Stop Saying the Vaccine is CAUSING the Mutations

I am by no means medical anything, but my knuckle dragging mind thought I read that a normal well put together vaccine will not cause mutations.

But what we have are rushed, leaky rapidly lose their potency vaccines, with the added effect of covid being in the animal kingdom so mutations will never stop.

a reply to: Irishhaf

And mutations only happen because of a "leaky vaccine?" They don't happen when there is no vaccine at all?

originally posted by: Skepticape
I never said the vaxxed immune system was stronger, don’t pretend we are agreeing about your lies now.

Totally illogical and misunderstanding of your own example. The vaxxed immune system is not stronger, it’s compromised. You’re spreading lies. The diverse natural immune system is also capable of making spike antibodies, natural immunity is better verifiably than the vax- which has limited the immune system from being able to process a diverse threat, to something far more limited.

You’re offering us lies and propaganda.

As I already proved to you with your wolf example, evolution isn’t random- put the wolves in a colder climate and there next generation will be better adapted to the cold than the parents. Put the virus in a vaxxed body that’s not effective like we have here, and the next generation will be better able to handle the new environment. External stimuli such as environment does direct evolution. It’s not Yahtzee. There’s no situation where a mutation would only impact the unvaxxed as the vaccine is not effect enough to offer protection, however you agree there is a situation where the compromise vaxxed system could be vulnerable.

Do you understand the vax itself doesn’t fight covid? Covid could never “defeat the vax” but it can and has killed the host. The unvaxxed are also not creating more variants as you suggest. You’re fear mongering

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Yeah. The vaxxed immune system is indeed stronger.

But the payout, if a given variant were to defeat it is so much greater, that the difficulty is outweighed by it.

It takes more "trys" to find a winning variant, but each instance of exposure is a different "try". Since the vaxed vastly outnumber the unvaxxed (and overwhelmingly outnumber any one variation of unvaxxed immune system), there are more "tries".

Like it you had to roll a full "yatzee" of five 1's in a row to win, but you get ten thousand rolls. As opposed to only needing to roll "snake eyes" on two dice to win, but you get a hundred rolls.

But also in the "yatzee" case, you win big if you win. Because vaxxed will come into contact with vaxxed much more frequently than unvaxxed version 99 coming into contact with unvaxxed version 99. So a variant might emerge that can defeat unvaxxed version 99 only to see the host die and/or recover before ever encountering another unvaxxed version 99. But if a variant manages to defeat the vax, it will have a high probability of managing to encounter another vaxxed person before the current host can recover and/or die.

We actually agree quite a bit.

I think the Vax is a hard barrier to overcome. Just like how if you put the wolves in a colder environment, the environment would be harsher and they would have to try harder in order to thrive there.

This doesn't mean they wouldn't thrive. But in a sense it is harder to thrive than if you put them in a warm forest.



The rest we seem to mostly agree on. When many people share one immune system, the virus only needs to successfully mutate once, and it gets access to many many hosts.

If they all had different immune systems, then when the virus mutates to overcome one of them, it only gains access to a few hosts (those which share that type of immune system.)

And this has played out. It has been shown that most people who got covid got it at home from other members of their own family (who, being family, would likely have similar immune systems.)

And no matter how good a mutation is, if the virus carrying the mutation dies out before it can jump to another host, that mutation will be lost forever. As though it had never existed.

So availability of similar hosts is a very important concern for a mutating virus.

Sticking with the wolves, it’s only more challenging an environment for the generation first placed into it. The wolves off spring don’t randomly mutate with some having no fur and some having thicker fur to adapt to the climate. They ALL have thicker fur in the next generation. It’s not random mutation over eons, it’s a response to the environments and you refuse to acknowledge that very simple fact. No Yahtzee.

Why is it you seem to NEED to draw some yin and yang comparison between the vaxxed and unvaxxed? Ones hot ones cold to you.

Sharing covid at home would have to do with ready exposure to the virus. Like my vaxxed mom who spread it to her unvaxxed grandkids. When at home, you’re proximity and rate of exposure is vastly increased. The similarities between immune systems youll have to prove rather than speculate is the cause, as we know exposure to the virus is what spreads it.

