Mini-Throughput: Omicron Edition

Michael Siegel

Michael Siegel is an astronomer living in Pennsylvania. He blogs at his own site, and has written a novel.

Related Post Roulette

26 Responses

  1. As the other Mike said, mutation is an inevitable consequence of virus replication, not caused by or made worse by vaccines. But the more replication, the more instances of mutation, and the higher the chance for a truly dangerous one. And the way to minimize that is for fewer people to get infected and for those who are infected to recover sooner. In other words, for everyone who can to get vaccinated.Report

  2. Oscar Gordon says:

    Another thing to remember (that I have mentioned before) is that our immune system is not static either, it constantly mutates antibodies so that it has a store of potentialities at it’s disposal.Report

  3. Kazzy says:

    Is it possible that folks have been exposed to some variant of Covid, their body was able to resist it naturally, and as a result their better positioned to resist future exposure?Report

    • JS in reply to Kazzy says:

      Being exposed to COVID and being exposed to a COVID vaccine generate the same “resist the virus naturally” response.

      Except in two ways.

      First, a vaccine simulates a really strong COVID infection but does not actually make you sick, meaning you do not damage your body with COVID. That’s definitely preferable, given the sort of damage COVID can do to the heart and lungs. It’s not like a new COVID variant will damage a different area of the body, and even a mild case of COVID can see permanent damage to your lungs, for instance

      So vaccines give you a very robust immune response, without the whole “getting sick and possibly permanently less healthy” bit.

      Second, vaccines force your body to target the spike protein — the bit of COVID that is least likely to mutate (given it’s key to infection), so your immune response will cover “more” variants of COVID. Whereas an immune response to a COVID infection may or may not target the spike protein, in which case your body may be keyed to an area with far more viable mutations.

      Seriously, a vaccine is just like getting deathly ill with the thing you’re vaccinated with, only you don’t get sick and don’t take damage.Report

      • Kazzy in reply to JS says:

        Sorry, this wasn’t really what I was getting at.

        We know that folks can develop immunity through vaccines.
        We know that folks can develop immunity through a prior infection.

        I’m wondering about people like my sons. They spent 5 days with their mother while she was infected, including the second day after exposure up until the first day of experiencing any symptoms. This was primarily her pre-symptomatic period. They then came to my house, a few days later her infection was confirmed, and the three of us quarantined. This was in March 2020 so we were unable to get tested because we never showed symptoms. We all took anti-body tests in May and they were all negative. Given some issues with accuracy that isn’t a guarantee none of us had it, but the likelihood is low.

        So… they were exposed but seemingly never got sick. I imagine that means somehow their body fought off the virus before it could take hold and do anything that would qualify as an infection. Maybe they have a robust immune system, maybe they had some inherent immunity, maybe we just got really lucky. Who knows.

        But, after that, were they likely to have a stronger resistance than before because they theoretically already fought it off once?

        I’m not relying on that… they’ve already gotten one shot and are due for their second shot this weekend, about as early as was possible for their age group.

        I’m just wondering… does exposure-but-no-infection potentially offer any improved immune response/resistance?Report

        • JS in reply to Kazzy says:

          They likely had an asymptomatic infection.

          But I’m still not sure what you mean by “stronger”. Stronger than what? What do you mean by “stronger”?

          In general, the longer and more severe an illness — the stronger and more durable your immune response is later. Although “more severe” is more about viral load than actual symptoms, but the two tend to go hand in hand.

          The vaccine doses simulate a really, really bad case of COVID-19. Your body is told to produce a whole lot of spike proteins, simulating a serious case of COVID in terms of viral load, while neutralizing the symptoms. Asymptomatic COVID is a pretty mild version of COVID (although kids have robust immune systems that might have higher viral loads than their symptoms show).

          So in short: Robust kid immune systems in general aside: Your children, if they actually had an asymptomatic case, will have a stronger and faster response than if they’d not had any exposure — because they almost certainly have some memory b cells with that antibody profile. But, they likely won’t have nearly as strong a reaction as if they’d had a serious case, and certainly not as strong and swift a reaction as if they’d been vaccinated.

          Both together is likely to provide a very robust response. (Boosters work by simulating re-exposure to the illness, and your immune system tends to react pretty heavily — and devote a lot more memory b cells for long-term resistance — to repeat infections. Also, a repeat exposure will cause your body to pump out large amounts of antibodies, which means you’re primed to overwhelm or seriously reduce initial viral loads, since your blood is teaming with things designed to bind with that virus and neutralize it BEFORE it can infect cells and replicate)Report

          • Kazzy in reply to JS says:

            I think it is pretty unlikely they had asymptomatic infections. They then lived with me for 14 days. All three of us were negative for antibodies. Even if those tests were just 50% accurate, than the odds of us all coming back negative were 1/16. Not impossible but… low.

