Universal Coronavirus Vaccine Breakthrough: A Single Shot That Could Protect You From COVID, MERS, and the Common Cold
-
Herd immunity and whatnot
Necessary to protect people with weak immune systems, certainly. But we rarely get better than 60% of the population flu vaxed. It is still vital to deter higher instances of hospitalization and to blunt the rate of spread.
-
Okay, sure. Then a third of all colds, which feels like a good start.
Sure, I'm not opposed either! Just want to make sure people here have the information needed to not be disappointed later.
-
There are people who have genuine medical reasons to not take vaccines (e.g. an allergy to a common ingredient) or who are so immunocompromised that a vaccine won't keep them alive, and they rely on other people getting vaccinated to avoid dying. It's not just antivaxers who antivaxers kill.
it’s not just antivaxers who antivaxers kill.
Reminded of the family whose kid died of measles saying "Our other kids survived, so it was fine".
That young child wasn't the one who had been deluded with misinformation.
-
You realize if the morons die out everyone else remaining still has heerd immunity, right?
Selection bias. All the survivors will say "See! We didn't need the Fauchi Ouchie!" while all the dead won't say anything.
-
Sometimes I like to pretend that it's still 2020, and the past 5 years or so have just been a COVID-induced fever dream
Me in 2020: Man, this year fucking sucks!
2025: Hold my beer.
-
Abolishes higher education, public libraries, and free time
We've done it. We've cured autism.
Abolishes higher education, public libraries, and free time
Almost like the rise in people identifying as autistic and diagnoses could be connected the fact that we created a non functioning society that only values extraverted people who are willing to lie and hurt others…. That neurodivergence is pathologized primarily because it runs counter to functioning in a capitalist society, and that many autistic people struggling to survive today might thrive and not be seen as even ‘disabled’ in a world where struggling to make eye contact doesn’t get you disqualified in job interviews…
-
This post did not contain any content.
Also, fuck cancer. (Cancer vaccines may be next, the end of the article.)
-
Who gives a shit? I will take it as will my entire family.
In the '80s, Reagan thought that AIDS was killing the right people.
Now it's the other way around.
-
This post did not contain any content.
CSIS go take this research and get it developed for the world
-
Abolishes higher education, public libraries, and free time
Almost like the rise in people identifying as autistic and diagnoses could be connected the fact that we created a non functioning society that only values extraverted people who are willing to lie and hurt others…. That neurodivergence is pathologized primarily because it runs counter to functioning in a capitalist society, and that many autistic people struggling to survive today might thrive and not be seen as even ‘disabled’ in a world where struggling to make eye contact doesn’t get you disqualified in job interviews…
the rise in people identifying as autistic and diagnoses could be connected the fact that we created a non functioning society that only values extraverted people who are willing to lie and hurt others
Or it could be the strict formalization of psychiatric studies, combined with the more broad based diagnosis and categorization of the school aged working class. We've invested more labor and professional expertise in analyzing public education and its consequences, so we're picking up on a wider variety of psychological variants and aptitudes.
That neurodivergence is pathologized primarily because it runs counter to functioning in a capitalist society
Capitalists are more than happy to profiteer off of neurodivergence both coming - via commodification of prodigy and other unusual pools of talent - and going - via medical marketing and "normalization" therapies. I wouldn't say it runs counter to capitalist social agendas, because nothing runs strictly against an agenda that is fixated exclusively on maximizing future profit. We're continuing to invent exciting new ways to exploit people's psychological differences, always with an eye towards alienation, segregation, and surplus extraction. Identifying and capturing neurodivegent individuals and squeezing them for their productive value has been a big part of the modern Finance Sector and Silicon Valley projects.
in a world where struggling to make eye contact doesn’t get you disqualified in job interviews…
We're creating a world in which everyone interfaces through computers, where individuals are encouraged to self-segregate and alienate one another, and where information is constantly mediated through attention-grabbing infographic spectacles that reward the users for engagement.
This is not a system designed to exclude individuals with autism. This is a system designed to feed on them.
-
Selection bias. All the survivors will say "See! We didn't need the Fauchi Ouchie!" while all the dead won't say anything.
Yes, but we're slowly evolving away the dumbest and most dangerous of the population.
In the past we sent them running eagerly into the meat grinder of war.
Now they're building up like cord wood, and starting to smolder.
-
True, that could also happen, but I wonder how transferable this type of research project is. Does the research lead actually own it and can take it with him or her to a new place, or does Scripps own it? I don't know the answer.
Flash drive or cloud transfer when you flee the country, the modern replacement for briefcases full of blueprints.
-
*seconds
You've never seen a drowning, have you?
-
You've never seen a drowning, have you?
Guilty as charged, enlighten me.
