I'm struggling with this ...more cases equal greater risk of mutations discussion.....

...On the face of it, the accepted argument is that more widespread the virus, the more cases, the greater the -likelihood of a mutation which makes sense, certainly in the early, mid stages of a pandemic...

However... a virus mutation, rather like evolutionary changes, occurs through multiple iteration of the same specific viral infection... multiple vulnerable people contract it... and it passes to person B; C;D and so on and each iteration leads to variants some of which may be more virulant, contagious etc.

Now that is where the vaccine and the fact that younger more resistent (better immune respones) means fewer viable hosts remain for the virus to successfully attack.

Where I am struggling is that given how many people are now either vaccinated/ have high natural immunity and therefore have a strong resistance to the virus, the chain of iterations a single virus goes through to mutate is less likely than when it encounters many optional hosts that lack that resistence.
Many viruses that infect a host will die or be severely weakened if that host has a sufficiently to fight off the attack leading to fewer iterations in the network. Unlike bacteria, viruses are parasitic and need a viable host to survive. It either kills the host or is killed BY the host.

OK, so in the shortened interim period between infecting a new host and dying or killing the host it has to find a new viable host. If one is found, if that new host has high levels of resistence, then the already weakened virus is killed or is further severely weakened.

Some of the above is factual but the conclusionsn I draw may all be complete bol*ox - not for the first time- (where is a virologist when you need one) but I believe the obsession with media in reporting new cases misses (as others have said) the main indicators of hospital admissions through Covid, deaths per 100000 new cases and also (as they report here) if those that died had pre existing condition and/or were old. Around 96% of Covid deaths here have been people with pre-exisiting medical conditions and the vast majority of those were in their 80s, 9os, and centenarians. There is a certain validity to the argument above evidenced by the huge increase in new cases not matched by a corresponding rise in deaths and serious cases requiring hospitalisation. The biggest risk of mutations nevertheless is from countries where the vaccination programme is slow or in extreme cases virtually non existent.

For those on here who rush to the experts know more than people on Facebook etc, the biggest problem here is scientists unless debating theoretical concepts, are usually in accord with conclusions based on empirical evidence having used control samples etc . Where they disagree, it ceases to be 'science' and becomes 'opinions' . I am always suspicious of scientific conclusions drawn solely or mainly from statistics.

 

Good god variant Covid threads are cropping up more often than the bloody Covid variant itself

 

That isn't necessarily how it works. If the vaccine infects somebody who has had the vaccine, mutates to become resistant to their immune response, and is then passed on to somebody else, regardless of if they have had the vaccine or not the strain will be be more resistant to the effects of the virus.

This is what we have been seeing with antibiotics. where some diseases are now completely resistant to common medicines. All it takes is one person to create a resistant variant.

 

Basically it's the combination of high occurrence of the virus in society, lack of control measures to restrict spread and the high number of vaccinated and partially vaccinated people potentially exposed to people carrying the virus.

If we're completely locked down and I get a strain of virus that mutates (randomly) to be resistant to the current vaccines. I'm stuck at home, and if I obey the rules there's a decent chance I give the virus to hardly any other people (maybe even none). Thus the vaccine resistant strain dies when my immune system kills it off.

If everyone is wandering around freely and a vaccine resistant strain emerges. Not only can it spread freely but it has a shedload of people walking around who are double jabbed and think they're immune therefore are less likely to follow any guidance. I completely agree it's all theoretical but there's definitely merit to this argument.

This piece in New Zealand interviews two virologists and they are pretty blunt about what they think about what we're doing over here:

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/uks-awful-experiment-will-threaten-nz

Edit:

And now 1200 scientist from around the world have written an open letter in the Lancet to try and persuade Johnson easing restrictions is a bad and dangerous plan. And at a virtual summit today the concept of selection for vaccine resistance was discussed even further:

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/07/16...ockdowns-a-danger-to-whole-world-experts.html

 

Spot on, it's not the likelyhood of a vaccine resistant strain occurring that is the problem, that will happen whatever we do, it's the spread of that variant in the population. Particularly if that population now think they are totally immune....

 

That makes sense..

Also I read this... ' https://www.breakthroughs.com/advan...w-do-viruses-mutate-and-what-it-means-vaccine ......Wibble!

 

Am I not correct in thinking that a new variant could emerge at any moment though? Tomorrow, next year, in a decade etc. If we remove restrictions tomorrow you say that it creates a perfect breeding ground for a variant to spread throughout the population as people will mix and will think they're invincible as they've been vaccinated. You believe we should stay under restrictions to prevent that happening.

Ok so let's say we stay under restrictions for ten more years. We then go out. Why would it be any different? Why wouldn't a variant appear?

 

It's the high levels of the virus in the general population currently that is the concern. The likelihood of variants emerging are much higher in this situation where the virus is spreading unchecked. Once the program is complete enough that we reach the fabled 'herd immunity' that everyone likes to talk about, the likelihood of a vaccine immune strain emerging and spreading is much lower though not impossible. That combined with the amount of global resources being used to produce and distribute the current vaccine would massively slow down our ability to produce and distribute a replacement vaccine. Once levels are lower and we have population immunity across most of the globe, we'll be much more capable of taking on new variants head on.

We don't need to stay under restrictions forever but the argument is that we're jumping the gun doing it in this situation. Even SAGE'S report which is tailored specifically as an argument to open up (clearly authored by a politician or someone politically motivated) mentions how many unknowns there are currently and the risk of new strains emerging at current infection levels.

It's notable that global scientific consensus is that our decision endangers the worldwide vaccination program. Even Independent SAGE have advised against it emphasises the weight to this argument.

I fall into the camp that we need to wait but I respect what you're saying. And you're right in that there's no certainties in these situations. If we stay under restrictions they could end up staying well into next year. If we lift restrictions right now we run the risk of detailing the vaccine program and having to start over and end up under restrictions until well into next year.

 

Exactly that. Let's all just stay in our homes locked down, containing unknown variants, having no tolerance to common cold etc, and waiting for death. This is in no way a slur on the poster you've responded to, more factions of certain scientists and politicians who seemingly see no end. We need to learn to live with the virus and welcome life back into our lives. We can't open up and lock down ad infinitum.