            Regardless, I’ll try to summarize my wondering thusly:
            Person A was never ever ever exposed to Covid. They were never anywhere near anyone who ever had it.
            Person B was exposed to Covid. They spent time around someone who was actively infected and contagious. They breathed in the same air as this person. They never got sick… never had symptoms and never tested positive for the virus. The virus touched them but never “took root.”

            Will Person B have a stronger immune response to a subsequent exposure than Person A would?

            If your body was able to fight off an infection, will it become even better at fighting off infections?

            Again, none of this is meant to argue against vaccines. I’m vaxxed and boosted, my kids are soon-to-be-vaxxed. I’m not looking for holes in that argument. Just trying to understand how viruses and immunity work more generally.

            The virus doesn’t infect every person it touches. Some people fight it off before that can happen. Do those people gain anything from that experience?Report

            • PD Shaw in reply to Kazzy says:

              Your hypothetical probably needs to be the same person A under different circumstances because different people have different innate immune response either because of prior corona infections, genetics, age, health factors, etc.

              Assuming Person A in alternative timelines of (a) never infected or (b) asymptomatic infection, I think researchers would likely assume no difference. That is because when they study people’s immune response following a confirmed infection, they see a lot of heterogeneity on reinfection rates.

              AFIK they assume this variation is due to (1) mild infections generating little immunological memory and (2) extremely serious disease can damage the immune system. This assumption is based upon how the immune system works; if significant immunity against reinfection was obtained in the second time line, it probably has to do with individual characteristics.Report

            • JS in reply to Kazzy says:

              In general? Neither Person A nor Person B would have antibodies, and thus their immune responses would start from scratch

              Person B just got lucky in being exposed but not getting infected.

              Your immune system doesn’t really build up and get stronger in general due to repeated infections (it gets better against THAT infection). Laying aside, again, children, because children’s immune systems are primed to be exposed to novel viruses — pretty much why chickenpox at 8 is a lot different an experience than at 38.)

              Your immune system isn’t a muscle. It can’t really be “built up” by anything other than generalized good health, and that’s not “making it stronger” so much as “giving it fewer things to do, so it can devote more of it’s limited resources to whatever it’s currently facing”.

              There are of lots of things that can reduce your immune system’s overall strength, of course.

              “The virus doesn’t infect every person it touches. Some people fight it off before that can happen. Do those people gain anything from that experience?”

              Did they fight it off? Or did they just get lucky and not actually receive a big enough viral load? Your body doesn’t rely JUST on antibodies to prevent infection. Your whole skin, to make an obvious example, works to keep pathogens out of you.

              For a more specific answer: If you were exposed and got a small viral load, it’s possible your T-cells managed to strangle it in the grave (they can detect virus infected cells in general and kill them). They’re front-line defense and can often stop infections before the rest of your immune system is even aware there’s a problem.

              You would not develop antibodies, nor have a ‘stronger’ immune response due to that exposure — because your immune system never really saw it. T-cells saw infected cells and killed them off before viral replication really got going.

              HIV is so pernicious, and was such a killer, because it could infect on of the types of T-cells, using them to replicate. Your killer T-cells really wouldn’t target the helper T-cells, so it was free to replicate and thus absolutely savaged your immune system, leaving a patient wide open to infection from other viruses.Report

  4. Jaybird says:

    Zeynep has a good thread on this:

    She goes on to say the third shot isn’t restoring waning efficacy but improving both quantity and quality of antibodies.

    So get the booster. And we should be prepared to get a booster yearly. And that sucks. But that’s how we get back to normal.Report

    • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

      I thought it was interesting that my PCP during my annual work checkup said I should be sure to get my “third dose.” It felt like an intentional choice of words. That was back in August.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

        While I understand why we have to get a flu shot every year (and I get mine), I also am bracing myself for “fully vaccinated” to mean “four shots”.Report

        • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

          Maybe the idea of “fully vaccinated” is something we need to abandon.

          It seems clear that there is no such thing as absolute immunity, which is to say that even a fully vaccinated person has some risk of contracting the disease.

          It also seems like immunity may ebb over time, due to some combination of waning immunity and virus mutations.