-
the rise in people identifying as autistic and diagnoses could be connected the fact that we created a non functioning society that only values extraverted people who are willing to lie and hurt others
Or it could be the strict formalization of psychiatric studies, combined with the more broad based diagnosis and categorization of the school aged working class. We've invested more labor and professional expertise in analyzing public education and its consequences, so we're picking up on a wider variety of psychological variants and aptitudes.
That neurodivergence is pathologized primarily because it runs counter to functioning in a capitalist society
Capitalists are more than happy to profiteer off of neurodivergence both coming - via commodification of prodigy and other unusual pools of talent - and going - via medical marketing and "normalization" therapies. I wouldn't say it runs counter to capitalist social agendas, because nothing runs strictly against an agenda that is fixated exclusively on maximizing future profit. We're continuing to invent exciting new ways to exploit people's psychological differences, always with an eye towards alienation, segregation, and surplus extraction. Identifying and capturing neurodivegent individuals and squeezing them for their productive value has been a big part of the modern Finance Sector and Silicon Valley projects.
in a world where struggling to make eye contact doesn’t get you disqualified in job interviews…
We're creating a world in which everyone interfaces through computers, where individuals are encouraged to self-segregate and alienate one another, and where information is constantly mediated through attention-grabbing infographic spectacles that reward the users for engagement.
This is not a system designed to exclude individuals with autism. This is a system designed to feed on them.
Or it could be the strict formalization of psychiatric studies, combined with the more broad based diagnosis and categorization of the school aged working class.
Is autism diagnosis really that formalized?
I was tutoring psych the other day, and the book the student had still claimed that women were much less likely to be autistic. It’s fascinating how many women don’t get diagnosed well into their thirties. It makes me really wonder what is being used to diagnosis autism, and how much of it might be affected by the tester’s bias and beliefs.
(Personally, I’ve always wanted to be tested but the 12 month plus waiting list and the $5k not covered by insurance means that I’ll probably continue going through the rest of my life without any form of work accommodation…)
-
This post did not contain any content.
I know my state would find a way to ban this shit. They hate anything that prevents needless suffering.
-
This didn't answer the question for me.
I get the 1st part: They've unhidden a stable spike protein hidden by sugars and used it to create an immune response.
The long-term effectiveness is where I'm getting lost. How will the immune system know when to use these particular anti-bodies in the future? If, say, 5 years after being vaccinated I'm infected, surely the relevant spike proteins are hidden by sugars. So how can my body recognise them as the same protein and make more of the correct anti-bodies?
-
How does the body target the real virus though if it has the camouflage? Can the body just bypass it if it knows whats beneath, but we've been training on the camouflage so it doesn't know?
Like, the camouflage doesn't offer any protection if seen through?
-
This didn't answer the question for me.
I get the 1st part: They've unhidden a stable spike protein hidden by sugars and used it to create an immune response.
The long-term effectiveness is where I'm getting lost. How will the immune system know when to use these particular anti-bodies in the future? If, say, 5 years after being vaccinated I'm infected, surely the relevant spike proteins are hidden by sugars. So how can my body recognise them as the same protein and make more of the correct anti-bodies?
As I understand it, "hidden" is a relative thing. Before exposure one's immune system doesn't know what to look for, after exposure, and immune response, one's T and B cells have a much better chance. That's why denovo immune response to an epitope may not be sufficient, but once the immune system has been 'exposed' or 'educated' the response is much more specific. There are two parts to the immune system, innate, basically structural, and adaptive (T's and B's) that can be primed with certain factors to create a very precise response. The long term nature of immune response is dependent on those cells, which come in number of different 'flavors'. Tissue Resident Macrophages hang out in the area of initial infection, waiting for "that guy" to show up again. They can sit relatively dormant for years. I don't want to mislead, our understanding of the long term memory function of the immune system isn't completely understood. And so we don't know how long a given immune response will last, at least not yet. Does that help? I'm not an immunology prof, or researcher, so I may not have been clear.
-
from what ive gathered from the abstract,t he glycosolation prevents a more robust immune response, less antibody titers, when they removed it they noticed the immune system recognizes the spike proteins more easily so a stronger immune response and more antibody produced, and a longer titre of antibodies.
first when they removed the "glycans" it revealed more of the protein of the virus, so the immune system recognizes different parts or more of it, so stronger and longer last immune response. the conserved parts is the parts of the proteins that dont mutate much so its easier to become immune to it, the sugars originally hid that part.
Generally I think you've got it. One thing to add, when you say protein above it's specifically the Spike Protein.
This article goes into it on a much deeper level than I would be able to explain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus_spike_protein
"The function of the spike glycoprotein is to mediate viral entry into the host cell by first interacting with molecules on the exterior cell surface and then fusing the viral and cellular membranes. " Because the spike protein is needed for mediating viral entry to the cell it has to remain in a particular structure to do that job. And so major changes to it would make it work less effectively, some minor changes might not, thus is is relatively unchanging a.k.a. conserved, because if it changed on a given virus particle, that particle wouldn't function, and thus wouldn't replicate.
