Covid vaccine - opinions?

Will you take the vaccine when it is available to you?

  • I will take the vaccine

    Votes: 12 70.6%
  • I don't trust the vaccine

    Votes: 4 23.5%
  • Don't know enough yet

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Thrilled there is a vaccine...it feels like there is light at the end of the tunnel

    Votes: 4 23.5%
  • I'll wait to see how it works for others

    Votes: 2 11.8%

  • Total voters
    17

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,626
Reactions
14,784
Points
113
I haven’t seen @Moxie ask for anyone to be cancelled and I don’t recognise her from your post. I don’t even vaguely recognise her from this post, to be honest. We may have some areas of agreement and disagreement politically, depending on the issues, but there are folks on either tribe who are impossible to reason with - Moxie is game for discussion, polite too, and certainly not the type to try get anyone cancelled…
Thanks, Kieran. Actually, before there was even a concept of "cancelling" people, I have often been a moderator/admin on every iteration of what is now Tennis Frontier, going back to tennis.com. You can ask past and current admins...I was always arguing on the side against banning people. I like a lively conversation. I don't even mind Ricardo, though he clearly hates me and never misses an opportunity to express that. He makes me laugh. And every 3 years or so, we agree on something. :lulz1:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kieran

britbox

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
27,403
Reactions
6,211
Points
113
Location
Gold Coast, Australia
You are welcome to fact-check New Tang Dynasty News on your own, then.

I only posted something that said NTD trades...generally...in conspiracy theories. I said nothing about what the doctor had to say. We have yet to discuss that, which is actually about heart damage from the vaccine.

It would be interesting if you would post links to some of these things. I'm not saying I don't believe them, but, like the good doctor, it's not enough to tell me that they exist and expect me to take that on face value. (And in fairness to the doctor, in the original interview, he may have. What we have from Mike is a brief re-hash in Tennis World. That site is just a couple of Italians plucking sentences off the internet and making posts out of them. Most of the stuff they post in English looks like it was translated by Babble Fish, or something. They don't bother me, as it's mostly just tennis bits, but they're pretty much a blog run by a couple of guys. Perhaps the original interview in NTD would be more interesting and illuminating, if anyone could find it.)
Sure, we'll take it to Vax Opinions thread, so as not to derail this thread about Novak.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moxie

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,626
Reactions
14,784
Points
113
Moxie seems perhaps partly brainwashed by the left but at least seems like a nice person..
Don't just buy the opinions of others. You might try asking me. I will tell you, for example, that I'm not such a nice person. :face-with-tears-of-joy:
moxie though just can’t admit she dislikes and attacks djikovic solely because he is better than nadal, she can’t accept it. She attacks djokovic as if djokovic is a bad guy but novak seems like a devoted family man who has strong beliefs about how he approaches health. Everything he does points to genuinely a good man. He has a nice family, obsessed with health and diet, an incredibly hard worker who has a strong mind.. does yoga, meditates, is spiritual, seems sensitive as he gets emotional on the court. He seems joyful and playful off the court. He doesn’t believe he should get vaccinated? That’s it?

reality is that all this is to do with one thing only - rafa fanatism and the perceived threat of novak just going down as the goat. This is 100% the issue with moxie and some of the others in this thread… not sure why this is dofficult to just admit. It ain’t a crime..

moxie sleeps well knowing djokovic may be banned from US open… will have night sweats if one day they announce he will be granted entry…
You expend a lot of energy telling people what "Moxie" thinks. But you tend to actually ignore me when I make considered posts. Too reasonable? You pass right over it. Too on-the-nose about the transgressions of Novak, likewise. Let's face it, he's shot himself in the foot more than a few times in the PR dept. Sorry if you hate it when that gets pointed out. You've said more than once that all he did was refuse to get vaccinated. That's not quite all. You can put all my posts aside and go back to your favorite thing, if you like, which is just making it about fannishness. But why give Kieran a pass, and not me? Kieran actively calls you a fanboy. Over and over again. I haven't done that. Why single me out? I have actually been WAY less rude about Novak and his choices than Kieran has.
 