If the vaccine was effective, this wouldn’t be a conversation. The vaccinated and unvaccinated both spread covid to others. A mutating virus will not discriminate between one host or the next, both immune systems are human and it can infect them- regardless of their vaccination status. It doesn’t work at anything more than class division. Well maybe at making new potentially more dangerous strains of covid.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Skepticape
I never said the vaxxed immune system was stronger, don’t pretend we are agreeing about your lies now.

Totally illogical and misunderstanding of your own example. The vaxxed immune system is not stronger, it’s compromised. You’re spreading lies. The diverse natural immune system is also capable of making spike antibodies, natural immunity is better verifiably than the vax- which has limited the immune system from being able to process a diverse threat, to something far more limited.

You’re offering us lies and propaganda.

As I already proved to you with your wolf example, evolution isn’t random- put the wolves in a colder climate and there next generation will be better adapted to the cold than the parents. Put the virus in a vaxxed body that’s not effective like we have here, and the next generation will be better able to handle the new environment. External stimuli such as environment does direct evolution. It’s not Yahtzee. There’s no situation where a mutation would only impact the unvaxxed as the vaccine is not effect enough to offer protection, however you agree there is a situation where the compromise vaxxed system could be vulnerable.

Do you understand the vax itself doesn’t fight covid? Covid could never “defeat the vax” but it can and has killed the host. The unvaxxed are also not creating more variants as you suggest. You’re fear mongering

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Yeah. The vaxxed immune system is indeed stronger.

But the payout, if a given variant were to defeat it is so much greater, that the difficulty is outweighed by it.

It takes more "trys" to find a winning variant, but each instance of exposure is a different "try". Since the vaxed vastly outnumber the unvaxxed (and overwhelmingly outnumber any one variation of unvaxxed immune system), there are more "tries".

Like it you had to roll a full "yatzee" of five 1's in a row to win, but you get ten thousand rolls. As opposed to only needing to roll "snake eyes" on two dice to win, but you get a hundred rolls.

But also in the "yatzee" case, you win big if you win. Because vaxxed will come into contact with vaxxed much more frequently than unvaxxed version 99 coming into contact with unvaxxed version 99. So a variant might emerge that can defeat unvaxxed version 99 only to see the host die and/or recover before ever encountering another unvaxxed version 99. But if a variant manages to defeat the vax, it will have a high probability of managing to encounter another vaxxed person before the current host can recover and/or die.

We actually agree quite a bit.

I think the Vax is a hard barrier to overcome. Just like how if you put the wolves in a colder environment, the environment would be harsher and they would have to try harder in order to thrive there.

This doesn't mean they wouldn't thrive. But in a sense it is harder to thrive than if you put them in a warm forest.



The rest we seem to mostly agree on. When many people share one immune system, the virus only needs to successfully mutate once, and it gets access to many many hosts.

If they all had different immune systems, then when the virus mutates to overcome one of them, it only gains access to a few hosts (those which share that type of immune system.)

And this has played out. It has been shown that most people who got covid got it at home from other members of their own family (who, being family, would likely have similar immune systems.)

And no matter how good a mutation is, if the virus carrying the mutation dies out before it can jump to another host, that mutation will be lost forever. As though it had never existed.

So availability of similar hosts is a very important concern for a mutating virus.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Irishhaf

And mutations only happen because of a "leaky vaccine?" They don't happen when there is no vaccine at all?

If the vaccine worked, this wouldn’t be a conversation. The vaccinated wouldn’t be able to contract covid-19, they wouldn’t carry a viral load, they wouldn’t spread it or any new mutations random or otherwise to others. Since it doesn’t work, they can and will do all those things. It’s odd there is so much vaccinated vs unvaccinated talk understanding no group only participated in sharing the virus to others.

It’s a shame we’ve been mislead down these rabbit hole conversations in general, considering how little danger it poses to most people.

a reply to: Phage

Let me ask this and maybe you can explain it in small words so maybe I understand.

How many coronavirus vaccines have been successful, where the virus was in the animal kingdom allowing continual influence on chance to continue mutations?

a reply to: Irishhaf

Zero, at least until now and this isn’t even including the 4 major seasonal coronaviruses. They mutate their genome with every copy they make so there are very limited options for a long lasting immunity that doesn’t cause something like ADE.

Immunity wanes with time, even with the shots we get as kids with viral vaccines. In 10, 15, 20 years there may not be any detectable antibody generation if there is no booster or natural exposure. But there still may be memory cells in lymph or marrow which we don’t test. Immunity is longer lasting with these because even though we may not realize it we are still infected periodically. It enters cells, it reproduces but we have the blueprint of most or all of the pathogen and we update our antibodies and get rid of it again. It’s why we sometimes have weird outbreaks.

