Social Joe Rogan tells his massive audience that healthy young people shouldn't get vaccinated

It’s super basic. When someone is infected, you have hundreds of millions of virus particles. The virus is picking up mutations due to errors occurring during the replication process. Increasing immunity means fewer infections. Fewer infections means less virus replication. Less virus replication leads to fewer opportunities for the virus to pick up dangerous mutations in humans. Less opportunity to mutate = lower risk of new variants.
Again, can you show me the data, or even estimates, on how many mutations of COVID we will stop through vaccination?
 
I actually do realize I’m not an expert in the field, that’s why I read what professionals write, and what I’ve read is that viruses mutate constantly, and that mRNA viruses mutate at a relatively high rate in addition.

Do you any sources that state otherwise?

If not, can you show me the data, or even estimates, on how many mutations of COVID we will stop through vaccination?

Edit:
Damn, didn’t realize I was responding to one of Sherdog’s biggest trolls, my bad.

<[analyzed}>

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33064680/

Both viruses depend on a viral RNA polymerase to express their proteins, but only SARS-CoV-2 has a proofreading mechanism, which results in a low mutation rate compared to influenza. E1KC4 and camostat mesylate are potential inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 S protein, achieving an effect similar to oseltamivir. Due to the SARS-CoV-2 low mutation rate, nucleoside analogs have been developed (such as EIDD-2801), which insert lethal mutations in the viral RNA. Furthermore, the SARS-CoV-2 low mutation rate suggests that a vaccine, as well as the immunity developed in recovered patients, could provide long-lasting protection compared to vaccines against influenza, which are rendered obsolete as the virus mutates.

https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-mutation-rate.html

Specifically, SARS-CoV-2 seems to have a mutation rate of less than 25 mutations per year, whereas the seasonal flu has a mutation rate of almost 50 mutations per year.

Given that the SARS-CoV-2 genome is almost twice as large as the seasonal flu genome, it seems as though the seasonal flu mutates roughly four times as fast as SARS-CoV-2. The fact that the seasonal flu mutates so quickly is precisely why it is able to evade our vaccines, so the significantly slower mutation rate of SARS-CoV-2 gives us hope for the potential development of effective long-lasting vaccines against the virus.
 
Last edited:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33064680/

Both viruses depend on a viral RNA polymerase to express their proteins, but only SARS-CoV-2 has a proofreading mechanism, which results in a low mutation rate compared to influenza. E1KC4 and camostat mesylate are potential inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 S protein, achieving an effect similar to oseltamivir. Due to the SARS-CoV-2 low mutation rate, nucleoside analogs have been developed (such as EIDD-2801), which insert lethal mutations in the viral RNA. Furthermore, the SARS-CoV-2 low mutation rate suggests that a vaccine, as well as the immunity developed in recovered patients, could provide long-lasting protection compared to vaccines against influenza, which are rendered obsolete as the virus mutates.

https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-mutation-rate.html

Specifically, SARS-CoV-2 seems to have a mutation rate of less than 25 mutations per year, whereas the seasonal flu has a mutation rate of almost 50 mutations per year.

Given that the SARS-CoV-2 genome is almost twice as large as the seasonal flu genome, it seems as though the seasonal flu mutates roughly four times as fast as SARS-CoV-2. The fact that the seasonal flu mutates so quickly is precisely why it is able to evade our vaccines, so the significantly slower mutation rate of SARS-CoV-2 gives us hope for the potential development of effective long-lasting vaccines against the virus.
Not sure why you are specifically comparing RNA to the flu... but my point stands, it is common understanding that RNA mutates quickly.

“RNA viruses have an extremely high mutation rate, and we argue that the most plausible explanation for this is a trade-off with replication speed... The single most important feature of RNA viruses is their high mutation rate.”
https://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(08)00055-4

Maybe you can answer my question though, can you show me the data, or even estimates, on how many mutations of COVID we will stop through vaccination?
 
Again, can you show me the data, or even estimates, on how many mutations of COVID we will stop through vaccination?

These are questions with no answers. I'm sure computational epidemiologist have complex models to project such estimates, but this would always be changing. The basic idea to understand is that the virus needs hosts in order to replicate. Outside the intrinsic properties of the virus itself, the number of mutations to some extent is a numbers game. The more hosts, the more likely there will be a variant with problematic mutations.
 
These are questions with no answers.

Exactly. You are extrapolating some sort of ideal outcome based on VERY limited data (reduced cases lead to reduced opportunity for mutation). The costs of vaccination are significant and must be weighed very carefully against their benefit, obviously.

