So the vaccine is going to be compulsory then?

[Gigheimer]

There was a thread ages ago about the fact people were being tin foil hat about a vaccine being compulsory.

Latest news out they are considering “vaccine passports”, which lets face it, on our news cycle throughout this entire thing it’s been ... prepare them gently with maybes, odd leak here or there, test the messaging, oh look the guesses were right

So no one is going to pin anyone down and spear them, but it’s basically the same thing. If you can’t enter a shop/leisure/work place domestically without a vaccine. It’s fucking compulsory.

Where did free will go? Where did vaccine uptake because we have trust go? I’m not anti-vaccine, had them all, even TB. But this isn’t on I terms of civil liberties. Does no one else feel concern at a general use of this crisis into nanny state?

[Geamhradh]

@AlienPsyTing

He's certainly got the right surname.

Is there any particular reason you're bumping old threads to link to some madman?

[JS87]

Viral entry
www.nature.com/articles/s41401-020-0485-4

[chomalungma]

The spike protein binds the ACE-2 receptor on the cell membrane via the receptor binding domain of the S1 subunit of the spike protein

I knew from previous reading that the ACE-2 receptor was the target for the spike protein.

Immunology, receptors and binding is a fascinating process. It's amazing how specific it is.

(This was a very old life of mine though)

[JS87]

I have done a bit more reading and also found this article with a great illustration.
www.nature.com/articles/s41401-020-0485-4
I'll try and add the figure in case people can't access the content.
The pfizer vaccine is the mRNA for the spike protein receptor binding domain. Sars-cov-2 uses its spike protein to enter the cell. The spike protein binds the ACE-2 receptor on the cell membrane via the receptor binding domain of the S1 subunit of the spike protein.
There is then cell fusion between the cell membrane and the viral membrane.
So in covid infected cells the cell membrane would also express the spike protein (albeit it would be bound to the ACE-2 receptor). From what I've read this is one of the reasons it was chosen as a target (and also presumably because it is critical to viral entry into the cell).

[chomalungma]

Slight cross post there with @js87 - who has answered some of my questions.

Thanks

[chomalungma]

If you're infected with CV you're going to have millions of cells producing copies of the virus covered in the same spike protein. So the only way to avoid the risk is to never get exposed to the virus

Yes. I know.

I don't know if when a virus is produced in a normal Covid-19 infection - does the spike protein just go to make the new Covid-19 virus or does any of it go to the cell membrane of a normal infected cell and embed itself in there?

Do you see what question I am asking?

How common is it in a Covid -19 )or any viral infection really - for proteins from the virus to end up in the cell membrane of the infected cell?

Normally the infected cell would burst when infected.

But in this case - the cell is not going to burst. It's going to have a spike protein in the membrane. This is what's going to produce the immune response - and that's new technology.

[JS87]

@chomalungma

No one has suggested a plausible mechanism by which they could do harm months or years later

What's different about this though is that the mRNA is making a new protein for the cell that will be expressed using the cell's ribosome machinery and then appears on the surface of the cell membrane - where by it is then recognised as foreign and antibodes are produced to attack it.

Which is a fantastic and a novel approach.

Yes - the mRNA will degrade quickly.

How many cells will have this protein in them?
What happens to the cells afterwards - will the immune system attack them?
How often does the immune system attack its own cells with a typical viral infection?
Are there are any potential dangers with the immune system targetting a foreign protein in the membrane of its own cells?

I don't know the answers to these questions. I do know the problems of auto-immunity disorders though. I do know that the immune system is complex and that this is a novel technology.

I would like to know the answers to these questions.

You are forgetting that even with a viral infection or a viral vaccine, bits of the viral proteins are broken down and presented on the MHC molecules of your own cells. This is how T and B cells are activated to generate immunity. Yes, antibodies only bind whole proteins but bits of viral proteins are expressed on your own cells on MHC all the time during viral infections/ vaccines.

So in answer to your question, your immune system attacks your own cells during viral infections all the time.

I can't really see why there is any danger to your immune system targeting a foreign protein within your own cell membrane. This is what it is designed to do all the time. Yes most of the time, the proteins are expressed on MHC and cells are targeted by T cells rather than antibodies but I imagine there are incidences of viral proteins being expressed on cell membranes, particularly for retroviruses

Also, its important to remember that the mRNA is transient and only a limited number of cells will express the viral spike protein and they will be in your upper arm. Hence why it might feel sore for a few days.

Here's a great guide to viral infections created by the British Society of Immunology.
www.immunology.org/public-information/bitesized-immunology/pathogens-and-disease/immune-responses-viruses

[MissConductUS]

Of course the immune system is complex. If you're infected with CV you're going to have millions of cells producing copies of the virus covered in the same spike protein. So the only way to avoid the risk is to never get exposed to the virus. That's fine if you can shut yourself in a cave for the next few years. It's not a realistic scenario for dealing with the pandemic.

[trulydelicious]

@MissConductUS

likely less effective traditional vaccine become available

I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but the reason I keep repeating things is that the same unsubstantiated assumptions keep being parroted over and over (e.g. a favourite of many: the risk of vaccines is tiny, when it's clearly unknown as opposed as tiny for a new vaccine)

Now you seem to have come up with another assumption ti.e. traditional vaccines are likely less effective

Can I ask why you are suggesting this? Or is it an assumption?