Vaccines are a tool to give our immune system blueprints for battle. They have never prevented the pathogen from reproducing or binding in our cells. That’s something the media claims to make people more comfortable. They just give our bodies the ability to respond before the inflammation is noticeable as disease. Sometimes natural immunity is better like with some of these respiratory viruses but a vaccine can supplement that. With other pathogens, vaccine immunity is better because by the time we are able to mount an effective defense, it’s already too late.

a reply to: TheAMEDDDoc

Thanks and I do mean that, I have another question, based on repeatedly being exposed yet not coming down with covid up to this point, and I am talking exposure within arms length for extended periods I was wondering (and god yes I realize how out there this random thought is) if previous respiratory issues bronchitis and pneumonia back to back to back for like 6 years as a child would change my bodies response time to a new respiratory attack?

oh and yes once I finish my move to alaska I plan to find a PCM and ask for more information on how I can not have caught considering the number of exposures I have had, and yet an antibody test I got form an urgent care provider said negative anti-bodies.

Lastly not asking for medical advice just curious on how to even phrase the question and not sound like a nut case, or if you had any ideas.

a reply to: Irishhaf

It would depend on lasting damage and if you had something like asthma or allergies which would fit the profile of being vulnerable to these types of respiratory infections. But I would generally say no since it’s been so long, or I assume so lol.

Most people don’t get noticeable symptoms from COVID. Females also seem to do better as do certain blood types not prone to clotting and complement issues like you see in A and B blood types.

You could be immune and not even realize it. Antibody tests are challenging, it has to be the right time and you have to catch the antibodies or antibody generating cells in that sample. When I joined the military they lost my records. I had to get an antibody test for everything. I only showed immunity to chicken pox of all things. Then I had to get all my shots all over again.

We also have an immediate immune response in the innate immune system. They can wipe a virus or pathogen without antibody support if it’s in small amounts. Which could happen with masking. The innate cells would still take pieces to the lymph nodes to train the adaptive immune cells but if the pathogen is gone already, you may only have small amounts produced.

It gets crazy quick in our bodies. No question is too weird for a doctor just be open, honest and ask. Always find a doctor that listens. If they ask you to tell a story, limit interuptuons and have a discussion, they are a keeper. You want a PCP that practices evidence based medicine and makes decisions with you and not for you.

a reply to: TheAMEDDDoc

Again I appreciate the response, I am hoping to have the time needed for my vaccine preference to hit the market.

Just strikes me as odd that all these young kids I work with popped positive in some cases twice, and I have barely gotten the sniffles.

Either way thanks again, and doubly thanks for the advice on what to look for, I had a good GP doc and 2 excellent Neurosurgeons (1 in the reserves, 1 civilian) that I hate to lose but where I am the job options suck so off I go, to better care for the family.

originally posted by: Skepticape

I never said the vaxxed immune system was stronger, don’t pretend we are agreeing about your lies now.

Totally illogical and misunderstanding of your own example. The vaxxed immune system is not stronger, it’s compromised. You’re spreading lies. The diverse natural immune system is also capable of making spike antibodies, natural immunity is better verifiably than the vax- which has limited the immune system from being able to process a diverse threat, to something far more limited.

The probability of infection for Vaxed is still lower than for unvaxed. And vaxed people are tending to be pretty careless about masks and stuff, at least here in Portland.

That proves that it is harder for the disease to infect them.

Yet, it still can. Just has a lower probability.

However, it also gets to roll the dice substantially more times. And only needs to win once. It can lose all it wants so long as it wins once.

In the end, getting to roll more times outweighs it being a harder number to roll.

You’re offering us lies and propaganda.

As I already proved to you with your wolf example, evolution isn’t random- put the wolves in a colder climate and there next generation will be better adapted to the cold than the parents.

You're not understanding how viruses work. It's similar to how hackers work in the computer world.

Viruses tailor themselves to hit specific targets. If you have an immunity, the virus finds a way to defeat it.

The wolf that just evolved a warmer coat will do great in the Cold now, but would be quite weak if it were then to try surviving in a desert.


Viruses don't so much aim to win "the game" as they aim to win "the opponent in front of them."