Regarding the mutation argument specifically, you have failed to even propose the actual rate of reduction. Sure, reduced cases equals reduced mutations... and? Are we talking about a 10% reduction in mutations over the next two years of administering vaccines to the world? Do you actually have any idea?

Once you get your numbers figured out, you then need to explain how this translates to reduced death and injury from COVID, as in, what is the net benefit we’re talking about if we go all out to reduce mutations?

If you can’t begin to quantify this information, then you have not earned the right, or even the scientific rationale, the foist an unproven vaccination upon the entire world in pursuit of some vague pipe dream.
 
Not sure why you are specifically comparing RNA to the flu... but my point stands, it is common understanding that RNA mutates quickly.

“RNA viruses have an extremely high mutation rate, and we argue that the most plausible explanation for this is a trade-off with replication speed... The single most important feature of RNA viruses is their high mutation rate.”
https://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(08)00055-4

Maybe you can answer my question though, can you show me the data, or even estimates, on how many mutations of COVID we will stop through vaccination?

Mutates quickly compared to what?
 
Exactly. You are extrapolating some sort of ideal outcome based on VERY limited data (reduced cases lead to reduced opportunity for mutation). The costs of vaccination are significant and must be weighed very carefully against their benefit, obviously.

Regarding the mutation argument specifically, you have failed to even propose the actual rate of reduction. Sure, reduced cases equals reduced mutations... and? Are we talking about a 10% reduction in mutations over the next two years of administering vaccines to the world? Do you actually have any idea?

Once you get your numbers figured out, you then need to explain how this translates to reduced death and injury from COVID, as in, what is the net benefit we’re talking about if we go all out to reduce mutations?

If you can’t begin to quantify this information, then you have not earned the right, or even the scientific rationale, the foist an unproven vaccination upon the entire world in pursuit of some vague pipe dream.
Who cares about this pathetic, nitpicked dithering over estimations of mutation depression.

The contraction rate of the unvaccinated in the USA is over 750 times as high as for the vaccinated. Meanwhile, so far, in the USA, deaths stand at 1.78% of confirmed total cases. So you're losing as many as 178 people out of 1000 who become infected. Going forward, on a hypothetical level, this is the difference between 12 people dying in New York City, and 8,850 people dying. Literally dying. We won't squander time discussing other short-term and long-term health impacts.

Nearly 600K dead in the USA to date, and we already know that about the difference in transmission between vaccinate versus unvaccinated. Vaccine proponents have every right in the world. Millions of future deaths will be spared in the next decade alone. That's what we have to gain. That's without considering the impact to the economy if the pandemic is sustained, or the vastly more expensive healthcare costs associated with treating the diseased rather than disseminating vaccines to prevent disease. So the burden isn't on them. The burden is on you anti-vaxxers to fastidiously, concretely detail what is lost.

Have fun ice skating uphill.
 
Who cares about this pathetic, nitpicked dithering over estimations of mutation depression.

The contraction rate of the unvaccinated in the USA is over 750 times as high as for the vaccinated. Meanwhile, so far, in the USA, deaths stand at 1.78% of confirmed total cases. So you're losing as many as 178 people out of 1000 who become infected. Going forward, on a hypothetical level, this is the difference between 12 people dying in New York City, and 8,850 people dying. Literally dying. We won't squander time discussing other short-term and long-term health impacts.

Nearly 600K dead in the USA to date, and we already know that about the difference in transmission between vaccinate versus unvaccinated. Vaccine proponents have every right in the world. Millions of future deaths will be spared in the next decade alone. That's what we have to gain. That's without considering the impact to the economy if the pandemic is sustained, or the vastly more expensive healthcare costs associated with treating the diseased rather than disseminating vaccines to prevent disease. So the burden isn't on them. The burden is on you anti-vaxxers to fastidiously, concretely detail what is lost.

Have fun ice skating uphill.

I missed the part about whether there are any long term effects for these rushed "vaccines". Any idea?
 
Who cares about this pathetic, nitpicked dithering over estimations of mutation depression.

The contraction rate of the unvaccinated in the USA is over 750 times as high as for the vaccinated. Meanwhile, so far, in the USA, deaths stand at 1.78% of confirmed total cases. So you're losing as many as 178 people out of 1000 who become infected. Going forward, on a hypothetical level, this is the difference between 12 people dying in New York City, and 8,850 people dying. Literally dying. We won't squander time discussing other short-term and long-term health impacts.

