I didn't read it as a stretch because first generation vaccines used in the campaigns all have shared targeting, and medical treatment is being discounted.
> Such a narrow molecular focus raises the specter of viral immune evasion as a potential failure mode for these biomedical interventions
This was from [1]
> Backing up a provocative claim with a snowblind of irrelevant references is a shameful misinformation tactic and you should stop doing it immediately. Doing it in a public health context is particularly dangerous and frankly disgusting.
Please, be kind.
The references were applicable but not written for the everyday consumer.
It's not valid to go from "vaccine escape may occur" to "mass vaccination is a public health risk". You can't claim B, which doesn't follow from A, and follow B up with a bunch of citations that only support A. That's misinformation about a high-stakes public issue, it's irresponsible, and it warrants harsh criticism.
You're disregarding the nuances and evidence put forth in the cited literature - either intentionally or out of ignorance.
A much more fair representation is: "vaccine escape is exceedingly likely to occur under the conditions of mass vaccination combined with a vaccine that does not necessarily prevent infection and transmission, and which induces an immune response highly targeted toward the spike protein RBD"
In that case B absolutely follows from A. To argue otherwise is a non-sequiter.
Even if vaccine escape eventually occurs, it doesn't follow that mass vaccination itself is a bad policy. You have to weigh the consequences of the escape against the consequences of not mass vaccinating.
The consequences of not mass vaccinating are "a lot of people die that wouldn't have with the vaccine", so the consequences of escape need to be pretty dire to outweigh that. Does escape make the virus significantly more dangerous than it would have been if the vaccine were not used on such a large scale? It's unclear.
To answer that, one critical question would be whether the vaccine somehow hinders the immune system from developing a more complex and robust response to the virus. I have not seen anything that speaks to that question yet.
Antibiotic resistance don't make us regret the use of antibiotics. We just avoid using them without evidence that they are needed, and we use them in combination with other measures. Mass vaccination and a more targeted campaign are both consistent with both of those principles, and nuanced evidence and reasoning would be needed to favor one over the other.
> You have to weigh the consequences of the escape against the consequences of not mass vaccinating
Yes, agreed.
At this point we're talking in circles. It's obvious you believe that the benefits of compulsory mass vaccination outweigh the potential consequences of vaccine induced immune escape, even though you admit that "it's unclear" whether compulsory mass vaccination will make the virus even more lethal and potentially lead to even more suffering and death.
I won't continue on with the debate because no further evidence is being provided, and frankly we're in agreement that the calculus is intractable right now, and only in disagreement on whether it's acceptable to call compulsory mass vaccination a public health risk, so it's just semantics at this point.
> one critical question would be whether the vaccine somehow hinders the immune system from developing a more complex and robust response to the virus
Here is some literature that provides preliminary answers [1][2]. The summary is that natural infection induces an immune response which includes nucleocapsid protein antibodies, whereas vaccination using the current mRNA formulations does not. Compared to natural infection, vaccination induces an immune response that is more highly targeted toward the spike protein RBD. In terms of individual health outcomes, neither of these papers address whether natural infection offers better or worse immune protection compared to vaccination.
[2] Antibodies elicited by mRNA-1273 vaccination bind more broadly to the receptor binding domain than do those from SARS-CoV-2 infection
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34103407/
Not talking in circles I think - I'm happy with where we landed. Sorry I started off harsh. You sounded too close to an antivaxxer trying to pass your opinions off as authoritative, and semantics really do matter there. I'm glad to see your ideas are much more nuanced and I think we largely agree at this point. To get any clearer we probably need input from proper vaccinologists. And hopefully they are informing policy, although that's no guarantee in this bungled response we've had.
> Such a narrow molecular focus raises the specter of viral immune evasion as a potential failure mode for these biomedical interventions
This was from [1]
> Backing up a provocative claim with a snowblind of irrelevant references is a shameful misinformation tactic and you should stop doing it immediately. Doing it in a public health context is particularly dangerous and frankly disgusting.
Please, be kind.
The references were applicable but not written for the everyday consumer.