Put the virus in a vaxxed body that’s not effective like we have here, and the next generation will be better able to handle the new environment. External stimuli such as environment does direct evolution. It’s not Yahtzee. There’s no situation where a mutation would only impact the unvaxxed as the vaccine is not effect enough to offer protection, however you agree there is a situation where the compromise vaxxed system could be vulnerable.

This is JUST PLAIN WRONG.

The virus DOES discriminate. Each version of it is better at beating one immune system, or another, and weaker against other immune systems.


The danger of the Vax is that every contact a vaxxed person makes with someone who has the disease is a separate roll of the Yahtzee dice. A new mutation getting a chance to see if it will be the one that can overcome the Moderna barrier.

Meaning that both :

A - Corona is getting a lot more tries at beating it.

And

B - If it succeeds once in finding the right mutation, that mutation has a high probability of making it to another host.




If instead we had gone the path of natural immunity by waiting for people to get it and recover, there would be hundreds of differently configured immune systems.

So even if a new mutation emerges that can beat one of those immune systems it would have a diminished likelihood of spreading far and wide, because only a small percentage of those exposed to it would have the right immune system for it to be able to infect them.

This means that, even when a mutation like that emerges, there is a good chance it dies out, and ends up only infecting exactly one person.

a reply to: neutronflux

I wasn’t arguing that it is stopped nor that it does not mutate. In fact I think the premise that vaccines do not create mutations or variants is completely misguided. I would think every time the virus is attacked whether by immune system or vaccine that it defends itself and mutates

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
That proves that it is harder for the disease to infect them.
Yet, it still can.
Just has a lower probability.

That is incorrect. Everyone has the same exact probability of getting infected. The vaccine isn't some magical force field, it just introduces your immune system to a new antigen. Your immune system does all the work in the end. Your immune system doesn't extend outside of your body. In order for a vaccinated person to "fight" the virus they first have to get infected with it so their immune system can respond.

It is important to note that immune response time is not instant. There is plenty of time for the virus to replicate before Memory T cells can do their job. In fact, it takes 2 to 3 days for Memory T cells to even start to divide. That means 2 to 3 days the virus gets to replicate (and possibly mutate) inside your body even when vaccinated.

That delay in immune system response means vaccinated people can transmit the virus even if the vaccine was 100% effective. However, transmission is determined by viral load (determined by how much the virus has replicated) which is determined by many other factors.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
You're not understanding how viruses work.
It's similar to how hackers work in the computer world.
Viruses tailor themselves to hit specific targets.
If you have an immunity, the virus finds a way to defeat it.
Viruses don't so much aim to win "the game" as they aim to win "the opponent in front of them."
This is JUST PLAIN WRONG.
The virus DOES discriminate. Each version of it is better at beating one immune system, or another, and weaker against other immune systems.

That is really wrong. I am not sure if you are speaking in analogous terms or what, but let's all understand that viruses are not technically alive. They don't aim to do anything. They don't think. They don't discriminate. They are nothing but clumps of matter which, due to their makeup and shape, have unique uncontrolled interactions with everything they come into contact with.

Think of viruses as a series of random building blocks that act like instructions, like a short snippet of computer code that doesn't make any sense. In most cases nobody wrote this code, it just came to be. By itself the instructions don't do anything because they need to be given to a computer to run. The "computers" are cells inside of your body.

That is the main reason viruses are bad, they are like random nonsensical instructions that are being executed without authorization on a computer. Things like that are going to crash the computer or cause it to operate in abnormal ways. However, there is one set of instructions on every virus that does make sense, and those are instructions to copy and paste. To replicate.

It is said that viruses need a host to "survive" but even that is not entirely true. That is like saying computer code needs to run on a computer to survive. That is not how it works. However, viruses are always at the mercy of their environment. At the physical layer light, heat, and other forces can randomly alter / mutate / damage / destroy the code. That happens completely randomly. Any part of the virus' instructions can randomly change at any point. So in order for the virus / code to continue to exist there needs to be backup copies of it somewhere. The issue is that only computers can make a copy. Also, the code that tells it to copy must exist and not be destroyed.

Another issue is that computers are not perfect at copying and pasting. So the resulting copy can have random changes / mutations in the instructions too. These mutations are so random that a majority of the time the changes degrade and destroy the virus. This usually means the older a virus is, the weaker it becomes. Think of the random bytes in computer instructions being changed or even deleted, it makes the code even more nonsensical.