[trulydelicious]

I do know that the immune system is complex and that this is a novel technology

^This. Absolutely my concern too

[chomalungma]

No one has suggested a plausible mechanism by which they could do harm months or years later

What's different about this though is that the mRNA is making a new protein for the cell that will be expressed using the cell's ribosome machinery and then appears on the surface of the cell membrane - where by it is then recognised as foreign and antibodes are produced to attack it.

Which is a fantastic and a novel approach.

Yes - the mRNA will degrade quickly.

How many cells will have this protein in them?
What happens to the cells afterwards - will the immune system attack them?
How often does the immune system attack its own cells with a typical viral infection?
Are there are any potential dangers with the immune system targetting a foreign protein in the membrane of its own cells?

I don't know the answers to these questions. I do know the problems of auto-immunity disorders though. I do know that the immune system is complex and that this is a novel technology.

I would like to know the answers to these questions.

[user1497207191]

Lockdowns/restrictions will stay in place until rates of infection and death fall far enough. If too many people refuse the vaccine, then that just means we have to wait longer for restrictions/social distancing etc to be lifted.

[MissConductUS]

@trulydelicious What makes you so confident that this risk is so remote? There are no long term trials.

I know, you've mentioned that once or twice before.

I think that the risk is remote because the mRNA vaccines are asking our bodies to do something they do every day: protein synthesis, the process where cells make proteins. Then the very fragile mRNA breaks down. No one has suggested a plausible mechanism by which they could do harm months or years later.

The risk has to be balanced against the certain risk of letting the pandemic run unchecked until billions of doses of a likely less effective traditional vaccine become available.

[chomalungma]

That's true. But there will be plenty of people who will take the mRNA vaccine so there will be long term data

[bruffin]

It could well be great for everyone. But personally I just want to wait for more long term data.
there will be no long term data if everyone had that attitude

[chomalungma]

And if someone is at high risk of dying or long term effects from Covid, then the mRNA vaccine is probably sensible.

It could well be great for everyone. But personally I just want to wait for more long term data.

[MissConductUS]

@chomalungma - To each his own. I'm an RN and spent months caring for covid patients early in the pandemic. It was truly horrible watching them suffer and die. I'll take whatever I'm offered and am hoping it will be one of the mRNA vaccines. I volunteered for the clinical trials but wasn't lucky enough to be selected.

[trulydelicious]

@MissConductUS

A sensible balancing of the quite remote risk of some serious side effects of the mRNA vaccine

What makes you so confident that this risk is so remote? There are no long term trials.

[VulvaPerson]

I see russian trollbots a lot on various topics. I do wonder whats the point of them? I don't really get why someone would change their mind on a topic, because someone else spammed the same reply all over? I guess it must 'work' because it wouldn't still go on otherwise (similar to how nigerian price emails still go round, when you would think they never worked..) but its always been a little odd to me.

[Gigheimer]

Russian trollbots, always the Russians, and you say the anti vaxxers are theorists. I’d be as skeptical of that as I am of microchips from Bill Gates.

[chomalungma]

I have a background in clinical Biochemistry and have worked with RNA so am familiar with how it works. I am just saying that it's a novel approach and I would personally prefer to wait and would personally prefer a vaccine based on traditional vaccine technology until more data is available

[MissConductUS]

The mRNA approach is a novel approach to vaccine development in humans. It's an interesting approach - and personally I would like much longer safety information to see long term side effects.

This is understandable given the relative newness of mRNA vaccines, but there are good reasons to think that they will actually be safer than traditional vaccines. Most viral vaccines contain either an attenuated or killed version of the virus they stimulate an immune response for. So they require putting the actual pathogen in the jab. That's a risk that the mRNA vaccines avoid.

Here's a very good discussion of how they work for anyone who wants a non technical explanation.

Can you explain what mRNA is? How do these vaccines work? Also, I heard it changes my DNA. That seems scary.

mRNA vaccines work by inserting an mRNA molecule into your body, which your cells then read as instructions to produce certain viral proteins (specifically, the SARS-COV-2 spike protein). Your immune cells then recognize this viral protein because it is foreign—your human DNA doesn’t contain any instructions on how to make this protein, so it has never been made before.

When your immune cells recognize the protein, they make antibodies against it. The antibodies are, effectively, antibodies against the SARS-COV-2 virus. If the actual virus is introduced to your body, the antibodies recognize the spike protein and destroy it.

mRNA does not change your DNA. It survives in cells for a very short period of time—usually a few hours.

You could refuse the mRNA jab when it's offered to you and hope that something more traditional is available to you later. But then you run the risk of getting the virus while you wait. Severe cases are relatively rare but truly awful - struggling to breath, severe headaches and fatigue and quite frankly the fear of death.

A sensible balancing of the quite remote risk of some serious side effects of the mRNA vaccine and the much higher and very well-understood risk of the disease would indicate that you are better off taking the first vaccine offered to you as soon as you can get it.

[trollopolis]

So bringing up the issue of trollbots here is not relevant or helpful

It is very relevant, as it is one of the current global health priorities.

Excluding the role of trolls (whose 'concerns' can be highly plausible to a lay reader) misses one of the mrost important angles

I'll stop here, with one last suggestion that people do actually take the time to follow links about the sheer scale of disinformation and misrepresentation (that some seek to exclude from discussion)

[Pluckedpencil]

100% agree. People should be given access to the safety data and be heavily encouraged through that data, but the minute you take away people's right to go to work/school etc, we can't say this is voluntary, because for most people going to work is not a choice, ergo you don't have a choice about the vaccine.