Submitted by MyLifeisAsaJoker t3_yg6seo in science
I often think this when reading new study headlines. its human to feel like "we know this!".... but, first, lets not forget the summaries and headlines are maybe not sufficient to convey what the study actually did or did not do.
but more importantly. every reasonably executed study will contribute to what we know. maybe its to confirm a suspicion. maybe its using a novel way of coming to a conclusion previously held. maybe its reproducing the results of another study with the same method. all of these are not a waste of money or time, they are essential to how science work and what it means to "know something"
that is especially important in a time where many people equate "got told on facebook" with "we know"
But then don't use titles like that. There's many other parts of that study that are even far more interesting. Like the immune imprinting part. This might hint that if you have had anti bodies against Wuhan variant, it will be harder for your immune system to adapt to Omicron compared to if you didn't have any immunity and started from a blank spot. Because this is clearly concerning and I don't think that's something that yet been confirmed.
> The scientist also determined that antibody responses to the pandemic coronavirus follows a pattern similar to the way the immune system responds to variations of the influenza virus.This phenomenon is called immune imprinting. It means that the immune response shows a preference for recalling existing memory B cells specific against parts of the virus present in a strain to which an individual was previously exposed, rather than priming new memory B cells targeting differences present in markedly different strains upon infection. While this can be helpful in stimulating a cross-variant attack, the scientists explain, having previous exposure to earlier versions of a virus can sometimes hinder a more specific response against a virus that has mutated significantly.
This is something that is very important to know, to make decisions on how and when to vaccinate.
i dont make the titles. and sadly, we do live in a clickbaity world. probably always did...
I'm a little confused. This was established weeks after Omicron was detected. What they call "imprinting" has been known as an immunological phenomenon for over a decade (original antigenic sin) and one of the reasons many vaccines require several serotypes to be included in the primary series.
But why are they refusing to give bivalent vaccines for the first timers then? Why do they still want to give the Wuhan variant, wouldn't that be poor decision in terms of immunological imprinting?
There are no clinical studies to evaluate the safety, except as a booster. Besides at this point almost everyone has immunity one way or the other.
Depending on how immune imprinting works it may still be important to consider even if you already have been exposed. E.g. is the memory something that would bias itself with diminishing influence? E.g. the first time would always stay with 50 percent influence, 2nd time 25, then 12.5, 6... and so on?
What I have read about Influenza imprinting this causes bias to stay since birth for life.
Or how would the formula exactly look like? Seems important to figure out to better make decisions.
Perhaps immune imprinting could also be lessened with the use of highly effective adjuvants that enhance and broaden immune responses, like Matrix-M or CpG 1018.
There is entirely too much focus on humoral immunity in talk about vaccines. It is clear that antigenic drift in SARS cov 2 is extremely rapid and that antibodies are (thankfully) short lived. We will not generate lasting neutralising antibodies with vaccines. But that doesn't matter, the cellular response is extremely strong and much less sensitive to mutations in binding epitopes. For older or immunocompromised people, where t cd8 response is impaired, boosters or long lasting IG are probably the only option for continued protection.
Useful heritable traits lead to more useful heritable traits. Thanks a lot Darwin
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our normal comment rules still apply to other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
Not sure why such research is even undertaken when something is so readily obvious from the outset.
Looks like some people are arguing about the merits of the new bivalent 'vaccine' vs the original 'vaccine'. Development of the bivalent versions started in February, since which there have been several major mutations of the virus. The newer 'vaccine' will not likely be significantly more effective.
Omicron has become the new seasonal flu, for which the annual vaccine - without quotes, since it is an actual vaccine and not an mRNA-based thereapeutic - has proven remarkably ineffective.
[removed]
Another reason the common cold will never be cured. Because viruses mutate. Next.
What does this even mean?
The title sounds like omicron is genetically different enough from the original strain that antibodies trained to kill covid can’t kill it as efficiently
It means that the original vaccines are useless, but you should still get them to reduce the risk of severe covid symptoms, even if the vaccines don’t work on the new variants. And also, get all four boosters that may or may not be effective against new strains of covid, even though they might not work. Is that clear?
They are not useless. Like you said, the old vaccines are still effective at reducing risk of severe illness.
The clinical trials proved that the boosters are effective as well
[removed]
But wouldn't they be counterproductive to use now, if there's immunological imprinting? You would imprint your immune system to be biased towards suboptimal response, which compared to if you used the new vaccine you would get the currently most optimal response, which would imply consequences for many years to come if first times your immune system sees the virus have more weight on what kind of memory the immune system will have?