However, it is possible (and very rare) to randomly change the code in a way that makes the viruses more infectious and or more deadly (or gain function of some sort). This is rare because it's like taking code and blindly changing it for no rhyme or reason at any point and magically having coded it to do a specific function. There is a much much higher probability of just breaking the code. To gain function by randomly modifying code would be like winning the lottery many times in a row.

In the extremely rare case that it gains function it is entirely possible for the virus to kill all the computers it runs on (become more deadly). That means backup copies can no longer be made. That makes it very difficult for that virus to exist. That makes it even more rare for a virus to get more deadly over time (on top of having to randomly change to be more deadly). That is a way to say that deadlier viruses are harder to spread because it kills their hosts before getting a chance to transmit to another person.

On the other hand, if the mutation causes the virus to more easily make copies of itself, well, that means there are more backup copies and it becomes more infectious. Being more infectious means the virus exists for longer periods of time, and can spread to more computers. So its more common for viruses to become weaker yet more infectious, and yet less deadly.

With that said... our immune systems are very much like antivirus software on a computer. Vaccines are very much like updated definitions for the antivirus. It can detect these snippets of code we call viruses, delete them, or encapsulate them into "quarantine", and disable them. Sometimes our immune systems don't care and will delete everything, even healthy cells, in an effort to clean up. That is usually what causes the most damage, not the virus itself.

One problem is that virus definitions are somewhat specific, and if the virus changes slightly the immune system won't be able to detect it early. The immune system is also slow, so the virus has time to make copies and or mutate. Anything the immune system misses or doesn't recognize can become the next vaccine-resistant variant if its transmitted to others.

In the end, viruses don't do anything but enter cells, replicate, and randomly change. It is by random chance they become either weaker or stronger. After that it is by natural selection whether they continue or not. If the host dies before they can spread to the next host, or the immune system completely cleans it out first, that strain stops existing. Since vaccines only help the immune system remove certain strains, any strains it misses possibly becomes the next variant that is vaccine-resistant. In that way vaccines help filter out old strains, and allow new strains to exist.

TLDR; It's all randomness. Stop thinking viruses are assassins learning better ways to kill. They are just glitches in the matrix.

a reply to: TheAMEDDDoc
Thanks. Yes, I understand.👍

I'm concerned that these disinfectants being marketed as a corona virus killer for our households, and public venues are not actually disinfecting our households and schools, businesses wanting us to mask up because the news is spewing more cases, more cases!!! ....looks like false advertising to me...

Sunlight has been known to kill it off every season prior, so what gives?

Thanks for your consideration.

a reply to: loveguy

Most should work, there was early concern with the effectiveness of getting through the lipid bilayer of the virus which it derives from our own cells and then breaking apart the bonds of the capsid. Plus we weren’t sure of how exactly it got in cells, what we could impact, and the genetic material inside is structured in such a way that it is always infectious. That means if I get rid of everything with coronavirus and just take its genome and throw it in a cell, you’re getting infected. It’s not a concern, the body doesn’t let free genes just enter.

I don’t remember why they were so careful but it was only 70% alcohol, 1% peroxide, and bleach. Now we know that it’s just a bunch of non covalent bonds meaning they are weak and constantly competing with other sources for those bonds. So soap, alcohol, detergent, ammonia (sort of), quaternary ammonia, and most of these cleaners work very well. They outcompete the non covalent bonds, binding to the chemicals, and the virus is denatured or broken apart.

UV light works great for most viruses but it does get more challenging as the genome and size of the virus decreases, not an issue here but could be with norovirus or rhinovirus.

Pandemics surge, so do endemic outbreaks of seasonal viruses. Herd immunity with a rapidly mutating RNA virus is only temporary and very fluid. So you have pockets of immune and not so immune as the virus changes and moves through the population. Usually with viruses like this they evolve mutations that facilitate spread rather than severity.

Them “evolving” is also loose as in its not intentional. They have no way of error checking when they copy their genome. Eukaryotes or complex organisms like us do. So when they get an error, which they will often get one error per each generation of a new virion, and you quickly have an issue. Most will not change much in the structure or will be negative to the structure of the virus, it either continues or cannot reproduce.