          It may just be that we need a seasonal Covid shot just like we need a seasonal flu shot. Which kinda sucks but is also kinda whatever.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

            Fully vaccinated as an ongoing concern, then.

            Like paying your mortgage.

            Sure, you’re never going to pay it off… but, you know, we can go another month without someone giving you static.Report

          • JS in reply to Kazzy says:

            >Maybe the idea of “fully vaccinated” is something we need to abandon.

            There never was “fully vaccinated” for anything. Check out the efficacies of polio or MMR vaccines, for instance.

            “Fully vaccinated” basically means your system has created antibodies and is capable of producing them again if exposed later. Right now the third shot is really more about forcing your body to create more antibodies to try to no-sell the virus before it can start replicating, rather than you getting mildly sick (as your body plays catch up by restarting COVID antibody production to the very fast replicating delta) because we’re trying to stop it spread so damn much to the morons who won’t vaccinate.

            Antibodies don’t stick around forever, and your body won’t keep pumping them out if you’re not frequently exposed to an illness. The pattern for them is stored, so if you’re reinfected they re-start production (without the lag time of “how do we fight this”.)

            How long antibodies stick around, how fast memory b cells are to re-start antibody production, depends on a number of factors: But in general, the more severe the illness the longer and more durable the immune response. And repeated exposures with high viral loads tend to prime you to faster responses. (Well more that you have far more memory b cells for that virus to pump out the initial response, and so antibody production is much faster in case of re-exposure)Report

    • Susara Blommetjie in reply to Jaybird says:

      Note the last sentence: “We must equitably vaccinate the world as such.” Without good vaccination cover across the entire world population, we will not escape these cycles.Report

    • PD Shaw in reply to Jaybird says:

      The case for a third dose isn’t really about perpetual shots, its that the spacing of the first two doses was the minimal time frame to get for an emergency measure. A longer delay between doses improves the breadth of response to an infection, both by improving recognition of the virus and by increasing the variety of antibody responses to the virus. In some other context, we might have designed the vaccination schedule for two doses, spaced 6 or 12 months apart and we may have achieved the same outcomes.

      Experts that did not agree with a third dose were primarily disagreeing that the vaccine was “waning” (which Zeynep puts in quotes herself), that there was a greater need to get vaccination to other parts of the world and the purpose of vaccination was being changed from protection from serious disease to eradication. Also, Simpson’s paradox and base-rate fallacies.Report

      • JS in reply to PD Shaw says:

        FWIW, HepA and HepB dosing schedule is first dose, 30 days later 2nd dose, 6 months later 3rd.

        I think as a child you get 4 MMR jabs (a month apart around 3 years old, and then two more a month apart at 12).

        There’s nothing special about a 30 day gap, and dosage size and timing were the least tested aspect of the vaccines — they tested that very short term, and looked solely at generating robust antibody responses without serious side effects, that lasted several months.

        Figuring — quite correctly — that optimally spaced doses could be worked out in the future, and that worst case they’d just have to deliver boosters down the line.

        Boosters into an environment with much, much fewer COVID cases using firmly established supply lines at the time.Report

    • fillyjonk in reply to Jaybird says:

      If it takes a booster every six weeks for me to be able to teach in-person with safety for myself and my students, then I’ll do it. Like I said on twitter: get me a loyalty card so I get a Slushie or something for free after 10 boosters.

      And I got a day’s fever and two days hives and swollen armpit lymph nodes after this boosterReport

  5. Jaybird says:

    Welp. It’s here.

    Report

    • Michael Cain in reply to Jaybird says:

      Of course it is. We punch way above our weight in terms of air travel and the resulting exposures. “Above our weight” as in metro Denver is the 19th largest metro in the country, and DIA was third in passengers in 2020.Report

      • PD Shaw in reply to Michael Cain says:

        They might also be testing more. Colorado found the first Brazil variants in the country too, as I recall at two different military bases without any apparent connections. I listened to an interview of the woman whose department made the findings and I think it was a lab primarily dedicated to examining animal pathogens like rabies. I did not get the impression that they were doing any systematic surveillance, but had developed an efficient method of finding the variation they were looking for.

        But unfortunately, we now need to ban travel to and from Colorado for safety’s sake.Report

        • Michael Cain in reply to PD Shaw says:

          Yep. And while everyone was still worrying about China, we were one of the first places to get the Italian version of the virus because a California couple who had been skiing in the Alps decided it was so easy to stop off in Colorado and get in another skiing weekend. And the batch of Australians who all turned out to be infected.

          Will a travel ban stop people moving here? I am intrigued by your suggestion…Report