Thanks for the clarification.

Residing in Texas.
Have both Pfizer injections and the card.
Wife is a procrastinator .

One of her city workers just had their 4 old year kid helicoptered out because local hospitals are full. Kid was not immunized. The kids Dad thinks like Sundial.
This did not make the local news. Or I would have posted a link.

https://www.cbs7.com/search/?searchTerm=pecos+covid



I roll with pragmatic reasoning. Not airy fairy fear theories.
All professional health care workers worth a damn recommend getting the shots.
Since I am vaccinated. I lose no sleep over this any more.

Of course the 4-year-old wasn't vaccinated, as that would have been illegal. It's not even emergency authorized for children yet.

Was he brought in because of COVID? Does he have other health problems? Do you know if he'll be alright?

Not sure. Just happened. No other health problems and the kids Mom and Dad are healthy also.

Shot was mentioned as just info. So was the kids Dad way of looking at this.
So not sure also about masking and such in their house hold.
Arm chair quarter backing won't fix this.
As we used to say in the USMC, " Better him than me. "

Seems over thinking shortens mortality rates in some families.

I just found interesting question. Can mRNA technology be responsible for excessive virus mutation? How reasonably this sounds?

Say person vaccinated with mRNA vaccine has larger chances to develop mutation. I mean mutations come from somewhere. Analogy is broken ecosystem due to human intervention.

Continually spamming unfounded definition based "arguments" thereby dragging the discussion into useless debates over semantics isn't wrong? I guess you mean it isn't against the rules, which yeah, probably too subjective to have a rule against it (and perhaps half the blame falls on the people who try to argue the asserted definitions), but still. (this isn't even confined to political topics, e.g., trying to define UDP ports out of existence)

Sure, it would be nice to have some arguments on the anti-vax side that aren't totally obvious BS.

It doesn't look like you're proposing any way for the vaccine to induce mutations in the virus. Especially since the half life of mRNA in human cells is a few hours, in the vast majority of cases there won't be anything left by the time the vaccinated person is exposed to the virus.

http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gross/bioed...dules/mRNA.htm
https://bionumbers.hms.harvard.edu/b...aspx?id=104747

Mutations come from inaccurate copying of the virus RNA during replication. This always happens, and was certainly happening before any vaccines were introduced.

I've seen some arguments that vaccines could cause a selection pressure in favour of immune-escaping variants, possibly moreso than natural immunity since the vaccines mostly focus on the spike protien (with the exception of some inactivated virus vaccines).

No, it can't because there are no actual virus particles in the vaccine, therefore nothing that could evolve. It's just a single RNA molecular sequence synthesised in a laboratory. In fact your question is much more relevant to traditional vaccines based on weakened viruses. It is theoretically possible that such a virus could recover its virulence through some kind of mutation; I don't know if this has ever happened.

All the known covid variants of concern have developed in places where the disease was raging. That is true of alpha (in Kent last year), beta (in South Africa), gamma (in South America) and delta (in India). No dangerous variant has developed so far in a country in which vaccination was widespread.

What is happening to this molecular sequence? Virus mutates inside our own cells, am I right? Say if person is already infected and taking mRNA vaccine shot - then what we may expect?

Getting your information from twitter, or articles based upon tweets and conspiracy theory, is quite stupid when there are definitive articles by medical experts available. The statistics reported to, collated by, and reported from the CDC are the gold standard for accurate pandemic information for this country.

The mRNA techniques are specifically designed to pattern and kick-start the immune system, then be cleansed from the body quickly. RNA does not last long as a free agent in the body. It has no lasting effect except that upon the immune system. This means that side effects are easy to detect because they either exhibit very quickly or not at all. This information is also available from definitive sources.

Radio and television personalities, politicians, and your opinionated uncle Bob (and people like me) are not the best authorities for technical information and statistics on medical subjects, the CDC is.

For the world-wide picture, the WHO information is better since they collect information form all over the world.

Your answer is one of reasons why people don't want to get vaccines. I asked rather precise question. Instead of plain answer you are accuse me for listening to conspiracy theories.

This is a way to avoid to provide precise answer - because precise answer would be not convenient for people supporting vaccinations.

This kind of pattern is almost everywhere: ignore. Just ignore people raising doubts. But I am person addicted to independent thinking. So seeing this "let ignore" pattern - sure I got doubtful.

Regrettably situation is developing in direction my doubts grown even more than at the beginning.

One thing is for sure: people supporting vaccinations suffer lack of arguments. They just repeat the same and the same all around. The only change is from "it is good to your health" to "it is good to your health, but also others, it is act of solidarity".

But in this there is only frustration of people who made decision and expect others to make the same decision.

But honestly those who got vaccine: did you get it because of solidarity with other people? In other words: what was your own main reason to do that? And where this "solidarity" came from later, if the main reason was just your own health? In the first place.

The last word: there is no science here. Probably even sociology student would provide arguments that it is not possible in modern society to reach very high level of vaccination - just due to our common human social behavior. This is also science. And this also should be taken into consideration. From that of point of view - actions to enforce vaccination is completely unjustified on base what we know about psychological and social human behavior.

Hear, hear.Er, the CDC is a government agency under political control. As you wrote:Meaning they can act as a filter for the information that is to reach the public at large. Not a problem if their agenda is purely to ensure only high-quality information is considered, but a huge problem if they take any other matters into consideration.

Case in point: Masks.Unfortunately, the W.H.O. has also been displaying significant political leanings.

In this particular matter, they've shown a strange and illogical reluctance to accept any scientific arguments not aligning with the current stance of a certain political regime. This happens to align perfectly with the political leanings of their current Director-General, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

Rather than trusting institutions that do not do actual research but instead filters information from other sources, I'd recommend going directly to the actual sources.

@igadoter. I gave you a brief technical explanation of why an RNA vaccine can't "mutate". Didn't you read it

I wanted explanation what is happening to mRNA. Does it modifies cell's RNA? What if cell with modified RNA is being infected by virus?

I am not a specialist about viruses. Neither bio-technologists. And I am really tired for searching "reliable sources" which would explain how all this works.

Around us is just total medial chaos. Now for sure it is not possible for common person to reach some conclusions about vaccines. I mean person in doubt. Person who is trying to listen to both sides.

The mRNA vaccine works by basically infecting cells, replacing the cell's DNA instructions with the RNA in the vaccine. This causes the cell to produce whatever the RNA tells it to, and then die.

This may sound dramatic, but it is exactly what happens whenever you're infected with a regular virus. The difference is that while a virus reprograms a cell to produce more viruses, the mRNA vaccine tells the cells to produce a specific protein. In this case that's a SARS-CoV-2 "spike" protein; a tiny protein found on the outside of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

The idea is that the presence of these proteins in the bloodstream will cause the immune system to go "hey, that's not supposed to be there!" and target it for destruction. Once the immune system is taught that these proteins are "bad", we should expect to see a similar but much quicker response when a SARS-CoV-2 virus infection occurs.

Now I think that it is possible that mRNA vaccines may affect way virus mutates. Chance of occurrence situation where such interaction can take place is probably astronomically small. But from other hand it is balanced by great number of infections.

But of course these are only my private speculations. It is like puzzle. We have pieces of puzzle. We try to connect pieces into something reasonable. But there are many possible ways to connect.