Unlike antibiotics where resistance happens w partial doses, to be a risk you also must be taking them in first place.
When considering escape from spike protein derived immunity - must consider everyone w/out sterilizing immunity at risk to induce a mutant upon infection.
2/x
Whether no vaccine or a single dose (or two) people create antibodies against the same part of the protein.
If discussing “partial immunity” or low affinity antibodies, must consider that a fully naive person might pose greater risk for escape than a single dose person
3/x
In single dose vaccine, at least you are well on your way to and often able to create a strong secondary response - boost antibodies quickly upon infection. Viral replication will be diminished compared to fully naive person. We saw efficacy rose to ~90% before dose 2.
4/x
This of course has to be balanced by a natural infection eliciting antibodies across many epitopes on the whole virus - which could assist in preventing an escape mutant from getting out.
By the time antibodies arise in 1st infection, the virus is often already in decline
5/x
So it could be that the pressure induced by immunity on the virus is so overwhelmingly driven by innate immune products and not antibodies in a naive person that a 1st infection doesn’t pose a large risk of anti-Spike immune escape.
But this might be wishful thinking.
6/x
We’ve seen numerous variants arise already. At least one & likely others have already developed mutations predictable as immune escape by laboratory applied antibody pressures. This caused worry that “moderate” antibodies in ppl upon infection would breed similar effects
7/x
It could - though variants we have now arose independent of vaccines.
The question is which wins out: the more swift control of the virus after a single even if partial dose, or the viruses propensity to mutate if not immediately neutralized by low affinity antibodies.
8/x
We don’t have a clear answer, but I do think any discussion must keep front and center this idea that every fully unvaccinated person too must go through a period of “partial immunity” while battling an infection.
Also, must consider how population level effects play in
9/x
If a single dose decreases transmission enough aid herd effects (again the evidence we do have shows efficacy against disease rose to 90% in short term pre-dose 2) would this have an outsized benefit to reduce risk of escape mutants?
Possibly!
Should be considered.
10/x
Finally the best thing we can do to prevent rise of escape mutants is to decrease spread as much as possible without vaccines.
Rapid frequent accessible tests to everyone, masks, distancing are all helpful here.
Rapid tests might be the most, We should use them.
11/11
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The recent @bmj_latest articles by @deeksj et al deriding Rapid Ag Innova Tests are simply WRONG
They simply do NOT appropriately interpret Ct values & do NOT consider massive importance of how long PCR remains + post-infectiousness
Inspection of Ct values among the Asymptomatics & correlation to RNA copies / ml shows Ct values in Liverpool are ~8 lower than often seen in literature. The failure to recognize this means the estimates of Ag test sensitivity for "high virus" are totally off.
2/x
The sensitivity for "moderately high" or "high" viral loads in the Liverpool data are ~90% and ~100%.
But to know this you cannot just assume a Ct of 25 elsewhere (often described as entering "high viral load") means same thing as a Ct value in other labs.
3/x
ALL evidence - when evaluated appropriately! - shows these are VERY good at detecting infectious virus
• ~100% if used frequently
• >95% for single samples with high, most likely contagious viral loads
The tests work
We've been evaluating rapid Ag tests on campuses. We find these tests - when used as screening w/out symptoms DO miss most PCR positives!
BUT EXPECTED! - ALL misses were previously detected and already finished isolation.
Ag is MUCH more specific than PCR for contagious virus
this is the whole point of rapid antigen tests - they find people who are currently infectious. They are fast, give crucial immediate results and unlike PCR do NOT stay positive for weeks/months after someone is no longer infectious.
The details are difficult to describe via Twitter but I’ve tried on many occasions. The described low accuracy is false. These tests are doing very well to catch infectious people. We do NOT want to detect and isolate people who are not infectious and just have old remnant RNA.
I know people want to hate on the government for purchasing tests - but the Innova test is working entirely as expected. Very good for detecting contagious people. Which is the only goal here.
I’d be happy to write an OpEd for @guardian to explain.
To determine this, the researchers performed a systematic analysis of swabbing and running PCR on post-mortem individuals.
These ppl would not have been detected/confirmed as having COVID otherwise and thus not officially reported owing to a lack of testing infrastructure
2/x
As @brookenichols has discussed, rapid Ag testing isnt only a powerful tool for frequent use to slow spread (as I’ve discussed) - it is also a powerful tool for less resourced countries to access and massively scale up testing to get formal estimates of transmission/cases
3/x