Once in a blue moon you get a beneficial change. Your body is immune or becoming immune to the older variant without this change from exposure or vaccination. So the new change or mutation can now outcompete the original and that spreads instead. Over time these mutations compound enough that it changes enough that our immune system no longer recognizes it and we get sick again.

a reply to: TheAMEDDDoc
Thanks for the reply.👍

I find this all terribly and severely preventable...
At least boron was put to the side as an just in case thing because the research led to that conclusion, which Japan show's us the feasibility, and practicality of being prepared in an emergency scenario... indigenous people survived, maybe thrived for thousands of years without electricity... its a nice convenience if you're scared in the dark to me, so my dog will raise his leg on the issue...but I also live downwind inescapably...so I submit to compromise my better judgement for the sake of my village.

You're not going to be able to convince me the incompetence with this covid is not off the scale of incompetence and weighing heavily in malicious intent...

Our biology is thousands of years old and doesn't need so called scientists thinking they're going to make us stronger fussing over animal diseases that haven't been a problem in the past...which appears to be the official commission report...
shouldn't we expand on what we've learned given a certain area of interest like cancer, something people are already dying from than mixing potions like witches performing sorcery? Which covid amounts to in the real world of hokus pokus give me money.

Sorry, I don't mean to point any of my anger at you, you're very kind and I appreciate your honesty. Everyone has their own place mat, and deserves sustaining.

My willingness to continue being the only one willing to compromise my better judgement for the sake of my village has caused great detriment, and is no longer feasible....

We’ve been over this. There’s no Yahtzee in environmental evolution. The environment drives the mutation, no Yahtzee required. The environment drives the evolution. If it were all random mutations with no relationship to environmental factors, all life would have mutated itself into non existence billions of years ago.

Your understanding of evolution, of the vaccine that doesn’t work, and how the virus works is laughably false.

These are observable truths I’ve given you. You seem to prefer ignorance, but hey! do you

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Skepticape

I never said the vaxxed immune system was stronger, don’t pretend we are agreeing about your lies now.

Totally illogical and misunderstanding of your own example. The vaxxed immune system is not stronger, it’s compromised. You’re spreading lies. The diverse natural immune system is also capable of making spike antibodies, natural immunity is better verifiably than the vax- which has limited the immune system from being able to process a diverse threat, to something far more limited.

The probability of infection for Vaxed is still lower than for unvaxed. And vaxed people are tending to be pretty careless about masks and stuff, at least here in Portland.

That proves that it is harder for the disease to infect them.

Yet, it still can. Just has a lower probability.

However, it also gets to roll the dice substantially more times. And only needs to win once. It can lose all it wants so long as it wins once.

In the end, getting to roll more times outweighs it being a harder number to roll.

You’re offering us lies and propaganda.

As I already proved to you with your wolf example, evolution isn’t random- put the wolves in a colder climate and there next generation will be better adapted to the cold than the parents.

You're not understanding how viruses work. It's similar to how hackers work in the computer world.

Viruses tailor themselves to hit specific targets. If you have an immunity, the virus finds a way to defeat it.

The wolf that just evolved a warmer coat will do great in the Cold now, but would be quite weak if it were then to try surviving in a desert.


Viruses don't so much aim to win "the game" as they aim to win "the opponent in front of them."

Put the virus in a vaxxed body that’s not effective like we have here, and the next generation will be better able to handle the new environment. External stimuli such as environment does direct evolution. It’s not Yahtzee. There’s no situation where a mutation would only impact the unvaxxed as the vaccine is not effect enough to offer protection, however you agree there is a situation where the compromise vaxxed system could be vulnerable.

This is JUST PLAIN WRONG.

The virus DOES discriminate. Each version of it is better at beating one immune system, or another, and weaker against other immune systems.


The danger of the Vax is that every contact a vaxxed person makes with someone who has the disease is a separate roll of the Yahtzee dice. A new mutation getting a chance to see if it will be the one that can overcome the Moderna barrier.

Meaning that both :

A - Corona is getting a lot more tries at beating it.

And

B - If it succeeds once in finding the right mutation, that mutation has a high probability of making it to another host.




If instead we had gone the path of natural immunity by waiting for people to get it and recover, there would be hundreds of differently configured immune systems.

So even if a new mutation emerges that can beat one of those immune systems it would have a diminished likelihood of spreading far and wide, because only a small percentage of those exposed to it would have the right immune system for it to be able to infect them.

