Source: American Institute for Economic Research.
Like all living things, viruses evolve in response to selection pressures. The immune response of the host is one of the selection pressures that drive viral evolution. Accordingly, one outcome of viral evolution can be to “escape” the immune response of its host.
The authors point out that most “successful vaccines have had a commonality in that they generally target infectious pathogens with a low rate of mutation.” SARS-Cov-2, however, has a relatively high rate of mutation, meaning that it evolves quickly.
The authors are concerned that the Covid vaccines currently available may be driving viral evolution toward “escape” in ways we don’t fully understand. They note that natural immunity through infection is far more robust than the immunity current vaccinations confer because the natural antibodies target more components of the virus. Theoretically, it should be harder for the virus to escape the natural immune response than the artificial one. By the same token, we cannot predict what a viral escape from the artificial immunity might produce.
Thus, the authors claim “[T]here is an urgent need for debate on the issue of vaccinating people who have already recovered from Covid-19.”
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Still trying to rationalize the irresponsibility of skipping vaccination?
“Natural immunity” may well be more robust than the immunity created by a vaccine. But “natural immunity” comes from being infected which by every possible measure is more dangerous than being vaccinated.
The danger of being vaccinated after having survived the virus is hypothetical. The author says as much. There is no evidence of any kind that it is real. The author claims that this hypothetical danger is “not necessarily unlikely.” That is the kind of bullshit one says when you have pulled the “danger” out of your ass. The cost in money and lives of making tests a part of the vaccination process based on this hypothetical is not a hypothetical. It would be very real.
The author lost all credibility early on with this nonsense . . .
“In terms of pressure on the pathogen, some even argue that the combination of containment strategies such as lockdowns, school closures, societal restrictions, and mass vaccinations also help drive the emergence of variants and this is to be clarified and validated further for this current pandemic.”
Classic Trumpian bullshit. “Some people say . . .” What people are arguing that? What are their qualifications? It is nonsense. Mutations occur randomly. No “pressure” is exerted or felt. The more reproducing viruses there are in the wild, the greater the number of mutations that will occur. Letting the virus run wild and not containing it would lead to more variants and spread them more quickly. The opposite of what “some are arguing.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Letting the virus run wild and not containing it would lead to more variants and spread them more quickly.”
The authors don’t say anything like that. Had you read the article carefully you would know that they argue in favor of vaccination.
Yet again you are raising objections to things that don’t exist, except in your own imagination.
LikeLike
Uh, there is a lot of arcane language in this silly piece and maybe that lead to your failure to note what they were arguing for? But, if you read carefully you can find their conclusion . . .
“As opposed to the reliance upon mass vaccination and the hypothetical but not necessarily unlikely outcomes noted above, this means that vaccinations should only be given to high-risk patients who have never contracted Covid-19.”
Giving the vaccine ONLY to high risk patients is tantamount to letting it run wild and, as the authors advocate, waiting for “natural immunity” to stop it.
With that cleared up, the sentence you object to was part of my response to the “Some people say” nonsense claim that shutdowns, vaccinations, etc. “pressure” the virus into producing more variants. As I pointed out in that sentence – the opposite is true for the reasons given.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Giving the vaccine ONLY to high risk patients is tantamount to letting it run wild and, as the authors advocate, waiting for “natural immunity” to stop it.”
That’s ridiculous. You are imagining things.
LikeLike
“That’s ridiculous. You are imagining things.”
Actually, as almost always, it is you who is ridiculous. The formula the authors recommend – vaccinate only the most vulnerable and those who care for them – is precisely as I described it. It is the opposite of what we are doing – deploying universal vaccination as rapidly as we can.
I often have to wonder if English is your mother tongue since you are so frequently so unable to comprehend what native English speakers write.
LikeLike
RE: “It is the opposite of what we are doing – deploying universal vaccination as rapidly as we can.”
You are misinformed. CDC policy has in fact been to prioritize vaccinations by vulnerability..
LikeLike
Your understanding is once again skewed.
The prioritizing of an inadequate supply is not the same as a policy of only vaccinating the most vulnerable. Duh!
Our policy is to vaccinate everybody as soon as possible and achieve herd immunity without adding many millions of cases and hundreds of thousands of deaths. Given the availability of safe and effective vaccines it is the only policy that makes any sense. Idiotic Trumpkins are reaching for reasons to sabotage that effort with bogus science – like this essay – and bogus #LIBERTY issues. For what reasons? Who knows what goes on in such heads. Fear that Biden will get credit?
And intellectual honesty and consistency mean nothing to such hypocrites. Now, the “nanny state” is going to tell people in Florida, Texas and other states how to run their business and make it illegal to post signs that say No Shoes, No shirt, No vaccine No service? And now, the “deep state” FDA bureaucrats need to be given more time to run their tests before we rush into vaccination? Give me a break.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “The prioritizing of an inadequate supply is not the same as a policy of only vaccinating the most vulnerable.”
Inadequate supply is not the only reason for triage. The purpose of prioritizing vaccination is to optimize the outcome, especially by not wasting vaccine on patients who don’t need it while people who do are waiting to get it.
LikeLike
Mutations do occur more or less randomly(some sites on the DNA/RNA strand are more prone to mutation than others) but that’s where random ends.
About 99% of mutations are immediately lethal to the virus. Of those that are not, natural selection weeds put most of the survivors.
The ideal virus, from the virus’s standpoint would be one that leaves the host alive for a long time but makes him just sick enough to spread it.
