Hacker News Reader

Comment by miles | Hacker News Reader

The Ontario government also reports many more COVID-19 cases (per 100,000 for each vaccination status) among the vaccinated than unvaccinated:

All Ontario: Case numbers and spread https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data/case-numbers-and-spread

Rate per 100,000 (12/31/21, 7-day average):

Fully vaccinated: 79.86

Partially vaccinated: 63.77

Unvaccinated: 59.75

View on HN

I’m sure some folks here will chime in with countering/supporting data, but assuming these trends are truly representative, understanding why this is occurring will be imperative.

One hypothesis involves the fact that current mRNA vaccines induce an immune response highly targeted toward the spike protein RBD.

In contrast, natural infection induces a broader immune response that includes antibodies targeting other proteins (Nucleocapsid protein being one of the most notable; it is commonly used to determine if a prior infection occurred).

Omicron in particular is a variant that has accumulated a significant number of mutations in the S protein region.

Is this coincidence or are we seeing selective pressure due to mass vaccination campaigns?

Given the low vaccination rate in Sub-Saharan Africa at the time this variant emerged from there, it's unlikely that mass vaccination campaigns drove selection pressure in this case. Far more likely that it was a host jump or a long mutation period inside a single immuno-compromised individual.

> Given the low vaccination rate in Sub-Saharan Africa at the time this variant emerged from there, it's unlikely that mass vaccination campaigns drove selection pressure in this case. Far more likely that it was a host jump or a long mutation period inside a single immuno-compromised individual.

Perhaps, but it's my understanding that Omicron was first observed in diplomats that had already received multiple vaccinations. See: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/03/world/botswana-diplomats-...

No, none of those are suspected of being Patient Zero because they aren’t the earliest cases. Just the first to be detected. Nigeria has found Omicron in samples dating back to October, long before the diplomat cases were identified, and analyses that have compared changes to the genome over time against the infection rate show that it likely emerged in late September / early October.

Just because there is a low vaccination rate doesn't mean there is not a shit load of vaccinated people in the region. Sub-saharan Africa has more than a billion people. Is there any solid evidence this variant actually evolved in Sub-Saharan Africa anyway?

It means it’s less likely than other more compelling explanations.

For instance, South Africa has previously observed similar huge evolutionary jumps in single immunosuppressed patients with HIV. A similar case was observed in Europe with leukaemia.

The case distribution and timing makes it extremely likely that it emerged in the region, yes.

Given the evidence, the only reason for claiming that vaccine selective pressure is the only or even most likely explanation is a statement driven by ideology not reality.

> t means it’s less likely than other more compelling explanations.

I don't really think so. We can safely say we are exploring where the latest originated and comparison of hypotheses overall likelihood is difficult to do in even simple cases and huge data in a well defined regime like physics. Our back of the napkin handwaves are piss in the wind.

> The case distribution and timing makes it extremely likely that it emerged in the region, yes.

It emerged in a population but originated in a particular body, it makes it almost pointless to say it came from this or that country when we are trying to understand the actual body it came from. (I say body because there is another thread discussing mouse origins).

> Given the evidence, the only reason for claiming that vaccine selective pressure is the only or even most likely explanation is a statement driven by ideology not reality.

Totally. I think someone is exploring one of their pet theory and how it fits with this evidence.

How many of the unvaccinated in Ontario have been previously infected by any previous variants? Is there any recent seroprevalence data available?

Yet all the restrictions fall on the unvaccinated. Are they going to reverse course?

Assuming restrictions on unvaccinated are reducing their rate of exposure, is this result that unexpected?

Edit: While I personally don’t support broad restrictions, I’d actually argue this is evidence that the restrictions are making an impact.

I think that is a big jump to make. There are no restrictions on the unvaxxed. We just have to get tested if we want to take part in society (go to bars, concerts, etc)

The Danish covid passport does not discriminate between vaccination and a negative test. Both give access to everything

Ironically, this means that lots of vaxxed people don't get tested anymore.

Consider that unvaccinated must quarantine before entering countries like France, and are being removed from the workforce and military in countries like USA, reducing the number of edges on their graph.

Maybe I’m missing something but the pattern is what I’d expect at this stage. Most people acknowledge the risk to themselves of traveling or congregating, and subsequently to others who are immunocompromised or unvaccinated. What’s unpredictable is whether new variants will spread more readily, but we’re discovering that now, I guess.

Well quarantine for entry to France and firing soldiers in the US doesn't effect the situation in Denmark :)

Given global travel today, _it could_. My point is the widespread application of these rules is putting vaccinated people together to maintain convenience and isolating unvaccinated people to prevent healthcare overload.

Even with free testing, having to test every other day to do some social activity is a burden. At the very least, you have to go to your local test center to do something not particularly enjoyable, and wait for the results.

I'm sure most of the unvaccinated simply avoid "unnecessary" social events, or didn't do them in the first place (i.e. "I don't socialize, I don't need a vaccine").

Does this figure ignore the fact that most people are fully vaccinated?

Similar figures from Denmark, reported as rates and broke down by age groups. Waiting for severe omicron cases stats, which may lag for a few weeks. We are in for an interesting winter...

https://covid19danmark.dk/#gennembrudsinfektioner

https://files.ssi.dk/covid19/omikron/statusrapport/rapport-o...

And do those figures also ignore the fact that most people are vaccinated?

No. There are more cases in vaccinated people per 100000 numbers.

Right. What's your theory on why this happens?

I have a few theories of my own but it is not the point. And if you are curious, I still think everyone should get vaccinated / boosted, but I am just a random guy in the internet.

You ask if the figures take into account the fact that many people are vaccinated and the answer is yes. Draw your own conclusions. Even if you are convinced of the vaccine benefits (which I am), you shouldn't be in denial when the numbers don't match your expectations. If you do, then your reasoning is no better than that of conspiracy theorists, climate change denialists and antivaxxers.

Unboosted vaccine efficiency is negative for omicron, that's what the numbers are saying. If it contradicts your theory, then your theory is wrong and you have to find a better one. It you want to think scientifically, you have to consider the idea that vaccines can be ineffective/harmful, even if, like me, you don't believe it, because it is the most "obvious" conclusion. And only after you have accepted that possibility, you can look for confounding variables, mistakes and other effects that can disprove this idea.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com