I think the key question is timescale. I suspect this would be a short-term side effect, with no real impact. If not -- if it's longitudinal -- it could be scary. I can't imagine how that would happen, though.
Virus would have the same effect, so this isn't an anti-vax argument.
Which is what it sounds like from the title and abstract.
I have no idea how often the body needs to repair DNA and what the effects of not doing it for a few days are though.
Effectiveness against infections declined from 88% (95% CI 86–89) during the first month after full vaccination to 47% (43–51) after 5 months. Among sequenced infections, vaccine effectiveness against infections of the delta variant was high during the first month after full vaccination (93% [95% CI 85–97]) but declined to 53% [39–65] after 4 months.
I was waiting for Novavax but they kept delaying it constantly (they said summer, then autumn and now 2022), so I am keeping an eye on Medicago as well, since I think the protein subunit ones are hardier than the mRNA ones. Because the studies keep changing (moderna used to be the best, then they said pfizer was just as protective, then during delta they said JJ was good) its hard to predict what problems and which of the vaccines will be best suited to that environment. The best immunity seems to be from a natural infection so a mild infection that creates antibodies has been said to be the best protective (many self reported infections weren't covid, but the ones that had testing showed very protective long lasting effects), although I don't think that its worth it to risk long covid for this effect.
Despite all this, the monoclonal antibody treatment is very good. It is userful post infection or when you are worried about being exposed, its thousands of dollars per treatment (gov paid for it already and it won't cost you), but its something to keep in mind about its usage. The US is buying a lot of them for treatment you may want to make a note of it around you with this site. https://protect-public.hhs.gov/pages/therapeutics-distributi...
>Does this finding imply that the vaccine would also inhibit DNA damage repair?
Well, yes, but consider the context. If you read the article, and it's almost beyond belief that I have to recommend that you read the article in order to discuss it -- indeed, the information that might assuage your fears is in the very first paragraph -- it's been observed that a consequence of surviving a serious case of COVID is that your immune system is fucked, both during and afterward:
>"SARS–CoV–2 infection extraordinarily affects lymphocyte number and function [3,4,5,6]. Compared with mild and moderate survivors, patients with severe COVID–19 manifest a significantly lower number of total T cells, helper T cells, and suppressor T cells [3,4]. Additionally, COVID–19 delays IgG and IgM levels after symptom onset [5,6]. Collectively, these clinical observations suggest that SARS–CoV–2 affects the adaptive immune system."
Searching for a means by which the vaccine might meaningfully damage your adaptive immune system is ill-advised. Frankly, we've got terrifying amounts of information about the deleterious effects of catching and surviving serious COVID, and administration of a vaccine tends to uncontroversially downgrade the seriousness of the COVID infection that you will almost assuredly get eventually. Thus, even if the vaccine harms you in some way, COVID itself will do worse.
That said, the Discussion section does suggest that there may be improvements to full-spike vaccines in future,
>"indicating that full–length spike–based vaccines may inhibit the recombination of V(D)J in B cells, which is also consistent with a recent study that a full–length spike–based vaccine induced lower antibody titers compared to the RBD–based vaccine [28]. This suggests that the use of antigenic epitopes of the spike as a SARS–CoV–2 vaccine might be safer and more efficacious than the full–length spike."
I'll again point out that however the spike might fuck with B and T cells, the full-blown virus will surely do more.
And that’s the TL;DR folks. Seriously, this distillation makes the choice very easy.
Depends on where you are, the risk of getting inflected varies too.
It is good to stay informed, not blindly take anything you can get.
This sub outsmarts itself so often and it shows. Medical professionals, scientists, researchers, etc are more qualified than I. There’s nothing blind about it.
Explicitly saying nobody should look into a potential negative side effect of vaccines because they might actually find something is down right scary. Much scarier than any fears of “misinformation”. This kind of thinking is why there is mistrust.
You didn't read the article. Or what I wrote about it. The vaccine can't do any worse than the virus, and this study, that does look into a potential negative side effect, found that the virus does indeed do worse!
Scaremongering while putting words into someone else's mouth is why there is mistrust.
I literally quoted your words. Are you suggesting I randomly selected text and copy/pasted it without reading it?
> The vaccine can't do any worse than the virus, and this study, that does look into a potential negative side effect, found that the virus does indeed do worse!
Nothing in what I said implied that the virus could not be and is not worse. It's a more general point that suggesting an angle of research not be attempted because the result might be unflattering regarding vaccines is ill advised.
If an individual is not at risk for serious complications from COVID (e.g. healthy, young, and fit) then it's not irrational to consider the potential side effects of a vaccine v.s. just the risk of the disease itself. Even the comparison to the same types of side effects of an actual infection is not a fair one as that assumes the individual is guaranteed to get sick. Not everyone lives in a city and travels in a sardine can on rails to go to work every morning so the number of human contacts and potential infection points is not uniform.
> Scaremongering while putting words into someone else's mouth is why there is mistrust.
Claiming that quoting someone's own words is "putting words in someone else's mouth" is some fantastic double-think.
North Dakota
Tennessee
Alaska
Wyoming
South Dakota
I don’t believe any of these states even have a single “sardine can on rails” used by daily commuters.
The idea that you are less likely to be infected in rural Wyoming because you commute by car is pure fiction based on the data. Very few people in the United States are able to avoid grocery stores, pharmacies, or restaurants for more than a week or two.
Sure. And the full-blown virus trigger the same immune response and create the same spike protein..
BUT, this is all about risk management. If you live alone in somewhere very low infection rate and don't meet people, there is no point taking this risk.
If you need a vaccine, there are safer (but less effective) alternative vaccines.
Heh, good luck! Delta's r0 of 6 to 8 is too high to meaningfully avoid. Sure, if you're some sort of hermit, you can probably manage, but if you're in North America, vaccination rates in rural areas will work against you. Frankly, there's no point in taking the risk.
This article calls out "full–length spike–based vaccine".
"suggests that the use of antigenic epitopes of the spike as a SARS–CoV–2 vaccine might be safer and more efficacious than the full–length spike"
"This work will improve the understanding of COVID–19 pathogenesis and provide new strategies for designing more efficient and safer vaccines."
> This suggests that the use of antigenic epitopes of the spike as a SARS–CoV–2 vaccine might be safer and more efficacious than the full–length spike. Taken together, we identified one of the potentially important mechanisms of SARS–CoV–2 suppression of the host adaptive immune machinery. Furthermore, our findings also imply a potential side effect of the full–length spike–based vaccine.
https://www.youtube.com/c/Campbellteaching
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuyAtvwP2H4
I personally feel its fairly compelling and I see no harm in performing this extra step to ensure its not being injected directly into a vein.
Not sure why the suggestion was turned down.