So, over time, viruses become less lethal because that’s what succeeds.
Of course, that can take a very long time and kill a lot of people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
…”that can take a very long time and kill a lot of people.”
That does not seem to concern the authors.
LikeLike
RE: “That does not seem to concern the authors.”
The authors discuss that very point.
LikeLike
They may discuss it, but they don’t give a rats patootie about other people’s lives.
LikeLike
As a practical matter, those who have been infected and recovered should be vaccinated, but not until 6 months to a year later.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Also, as a practical matter, slowing down the rollout of vaccine by requiring testing before administering it is a bad idea. It is hard enough to get the recalcitrant to do the right thing without adding another layer of cost and complexity to mitigate a danger which even this author acknowledges is hypothetical and which, after tens of millions of doses without such incidents, we can say is imaginary.
I agree with your overall assessment of the full course of viral evolution. I would, note, though there are less ideal possibilities for the virus – mutations that kill a larger portion of its hosts, but not all. It might not spread as far and might eventually die out, but we do not want to play the role of host in that scenario. The greatest safety lies in damping down virus populations as quickly as possible and vaccination is the only approach to achieving that which is not based on people getting sick and dying. Thanks to science it is an available weapon.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “The greatest safety lies in damping down virus populations as quickly as possible and vaccination is the only approach to achieving that which is not based on people getting sick and dying.”
The authors claim otherwise. Both natural and vaccinated immunity contribute to herd immunity, which in itself is the only way to stop the virus. Vaccinating people who don’t need it is a waste of vaccine that could save a life. Apart from that, vaccinating the most vulnerable is standard triage for saving the largest number of lives in the shortest amount of time.
LikeLike
I’m in agreement, but I wonder where the 6 months to a year comes from?
LikeLike
The vaccines, for some reason. seam to be very effective in generating memory cells.
The natural immunity will last at least 6 months and maybe years, but a booster at some point would be a good precaution.
However, it makes sense for those who are already protected by natural immunity to wait until those who are not to be vaccinated before taking one of those available doses.
The order should be first dose for elders and vulnerable, then first dose for others.
Then 2nd dose for everyone, then a booster for naturally immune.
That would save the most lives and accelerate herd immunity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your comment seems to me to be roughly consistent with the AIER article, although the authors may be more skeptical than you that the current vaccines are both safe and effective.
I take it their skepticism has less to do with the absence of full Phase III trials (which can take years to complete) than with the fact the current crop of vaccines targets only the virus’s spike protein, whereas natural immunity produces antibodies that target the spike protein plus other parts of the virus.
To the extent that the immune response of the host is a selection pressure that affects viral evolution, the authors propose that we be cautious about universal, indiscriminate vaccination.
Specifically, we should want experts to debate this particular issue and share their thinking with the rest of us.
BTW, one of the authors of the piece is the Dentist-in-Chief, Sinai Health and Head of the Division of Research in the Department of Dentistry at Mount Sinai Hospital:
https://www.sinaihealth.ca/team/dr-howard-tenenbaum/
LikeLike
Good to see they’re finally bringing in the A-Team
LikeLike
Wouldn’t that be the DDS team? 😇
LikeLike
…”one of the authors of the piece is the Dentist-in-Chief”
Pandering to the moderator? How silly. You guys agree a lot more than you disagree, No pandering required. 😇
LikeLike
Thanks for the explanation.
One question though regarding this part of your statement. …” it makes sense for those who are already protected by natural immunity”…
Without proper testing, how will anyone know if the natural immunity has occurred?
LikeLike
If they were diagnosed with COVID and they’re still alive two weeks later, they have natural immunuty.
LikeLike
That sounds more like an assumption not based on testing.
LikeLike
If you are infected with a respiratory and you have not had an immune response within 2 weeks, you will be dead. That makes it a pretty safe assumption.
LikeLike
“That makes it a pretty safe assumption.”
I guess some assumptions are better than others?
I’d still rather know for sure via testing.
LikeLike
Of course, the argument depends on accurately KNOWING that you’ve had Covid, which of course, depends on the reliability of antibody tests. Not going to go through the whole derivation again, but ROUGHLY SPEAKING, if the percentage of false positives on the test is the same as the percentage of infected population, then a positive test is pretty close to a 50-50 guess.
For example, assume 5% of the population has been infected. And suppose the false positive test is 5%.
Take a person at random. The probability he was sick is 0.05 and not sick 0.95.
Now test him. 5% of the 95% will return a false positive, or (0.05×0.95) 0.0475.
Are you willing to BET YOUR LIFE that you are part of the 5% and not just in the 4.75% of the population?
As the number of infected goes up, then betting on having REALLY been infected with a positive test gets better, but betting on the vaccine is a sure prevention of death.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Of course, the argument depends on accurately KNOWING that you’ve had Covid, which of course, depends on the reliability of antibody tests.”
That’s one perspective. Another is that of the public health official who must decide who to vaccinate first.
If the official assumes that 5% of the candidate population has antibodies, and the antibody test is 95% reliable, that would suggest he can safely exclude 4.75% of the candidates based on the results of the antibody test.
LikeLike
Here’s something to consider. Look at the amount of time people spend worrying about this one, something that has the same statistics as other flus. While “they” are doing other things under our nose. Keep the people constantly distracted and worried, and much legislation and regulations to remove our rights. To make a simple case in point, “they” created the hysteria, closed businesses, then offered a pittance of “relief” money while they drove through billions in progressive, anti-America, dollars for more government controls.
LikeLike