Nearly 600K dead in the USA to date, and we already know that about the difference in transmission between vaccinate versus unvaccinated. Vaccine proponents have every right in the world. Millions of future deaths will be spared in the next decade alone. That's what we have to gain. That's without considering the impact to the economy if the pandemic is sustained, or the vastly more expensive healthcare costs associated with treating the diseased rather than disseminating vaccines to prevent disease. So the burden isn't on them. The burden is on you anti-vaxxers to fastidiously, concretely detail what is lost.

Have fun ice skating uphill.

Right. Except my numbers show somewhere north of 99.9% survival rates for healthy individuals, and do not include people who were exposed but did not develop serious enough symptoms to be tested.

Meanwhile your numbers are all people who died who tested positive for COVID and died, regardless of the primary reason they died. In addition, your numbers are massively boosted due to governors deliberately sending sick seniors from the hospital into nursing homes, killing tens of thousands.

You believe in lockdowns of citizens and forced vaccinations along with open borders, and we’re the ones skating uphill? Please enjoy your participation in the human trials of an experimental vaccine developed in a rush with new technology. So far the data shows me that the vaccine is more likely to kill a young healthy individual than COVID is.
 
AstraZeneca vaccine more likely to cause bloodclot than covid-19 cause serious illness in young people.
Think about that.
 
Who cares about this pathetic, nitpicked dithering over estimations of mutation depression.

The contraction rate of the unvaccinated in the USA is over 750 times as high as for the vaccinated. Meanwhile, so far, in the USA, deaths stand at 1.78% of confirmed total cases. So you're losing as many as 178 people out of 1000 who become infected. Going forward, on a hypothetical level, this is the difference between 12 people dying in New York City, and 8,850 people dying. Literally dying. We won't squander time discussing other short-term and long-term health impacts.

Nearly 600K dead in the USA to date, and we already know that about the difference in transmission between vaccinate versus unvaccinated. Vaccine proponents have every right in the world. Millions of future deaths will be spared in the next decade alone. That's what we have to gain. That's without considering the impact to the economy if the pandemic is sustained, or the vastly more expensive healthcare costs associated with treating the diseased rather than disseminating vaccines to prevent disease. So the burden isn't on them. The burden is on you anti-vaxxers to fastidiously, concretely detail what is lost.

Have fun ice skating uphill.

You mean 17 people out of 1000

Not 178....

And all these stats about total deaths always ignores that 80%+ are 70 and older... likely very sick already.

These are the same people who have extreme issues from common infections like colds and flu.

For healthy people under 50, that stat is more like 5 or less for every 1000.

If the virus death rate was 178 per 1000... there’s be almost 6 million dead in the US alone
 
You mean 17 people out of 1000

Not 178....

And all these stats about total deaths always ignores that 80%+ are 70 and older... likely very sick already.

These are the same people who have extreme issues from common infections like colds and flu.

For healthy people under 50, that stat is more like 5 or less for every 1000.
The stats are flawed anyway. The death percent on confirmed cases completely neglects the asymptomatic and not tested population, which probably makes up more than 50 percent of the overall cases in reality.
The death count is much lower than anything we think.
 
Who cares about this pathetic, nitpicked dithering over estimations of mutation depression.

All the dupes who constantly blather on about “stopping mutations” apparently care, at least until they have to actually support this asinine idea with facts or details...

Vaccine zealots: “wE hAve To SToP tHe MutATiOnS.”

Normal people: “Ok, is that even possible and what impact will “stopping mutations” have on health outcomes?”

Vaccine zealots: “WHo caReS aBOut VIrUs MUtaTionS (inserts unrelated provax propaganda) FOlLow ThE SciEncE!”
 
All the dupes who constantly blather on about “stopping mutations” apparently care, at least until they have to actually support this asinine idea with facts or details...

Vaccine zealots: “wE hAve To SToP tHe MutATiOnS.”

Normal people: “Ok, is that even possible and what impact will “stopping mutations” have on health outcomes?”

Vaccine zealots: “WHo caReS aBOut VIrUs MUtaTionS (inserts unrelated provax propaganda) FOlLow ThE SciEncE!”

bitches about science yet is either too ignorant and/or too stupid to understand it.
 
All the dupes who constantly blather on about “stopping mutations” apparently care, at least until they have to actually support this asinine idea with facts or details...

Vaccine zealots: “wE hAve To SToP tHe MutATiOnS.”

Normal people: “Ok, is that even possible and what impact will “stopping mutations” have on health outcomes?”

Vaccine zealots: “WHo caReS aBOut VIrUs MUtaTionS (inserts unrelated provax propaganda) FOlLow ThE SciEncE!”
Would the flu vaccine stop all the flu mutations?

No
 
Back
Top