vaccines as Fauci has been pointing out wont prevent transmission and so he is saying vaccinated people still have to social distance and wear masks.

When you brought this up elsewhere, I posted a link that showed that the vaccines do, indeed, reduce the likelihood of transmission. Did you not read that? When did Dr. Fauci make the statement that you claim he made? What did he say exactly? According to this source: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/mar/08/instagram-posts/misleading-video-suggests-dr-anthony-fauci-said-va/ what Dr. Fauci actually said was that he "wasn't sure" whether the vaccine would prevent infections or not (apparently, he must have made that statement before the studies of viral load in vaccinated people were completed). That has very different implications than your claim that he said it won't prevent transmission.

So unless you can supply a direct quote where Fauci stated that the vaccines won't prevent transmission (and it had better be more recent than this: https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-vaccines-may-decrease-spread-of-covid-lower-viral-load-2021-2), cut it out with the misinformation.

"May" kinda missing the point that all a vaccine is going to do is help a person deal with an infection by making the body aware of it. A treatment would stop the virus in its tracks. An effective treatment is always preferable to vaccination.

[Kryptid]

Clearly some debate that.

Some people debate whether the Earth is round or not. Big deal.

Things mutate when they have the opportunity

Which is exactly what allowing it to infect more hosts does...

or the pressure

No. What pressures do is select for mutations. It doesn't change the probability of the mutation coming into existence.

lower quantity infections doesn't necessarily have to imply less mutations.

It absolutely does. If a single infected individual ends up with 1 million viral replications on average (just a random number to show the point), then two people getting infected will result in an average of 2 million viral replications, ten results in 10 million, etc. The more replication events there are, the more mutations there will be.

But it's now endemic, so calls for prevention are rather nonsense

Then let's take all of the vaccines off the market for diseases that are endemic. They are obviously pointless and won't keep anyone from dying...

your calling for limitation of spreading not prevention.

Limiting spread is a form of prevention.

"May" kinda missing the point that all a vaccine is going to do is help a person deal with an infection by making the body aware of it. A treatment would stop the virus in its tracks. An effective treatment is always preferable to vaccination.

I'm sorry, but this post appears to lack the quote from Dr. Fauci that I requested of you. Where is it?

"May" kinda missing the point that all a vaccine is going to do is help a person deal with an infection by making the body aware of it.

And so, once again, you didn't read the link I posted where it says there is evidence that the vaccines limit spread. Either that or you read it and subsequently ignored it or forgot about it.

A treatment would stop the virus in its tracks.

No, because, for the third time:

By the time people show symptoms, they have exposed themselves to others

An effective treatment is always preferable to vaccination.

Maybe for an anti-vaxxer, but not to people who actually accept science.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Clearly some debate that.

Some people debate whether the Earth is round or not. Big deal.

Things mutate when they have the opportunity

Which is exactly what allowing it to infect more hosts does...

Honestly I find these replies from you rather ... umm what's the word...

or the pressure

No. What pressures do is select for mutations. It doesn't change the probability of the mutation coming into existence.

Yes and those mutations are going to be more infectuous, better able to avoid the immune system, easier to transmit, even if the numbers of infected are low the pressure are going to make a worse virus, this entire pandemic started with one person, my point that quantity of infected isnt the issue here. Even if its just a 100 people only need 1 to develop a more deadly strain to start a new pandemic.

lower quantity infections doesn't necessarily have to imply less mutations.

It absolutely does. If a single infected individual ends up with 1 million viral replications on average (just a random number to show the point), then two people getting infected will result in an average of 2 million viral replications, ten results in 10 million, etc. The more replication events there are, the more mutations there will be.

As above.

But it's now endemic, so calls for prevention are rather nonsense

Then let's take all of the vaccines off the market for diseases that are endemic. They are obviously pointless and won't keep anyone from dying...

No one is suggesting that, vaccination isnt useful. I would vaccinate in a different way generally and always try to mimic the natural mode of transmission, while allowing the body to see the whole pathogen, but vaccines are a preventative,  great at stopping a pandemic, but using them during a pandemic is a risk, why countries should have invested far more funding and research into treatments.

your calling for limitation of spreading not prevention.

Limiting spread is a form of prevention.