Last edited:

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,626
Reactions
14,784
Points
113
Like @britbox said, I will take the current Covid vaccine conversation here.

Ok, it starts to get clearer. New Tang Dynasty is related to Epoch Times, which is/was a free paper in NYC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times

It is kind of similar to Russian Times, I think, in terms of being propaganda media. But you can say that Radio Free Europe was propaganda media, so I'll leave it at that.

I found this, which may be what Mike's post from Tennis World was about:

I haven't watched this yet...I AM working...but this might be what the post was about:

 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,626
Reactions
14,784
Points
113
Like @britbox said, I will take the current Covid vaccine conversation here.

Ok, it starts to get clearer. New Tang Dynasty is related to Epoch Times, which is/was a free paper in NYC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times

It is kind of similar to Russian Times, I think, in terms of being propaganda media. But you can say that Radio Free Europe was propaganda media, so I'll leave it at that.

I found this, which may be what Mike's post from Tennis World was about:

I haven't watched this yet...I AM working...but this might be what the post was about:

Sorry...those links just seem to be promos, not really the interviews. If someone else can find them, good luck. But I give up.
 

Ricardo

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
2,674
Reactions
646
Points
113
I haven’t seen @Moxie ask for anyone to be cancelled and I don’t recognise her from your post. I don’t even vaguely recognise her from this post, to be honest. We may have some areas of agreement and disagreement politically, depending on the issues, but there are folks on either tribe who are impossible to reason with - Moxie is game for discussion, polite too, and certainly not the type to try get anyone cancelled…
She loves doing the label, sexist, racist, or whatever cancel culture favorites, when folks voice their opinions….need I say more?
 

Kieran

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
16,965
Reactions
7,229
Points
113
Well, it was my point earlier, that I wasn't saying that NTD is considered "extreme far right", and BB thought I meant the doctor, and you carried on with that. I clarified that I was talking about the news organization, and my point was "extreme," not that it be right or left. And that it is judged, by someone at least on the internet to trade in some shady stuff. Look, all I ever did was check the sources on Mike's post, without even editorializing on the post. Britbox misquoted me, you went with his take, and now the whole thing becomes an indictment on MY politics. Does that seem fair? I actually thought one or both of you might say, "oh, sorry, I read that wrong." Rather than rake me over the coals for what you think I believe, what do you say we discuss this notion that vaccines damage the heart? We haven't even touched that.

If you think there is any comparison between The Guardian and The Daily Mail in terms of journalism then I'm not sure what to say. I was looking for a Daily Mail equivalent on the left. I don't think I know of one. The Daily Mail is like The New York Post. I know of no equivalent on the left, neither here in the US, nor in Spain or Italy.
You took my post personally when I asked why is become a slur to call somebody right wing. I wasn’t necessarily simply referring to your discussion with the Baron. And it HAS become a slur. It’s said in such a way to deny the full validity of what the person is going to say. To dismiss them, as if they shouldn’t be taken seriously. As if everyone who is right wing is more or less from the far right. Which of course has created the problem that if you keep saying that harmless people are akin to the far right, associating them with Nazis, then real Nazis (of which there are very few) somehow get a pass.

I long ago noticed it over here that they introduce the “right wing journalist” in this way, but never say that somebody is left wing. The left have won the culture war and now they’re managing the media. So when you say the Daily Mail has no equivalent on the left, well first I must say that I don’t read the daily Mail so I can’t speak about its content, but I read articles from the Guardian now and then, or the missus will tell me about an article she’s reading that discusses race/brexit/Trump/gender or any of the modern fiery topics and I’ll say, “the guardian?” and she’ll say yes. It boggles the mind to think that anyone gets their news from the guardian. You might as well read Pravda.

On television media, CNN and Fox are twins. CNN is a low level televisual rag, with the exact same purpose as Fox. It’s dishonest, biased, blinkered. Most of the mainstream media is Leftist so it’s difficult to miss it. And so much of it is propaganda, of the “mainly peaceful protests” variety. Because of this, the overwhelming prevalence of the left in the media (and universities, and film making, and television, and book publishing), so many contentious issues get normalised more rapidly, so then innovative terms like “cis woman” suddenly are being casually used, fully accepted as exact terminology, then they get regurgitated on the street - and all without rigorously being examined or argued as to their validity. Of course, examining or arguing them is impossible anyway, as you saw with the activist who Senator Hawley was questioning, who’d heard enough after after two simple questions before she began her evasive spiel of name-calling, lies and misinformation. Malevolence and hysteria, all at the service of avoiding open discussion.