It could only be beneficial if Wuhan variant was to come back, but it might never because it was so far out of optimal spread and since so many people's immune system is imprinted to be specifically against the Wuhan variant.
Sounds like if you wanted to bias your immune system correctly, even an infection with current variant would be better since it would more likely bias your immune system correctly.
If you bias your immune system incorrectly it will have more trouble responding to any new instances of the infection that is closer to achieving full potential than immune system more accurately biased.
In addition I wonder if it would be better if people were imprinted with different types of vaccines, to avoid making it too easy for the virus to mutate into a combination of mutations that can bypass a single type of immunity of the whole population. You could work out 10 different types of most popular variations and randomly assign this to people for virus to have harder time getting into the optimal state to bypass everyone's immunological imprinting.
Are the original vaccines better than no vaccine against omicron? Absolutely. Studies have proven it's better than nothing.
What about considering immune imprinting? Although likely matters less now since most everyone, even unvaccinated have likely had their first imprint already. But how would imprinting specifically work? Would it be something like 50 percent weight on the first one, 25 on the 2nd etc, then it seems like it could still matter.
>The many, distinct mutations in their infection machinery have enabled them to escape from antibodies elicited from the original series of vaccines
You are correct, I missed the part about the original vaccines still being effective, my bad.
Assuming you bring this up in good faith, I will respond in kind. There is more to autoimmune response than antibodies alone. While antibodies are one powerful strategy for the body to incapacitate pathogens, there are things such as T cell response which are also "trained" by immunization in general. So pointing out antibodies as being less effective isn't enough to discount the effectiveness of any one vaccine.
Not looking to debate, just pointing out there are nuances to complex topics such as immunology. And that even extends to politics, news, history, and well, just about every aspect of life.
Everyone is just doing their best to get through the short and confusing life we each get to live. And the present moment is more confusing than ever, with so much information available at any given moment. Which is why it would be great to be able to rely on the consensus of experts in their respective fields.
But trust in our institutions is wavering. How can we trust people we don't know? I try to think about when I take a trip to the grocery store, I don't wish harm on the stranger next to me choosing a can of chilli off the shelf. So why should I assume that people in academia are any different?
But people can have good intentions and still be swayed by money or coercion. So maybe all the experts are being paid off or threatened? When I think of that, I think about how complex that would be to pull off. First you have to assume that every national government is working together on this since academia spans world wide. And we can't get all our governments to agree on simple things.
You'd also have to get people to all agree from all areas of the world, from all walks of life, to sully the field they spent many years of their lives working hard to be a part of. But in a world where journalism celebrates gotcha articles, you'd imagine a good number of scientists would grab their real data and publish it. And then people could verify it and they'd be lauded as a hero.
The simpler answer, I think, is that instead of a conspiracy to pay off all experts and keep everything hush, hush they are just doing their 9 to 5 like you and I probably both do.
But what if they are just wrong? Well to that I'd say you can bring that up to just about anything. The point is we make our best guess with our current body of knowledge. Some things we can have a lot of confidence in. But in most cases the safest answer at any given time is what the consensus of current experts agree upon. And yes that has resulted in mistakes in the past, but there is a reason we can look back on them as mistakes. The reason we don't put leeches on sick patients for all sorts of ailments is because we learned better and moved on.
Vaccines and immunology have been around for quite some time now. Enough time for us to move past the leeches stage. But even if not, even if we are doing the equivalent of blood letting, or some other archaic practice to handle this pandemic, it's our current best guess. And keep in mind that our current best guesses in all sorts of fields working together have resulted in a super computer in your pocket or hand, judging by the standards of just a few years ago, historically speaking.
Anyways, I wish you best of luck in your endeavors! Take care.
The original, not updated, mRNA vaccines are 60% effective at preventing infection with the omicron strain. And 95+% effective at preventing serious disease.
And as this linked article says about this study,
> Through their experiments, the scientists learned that vaccine boosters and hybrid immunity (acquired through a history of an infection and vaccination) both induce neutralizing antibodies in the bloodstream against Omicron BA.1, BA.2, BA.2.12.1 and BA.4/5.
[removed]
[removed]
That's just great. How many more vaccines and boosters will people be willing to take before they just mask up and stay away from each other again.
[removed]
Source for „ It stops transmission“ please ?
[removed]
what did the comment say
He said Novavax after 2 Shots stops Person to Person transmission, I haven't heard about a Vaccine yet that can.
>what did the comment say
Always quote what you are commenting on, in case the original is deleted.
How do I do that on? (on mobile)
Pademelon1 t1_iu7pdu0 wrote
Did we not already know this?