DO VACCINES INCREASE THE RISK OF A MORE CONTAGIOUS VARIANT?

Short answer: they do relatively but not absolutely.

Long answer in the thread below.

1/N
2/ There are indications from previous research that the vaccinated tend to select for strains that resist vaccines (probably) and for more dangerous strains (perhaps).

But, this is in relative terms. What we care about are absolute ones.

quantamagazine.org/how-vaccines-c…
3/ Vaccines help our immune system kill viruses faster. This is important because the less a virus reproduces, the fewer chances it has to mutate.

Probably, this means that the vaccinated are *relatively* more likely to produce dangerous strains but *absolutely* less likely.
3B/ (Perhaps not even relatively, given that a vaccinated host kills the virus particles inside him faster, giving it less chances to reproduce and this to mutate.)
4/ In other words, is a country with 100 COVID cases, all vaccinated, more likely to produce a dangerous variant than a country with 10k cases, all unvaccinated? I don’t think so.

The latter has more shots at the “dangerous variant” roulette.
5/ The question is not if a dangerous variant is more likely to emerge from a vaccinated individual.

It's if it is more likely to emerge from a vaccinated POPULATION (that has way less virus circulating and reproducing compared to an unvaccinated one).
6/ Now, some frequently asked questions.
7/ Don't we only need one variant that's has learned to avoid vaccine defenses to create havoc?

Yes. But would it create more havoc than the original strain in the unvaccinated population?

(Also consider that the 2nd case would have more virus circulating → higher exposure.)
8/ If viruses mutate into deadlier version when dealing with stronger immune systems (training grounds for the virus) and vaccines create more training grounds (hosts with strong immune systems) it should follow that vaccines accelerate deadlier mutations?
9/ No. If you bomb a battalion, you select for the strongest soldiers AND YET make the battalion weaker.

Same thing with vaccines: we might select stronger viruses but we make the pandemic as a whole way weaker.
10/ Why didn’t dangerous variants emerge from smallpox and polio?

Part of it might depend by the viruses at hand, but consider that polio peaked at “just” 37 cases per 100k per year, smallpox at about 100 — fewer infections, fewer chances of mutating.
10B/ For comparison, COVID peaked at 120 times the prevalence of smallpox)
11/ "But Luca, stronger variants are over-represented in the vaccinated"

Of course, just like skillful thieves are over-represented in successful bank robberies.

But that doesn't mean that leaving banks undefended is a good idea – it would make robberies more frequent.
12/ Nor does it mean that defending banks makes thieves stronger. It simply prevents robberies by low-skilled thieves, and survivorship bias gives the appearance that it made thieves stronger.

Stronger thieves develop through mutation after successfully robbing the bank.
13/ Stronger banks → less robberies → less chances of thieves getting more skillful.

Similarly, vaccinations select for stronger variants but doesn't create them – not any more than they would occur in the wild.

Same for vaccines → they make mutations less likely.
14/ Disclaimer: I’m not a virologist (for example, I don’t think that a virus lab in a 10M city is a good idea), so I might not know some important piece of the puzzle. If anything is missing, please let me know.
15/ Conclusion: what matters is not the *relative* chance of, giving a variant developing, the chance it’s stronger.

Instead, what matters is the *absolute* chance of developing a stronger variant.
16/ What matters is whether more people would die from a vaccinated population vs an unvaccinated one.

Due to the considerations of this thread, the answer is no. A vaccinated population is *more protected* against the risk of a new variant.
17/ In short: vaccination selects for immune escape variants, but doesn’t create them.

What creates them is mutations, and mutations come from reproduction. And viruses reproduce more in an unvaccinated population.
18/ A theoretical caveat. Given that it doesn’t appear to apply to current COVID strains, ADE seems to be an additional reason to vaccinate (to minimize the risk that a strain that could exploit ADE arises).