This means that, even when a mutation like that emerges, there is a good chance it dies out, and ends up only infecting exactly one person.

Virus’s aren’t like computer virus and our body is not like a computer. It might help you to think of them in that light, but it will bring you to false understandings.

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
That proves that it is harder for the disease to infect them.
Yet, it still can.
Just has a lower probability.

That is incorrect. Everyone has the same exact probability of getting infected. The vaccine isn't some magical force field, it just introduces your immune system to a new antigen. Your immune system does all the work in the end. Your immune system doesn't extend outside of your body. In order for a vaccinated person to "fight" the virus they first have to get infected with it so their immune system can respond.

It is important to note that immune response time is not instant. There is plenty of time for the virus to replicate before Memory T cells can do their job. In fact, it takes 2 to 3 days for Memory T cells to even start to divide. That means 2 to 3 days the virus gets to replicate (and possibly mutate) inside your body even when vaccinated.

That delay in immune system response means vaccinated people can transmit the virus even if the vaccine was 100% effective. However, transmission is determined by viral load (determined by how much the virus has replicated) which is determined by many other factors.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
You're not understanding how viruses work.
It's similar to how hackers work in the computer world.
Viruses tailor themselves to hit specific targets.
If you have an immunity, the virus finds a way to defeat it.
Viruses don't so much aim to win "the game" as they aim to win "the opponent in front of them."
This is JUST PLAIN WRONG.
The virus DOES discriminate. Each version of it is better at beating one immune system, or another, and weaker against other immune systems.

That is really wrong. I am not sure if you are speaking in analogous terms or what, but let's all understand that viruses are not technically alive. They don't aim to do anything. They don't think. They don't discriminate. They are nothing but clumps of matter which, due to their makeup and shape, have unique uncontrolled interactions with everything they come into contact with.

Think of viruses as a series of random building blocks that act like instructions, like a short snippet of computer code that doesn't make any sense. In most cases nobody wrote this code, it just came to be. By itself the instructions don't do anything because they need to be given to a computer to run. The "computers" are cells inside of your body.

That is the main reason viruses are bad, they are like random nonsensical instructions that are being executed without authorization on a computer. Things like that are going to crash the computer or cause it to operate in abnormal ways. However, there is one set of instructions on every virus that does make sense, and those are instructions to copy and paste. To replicate.

It is said that viruses need a host to "survive" but even that is not entirely true. That is like saying computer code needs to run on a computer to survive. That is not how it works. However, viruses are always at the mercy of their environment. At the physical layer light, heat, and other forces can randomly alter / mutate / damage / destroy the code. That happens completely randomly. Any part of the virus' instructions can randomly change at any point. So in order for the virus / code to continue to exist there needs to be backup copies of it somewhere. The issue is that only computers can make a copy. Also, the code that tells it to copy must exist and not be destroyed.

Another issue is that computers are not perfect at copying and pasting. So the resulting copy can have random changes / mutations in the instructions too. These mutations are so random that a majority of the time the changes degrade and destroy the virus. This usually means the older a virus is, the weaker it becomes. Think of the random bytes in computer instructions being changed or even deleted, it makes the code even more nonsensical.

However, it is possible (and very rare) to randomly change the code in a way that makes the viruses more infectious and or more deadly (or gain function of some sort). This is rare because it's like taking code and blindly changing it for no rhyme or reason at any point and magically having coded it to do a specific function. There is a much much higher probability of just breaking the code. To gain function by randomly modifying code would be like winning the lottery many times in a row.

In the extremely rare case that it gains function it is entirely possible for the virus to kill all the computers it runs on (become more deadly). That means backup copies can no longer be made. That makes it very difficult for that virus to exist. That makes it even more rare for a virus to get more deadly over time (on top of having to randomly change to be more deadly). That is a way to say that deadlier viruses are harder to spread because it kills their hosts before getting a chance to transmit to another person.

On the other hand, if the mutation causes the virus to more easily make copies of itself, well, that means there are more backup copies and it becomes more infectious. Being more infectious means the virus exists for longer periods of time, and can spread to more computers. So its more common for viruses to become weaker yet more infectious, and yet less deadly.

With that said... our immune systems are very much like antivirus software on a computer. Vaccines are very much like updated definitions for the antivirus. It can detect these snippets of code we call viruses, delete them, or encapsulate them into "quarantine", and disable them. Sometimes our immune systems don't care and will delete everything, even healthy cells, in an effort to clean up. That is usually what causes the most damage, not the virus itself.