"May" kinda missing the point that all a vaccine is going to do is help a person deal with an infection by making the body aware of it. A treatment would stop the virus in its tracks. An effective treatment is always preferable to vaccination.

I'm sorry, but this post appears to lack the quote from Dr. Fauci that I requested of you. Where is it?

"May" kinda missing the point that all a vaccine is going to do is help a person deal with an infection by making the body aware of it.

And so, once again, you didn't read the link I posted where it says there is evidence that the vaccines limit spread. Either that or you read it and subsequently ignored it or forgot about it.

A treatment would stop the virus in its tracks.

No, because, for the third time:

By the time people show symptoms, they have exposed themselves to others

Which won't matter because anyone that did would also just go to the pharmacy and get a tablet, either because the person they met tells them they have covid or because they start expressing symptoms themselves.

An effective treatment is always preferable to vaccination.

Maybe for an anti-vaxxer, but not to people who actually accept science.

What? Not an anti vax position to suggest an effective treatment is superior to vaccination. Especially if the treatment has no risk associated, it would be a matter of risk analyse in the end as to pick between then if both had risks attached. Nor is it an anti vax postion to suggest one type of vaccine is superior to another.

[Bored chemist]

Not an anti vax position to suggest an effective treatment is superior to vaccination.

Not really "anti vax", but obviously just plain wrong.
As the proverb says "An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure,".

But the point is moot; there is no "cure", but the vaccine works quite well.

I would vaccinate in a different way generally and always try to mimic the natural mode of transmission

Why?
Didn't you understand this explanation, or do you just want to kill people?

You then have to look at the site of administering the vaccine.
- If you get a bad reaction to a vaccine in your arm muscle, it could cause soreness and pain in your arm for a few days. In extreme cases, it may even make it hard to drive.
- If you get a bad reaction to a vaccine in your gut, it could cause diarrhea, vomiting or cramps for a few days. In extreme cases, you may lose a kilo.
- If you get a bad reaction to a vaccine in your nose and lungs, it could kill you within minutes. Unlike driving, breathing is an essential service.
- Inhaling an adjuvant (which is designed to cause inflammation) into your lungs would be a bad idea!

Yes and those mutations are going to be more infectuous, better able to avoid the immune system, easier to transmit, even if the numbers of infected are low the pressure are going to make a worse virus, this entire pandemic started with one person, my point that quantity of infected isnt the issue here. Even if its just a 100 people only need 1 to develop a more deadly strain to start a new pandemic.

The risk of new strains evolving is, of course, just one reason why a vaccine is better than a cure.
People won't take the cure until they notice that they have the disease, and by that time it will have evolved and spread.
If everyone is vaccinated there is no pool of infection to evolve into something worse.

[evan_au]

I suppose your position is that the S proteins will never come into contact with an Ace2 receptor hence there is no need for concern.

There is not a major problem if a (small amount of) S protein comes into contact with a (small fraction of) ACE2 receptors.
- Yes, it will fit it like a lock and key, but probably only lock up one receptor on that cell
- Yes, it will stop that receptor doing its usual job for a while.
- Until the immune system starts mopping them up (and most of them will be in your arm muscle..)

However, there is a real problem if that spike protein locking into an ACE2 receptor is attached to a SARS-COV2 virus, as the virus will inject its RNA into the cell.
- That cell will stop responding properly to any receptors on its surface
- in 8-12 hours, it will start churning out hundred of SARS-COV2 viruses that will go on to infect other cells via their ACE2 receptor.

Overall, the risk from the approved vaccines is far less than the risk of catching COVID-19.

the Chinese inactivated virus vaccine

I know you like the Chinese vaccine.
- Well, in the past few days, WHO has actually approved it for emergency use
- Because China has finally provided enough data to show that it is effective
- Since you have less data than WHO, this suggests that your promotion of the Chinese vaccine was based on philosophy or politics, not science.

See: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-08/who-approves-china-sinopharm-vaccine-emergency-use/100125762
By the way, the RNA vaccines (that you don't like), passed this evidence-based hurdle months ago.

[Kryptid]

Before I post any more replies, I want to see you quote where Dr. Fauci stated that vaccines won't prevent transmission. Tell me the exact quote, word for word. Send me a link via PM where you got it from.

Quit dodging.