Firstly, there's a big fallacy I'm seeing committed in some people's interpretations of the paper:
People are again fixating on mechanisms over epidemiology. Hybrid immunity to SARS-CoV-2 gives superior protection to every other form of immunity. This is abundantly clear in literally every epidemiological study looking at it. Note that this should not justify...
trying to get infected by SARS-CoV-2 as a path to immunity, especially sans vaccination, because that's ridiculously dangerous. Having said that, I don't really agree with (aspects of) the paper's interpretation of its data.
The part that's causing all of the ruckus is the claim that SARS-CoV-2 infection results in CD8 T cell functional impairment. I really don't find this to be well supported by the data in this paper. Firstly, the vaccine contains only spike protein.
It's really amazing that the vaccine does an obviously superior job at inducing T cell responses against the spike protein and it's noteworthy that the response is concentrated in TCM cells as this supports durability of the T cell response.
However, there's no obvious deficit in the ability of T cells from COVID-19 convalescents to respond to SARS-CoV-2 epitopes here. CD8 T cell responses induced by infection will target epitopes beyond spike. The AIM assay shows pretty comparable results for vaccine vs infection.
Then comes the hybrid immunity bit: what happens to T cells when people who recovered get the vaccine? Here we see that the total response (not though this isn't an AIM assay) is smaller compared with naive patients. So- is that it? COVID wrecked their CD8 T cells?
That seems like quite a stretch. In essence, their immune system is more extensively primed against any SARS-CoV-2 antigens compared with someone getting the vaccine for the first time without a history of infection. It seems far more likely to me, especially given...
that CD8 T cell responses peak later with mRNA vaccines than CD4 T cell responses, that their extensively primed immune system is able to deal with the vaccine more quickly and doesn't get as much stimulation to its CD8 T cell compartment compared with those who aren't infected.
In support of this, there is the finding that the second dose of vaccine didn't do much of anything for CD8 T cell responses, which we now know from other work is probably attributable to dosing interval: cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092…
Additionally, because these are peripheral T cells (taken by blood draw), they might not capture all that is happening, particularly when looking at the mucosae.
Indeed, those who are infected and subsequently receive vaccines develop T cells that home to the mucosae: biorxiv.org/content/10.110…
If we are to take the worst-case scenario that this is SARS-CoV-2 doing bad things to CD8 T cells, this basically underscores the importance...
of getting vaccinated before you have a chance to become infected. But, truthfully, I'm not convinced the presented data show actual CD8 dysfunction and the litany of clinical data on hybrid immunity argue against it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is a really interesting paper that provides reassuring evidence supporting the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, but it has been distorted by some actors with truly malignant misinformation to claim things it absolutely does not say, so let's clarify 🧵
In a nutshell, this paper profiled individuals who received mRNA vaccines, those who developed myocarditis, and those with autoimmune diseases to see if vaccination associated with the development of autoantibodies. Autoantibodies are antibodies directed against...
self-antigens (also known as autoantigens). In less technical terms, the work tried to see whether there was a meaningful risk in these groups of mRNA vaccines making the immune system target the body, as opposed to SARS-CoV-2's spike protein.
Specifically, there have been tons of headlines claiming that the effectiveness of vaccines has declined drastically, especially with the onset of Omicron and its subvariants, but the truth is a lot messier, and these misinterpretations are not benign...
because they directly influence policy and individual decisions about vaccination.
The emergence of Omicron did undeniably cause a decline in vaccine effectiveness. This loss is offset a bit by Omicron's apparently lower intrinsic virulence, but...
Tuned into the VRBPAC meeting and skimmed the briefing documents for today's meeting about RSV vaccines for older adults: fda.gov/advisory-commi…
I will look through the data more extensively when I have some time but some thoughts for now🧵
The need for a safe and effective RSV vaccine for older adults cannot be overstated. It is one of the big 3 respiratory viruses (together with IAV and COVID) that cause massive morbimortality in this age group each season. We do not presently have an "emergency" with RSV, but...
RSV still kills and hospitalizes many older adults each season. Historically, a major concern with RSV vaccines has been their capacity to cause VAERD (enhanced respiratory disease) which is an incompletely understood phenomenon in which outcomes among vaccinees who received...
Or you can ask me whatever you want too. That seems like a fun way to deal with insomnia
Yes. They’re being actively worked on all the time. One thing that would really help though is an orally bioavailable form of remdesivir. Also molnupiravir should go away.
Pondering the meaning of life for a few hours, then I’ll probably eat something when I accept that there are no good answers to the question bc blood sugar
This is a tough read. Undeniably the fact that WHO was so slow to acknowledge airborne spread was one of the biggest missteps of the pandemic. At the same time, my sense from reading WHO's responses is that the reluctance here was based...
at least in large part on concern about the availability of resources across member states to institute relevant airborne precautions at the necessary scale. At the same time, I think the piece highlights one of the more insidious aspects of the public communications ...
here in that "airborne" has a specific meaning in a medical context (i.e. spreading over large distances by aerosols) which is different from what it means to the layperson (i.e. it is in the air and can be inhaled and make you sick) and also implies that airborne spread...