One problem is that virus definitions are somewhat specific, and if the virus changes slightly the immune system won't be able to detect it early. The immune system is also slow, so the virus has time to make copies and or mutate. Anything the immune system misses or doesn't recognize can become the next vaccine-resistant variant if its transmitted to others.

In the end, viruses don't do anything but enter cells, replicate, and randomly change. It is by random chance they become either weaker or stronger. After that it is by natural selection whether they continue or not. If the host dies before they can spread to the next host, or the immune system completely cleans it out first, that strain stops existing. Since vaccines only help the immune system remove certain strains, any strains it misses possibly becomes the next variant that is vaccine-resistant. In that way vaccines help filter out old strains, and allow new strains to exist.

TLDR; It's all randomness. Stop thinking viruses are assassins learning better ways to kill. They are just glitches in the matrix.

We haven't heard from Vector99 in a few days after catching COVID. He's a middle-aged freedome liberator and we are wondering if you can providde reassurances to us all about the virus not being mutagenic. Should we squirt into our arms or fight this thing with psalms? Is it even the covid?

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1

That is really wrong. I am not sure if you are speaking in analogous terms or what, but let's all understand that viruses are not technically alive. They don't aim to do anything. They don't think. They don't discriminate. They are nothing but clumps of matter which, due to their makeup and shape, have unique uncontrolled interactions with everything they come into contact with.

I tend to personify complicated things when I talk about them, especially if I'm trying to keep it from getting technical. (People understand better if you make it feel like you're talking about a person.)

Yes. I understand viruses don't think.

They don't have a "design", or "purpose" or "goal" , except they do in the same sense your eye has a "design", "purpose", and
"goal" Nobody designed it, but it clearly does one thing very well.

Viruses adapt very well. They don't consciously choose to do this (because they are not conscious beings), but it's how they have survived for millions of years. It's their survival strategy.

Think of viruses as a series of random building blocks that act like instructions, like a short snippet of computer code that doesn't make any sense. In most cases nobody wrote this code, it just came to be. By itself the instructions don't do anything because they need to be given to a computer to run. The "computers" are cells inside of your body.

That is the main reason viruses are bad, they are like random nonsensical instructions that are being executed without authorization on a computer. Things like that are going to crash the computer or cause it to operate in abnormal ways. However, there is one set of instructions on every virus that does make sense, and those are instructions to copy and paste. To replicate.

Random yes. But we're talking about a kind of refined random.

Literally millions of years worth of failed random instructions have been filtered out. The virus at this point tends to focus on mutations that have a chance of working.

You gotta remember there is a lot of leftover "junk" DNA in your DNA. Stuff that hasn't been activated in a long time, but still can be (with low odds).

The virus is going to go through that list just as often as it tries anything new.

It is said that viruses need a host to "survive" but even that is not entirely true. That is like saying computer code needs to run on a computer to survive. That is not how it works. However, viruses are always at the mercy of their environment. At the physical layer light, heat, and other forces can randomly alter / mutate / damage / destroy the code. That happens completely randomly. Any part of the virus' instructions can randomly change at any point. So in order for the virus / code to continue to exist there needs to be backup copies of it somewhere. The issue is that only computers can make a copy. Also, the code that tells it to copy must exist and not be destroyed.

It's true the virus can go dormant, but if the host dies, decomposes, and its remains seep into or become buried in the ground, the virus will most likely never find another host no matter how long it waits.

Another issue is that computers are not perfect at copying and pasting. So the resulting copy can have random changes / mutations in the instructions too. These mutations are so random that a majority of the time the changes degrade and destroy the virus. This usually means the older a virus is, the weaker it becomes. Think of the random bytes in computer instructions being changed or even deleted, it makes the code even more nonsensical.

Are you sure about this? Selection has a tendency to filter out random mutations that don't work.

But once the disease becomes established, the lack of opposition can cause weaker versions of it to survive. Weaker filter. Weaker produced outcome.

The reverse also can happen. It's why doctors always tell you if you're taking penicillin to kill a bacterial infection, you need to keep taking it after it starts working. Otherwise, when it comes back, the few surviving bacteria (which will have been the strongets) will become the parents of the revived infection.