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Luca Dellanna

Luca Dellanna Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @DellAnnaLuca

18 Jul
One my dearest friends recently got victim of credit card fraud.

Some non-obvious learnings:

1/ The first 8 digits of your card can be derived from who your bank is. Don't get tricked in "giving digits 9 to 12 for control purpose" – it might be all a fraudster needs.
2/ Fraudster can call or send SMS from what looks like your bank's number.

If you receive a suspect call from your bank, ask who's calling (and if they have an employee code), then hang up, google the bank's number, call it yourself, and ask for the person who called.
3/ Fraudsters can know many details of your life, including your bank and account number, mobile phone model, recent purchases, etc.

They might have an accomplice in your town, going through your mail in your trash bin (that's what I suspect happened with my friend).
Read 11 tweets
14 Jul
In a country with say 50% vaccinated, on average, less than 50% of the contacts of a person with COVID are vaccinated (because vaccinations aren’t homogeneous).

One reason why many places are still seeing cases grow despite more and more vaccinations.
Also cases aren’t homogeneous; see this map from September 2020.

(Also, the blue areas dispel the myth that lockdowns cause an increase in deaths - they display areas in which fewer people died compared to previous years). Image
It’s the sum of two considerations:

1) Given 50% vaccination rate (say), a person that gets the virus has a >>50% chance of not being vaccinated.

2) A non-vaccinated person is more likely than average to be part of a non-vaccinated family, to have non-vaccinated friends, etc
Read 4 tweets
13 Jul
A VISUAL FRAMEWORK FOR ANTIFRAGILITY

(thread, 1/N)
2/ First, the basics. The antifragile (a term coined by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his homonymous book) is what benefits from variation, usage, problems, and feedback.

Example: using our muscles to lift weights makes them stronger.
3/ The antifragile also exhibits robust and fragile behaviors.

(In the picture below, the former diagram represents the fragile and the latter represents the antifragile.)
Read 21 tweets
7 Jul
Horrific.

Note that they built human-virus labs in the middle of metropolises such as Wuhan and agricultural-virus labs in the middle of monoculture fields. That's everything you need to know about whether you should listen to them regarding risks.

(link via @maartenmeijer)
The previous agricultural-virus lab was built on an island, so that the ocean could provide a cordon of safety in case of a leak.

They decided to move it in the agricultural heartland.

Decisions made around researchers, not around keeping our lives and livelihoods safe.
"The risk assessment didn’t even attempt to quantify the likelihood of malicious or deliberate acts."

"In 2001, anthrax stolen from a federal bioweapons lab killed five people and sickened 17 more."
Read 5 tweets
25 Jun
It looks like the school has agency:; but its movements are decided by the fishes, each taking *individual* decisions.

Same for companies: it seems they have agency, but their behavior is caused by individual decisions of their managers, each made on individual incentives.

1/3
There is no such thing as “a company decided”.

Instead, it’s: “some of its managers decided.”

It matters, because GROUP INCENTIVES DON’T AFFECT GROUP BEHAVIOR UNLESS THEY’RE TRANSLATED INTO INDIVIDUAL INCENTIVES.
The same applies to our brain.

We’re tricked into thinking the brain has agency because it acts as one, like a fish school.

But its actions are decided at the level of its components, each sending an output based on individual internal rules.

Causality is always bottom-up.
Read 5 tweets
13 Jun
I do not recommend working *chronic* overtime, for many reasons.

But, *if* you do want to work more, do not do more of the same work you do during work-hours. What got you here won't get you there, said M. Goldsmith.

Instead, do side-projects, learn new skills, etc.
That was about *chronic* overtime. Occasional overtime is instead okay or even good, and I do believe that the younger you are, the better to do some when the need arises.

Occasional overtime is the sign of a healthy business; chronic overtime is the sign of a sick one.
Why is *chronic* overtime a problem?
- it sometimes leads to health issues and ~always to fertile grounds for frustration & motivational losses
- it takes away time from other important stuff in life
- it buries underlying problems (👇)
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(