But anyway, I don’t mind your politics. It doesn’t impact me. I hold some views that might be considered “left”, others that wouldn’t be. I argue about these things now and then because I think that the radical left agenda is becoming so pervasive, without getting the critical scrutiny it deserves. And believe me, it deserves plenty of scrutiny, and urgent action to resist it. Like I said before, so much of it is as if they might even be enemies of the state…
 
Last edited:

Kieran

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
16,965
Reactions
7,229
Points
113
Thanks, Kieran. Actually, before there was even a concept of "cancelling" people, I have often been a moderator/admin on every iteration of what is now Tennis Frontier, going back to tennis.com. You can ask past and current admins...I was always arguing on the side against banning people. I like a lively conversation. I don't even mind Ricardo, though he clearly hates me and never misses an opportunity to express that. He makes me laugh. And every 3 years or so, we agree on something. :lulz1:
I remember when you were a moderator on the old tennis.com forum and the big discussion was the mute button so we didn’t have to read Fedfan comments but they wouldn’t know it existed.. :lol6:
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Fiero425 and Moxie

britbox

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
27,403
Reactions
6,211
Points
113
Location
Gold Coast, Australia
Sorry...those links just seem to be promos, not really the interviews. If someone else can find them, good luck. But I give up.
Moxie,

This is Peter McCullough's testimony to the Texas Senate.



He mentions heart issues briefly, but doesn't focus on sports particularly. However, there has been a lot of suppression and censorship, so some of things he and many others have been talking about won't feature on the mainstream.

However, according to his original Wikipedia entry... he is a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons


All the Wiki pages for any doctor or scientist against the worldwide narrative have been either created or edited to display they are spreading "COVID-19 misinformation".
 

rafanoy1992

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
4,573
Reactions
3,216
Points
113
With the rising cases of Monkeypox in the USA, I do not see the US changing its COVID-19 vaccine mandate laws in the next couple of weeks. Therefore, I do not see Djokovic playing the US Open this year.
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,626
Reactions
14,784
Points
113
With the rising cases of Monkeypox in the USA, I do not see the US changing its COVID-19 vaccine mandate laws in the next couple of weeks. Therefore, I do not see Djokovic playing the US Open this year.
While Monkeypox has nothing to do with Covid, politicians are hysteria-averse, and I don't see this helping.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MargaretMcAleer

tented

Administrator
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
21,670
Reactions
10,494
Points
113
Location
Pittsburgh, PA

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,542
Reactions
5,607
Points
113
This is behind a paywall for me (I guess I’ve exhausted my number of free articles per month), but the headline is intriguing and makes sense.
Could Genetics Be the Key to Never Getting the Coronavirus?
Scientists have known for decades that some people can be resistant to HIV infection. Why not the coronavirus, too?

By Katherine J. Wu
an illustration of an umbrella held up by a DNA helix
The Atlantic
JULY 25, 2022
SHARE
Last Christmas, as the Omicron variant was ricocheting around the United States, Mary Carrington unknowingly found herself at a superspreader event—an indoor party, packed with more than 20 people, at least one of whom ended up transmitting the virus to most of the gathering’s guests.

After two years of avoiding the coronavirus, Carrington felt sure that her time had come: She’d been holding her great-niece, who tested positive soon after, “and she was giving me kisses,” Carrington told me. But she never caught the bug. “And I just thought, Wow, I might really be resistant here.” She wasn’t thinking about immunity, which she had thanks to multiple doses of a COVID vaccine. Rather, perhaps via some inborn genetic quirk, her cells had found a way to naturally repel the pathogen’s assaults instead.


Carrington, of all people, understood what that would mean. An expert in immunogenetics at the National Cancer Institute, she was one of several scientists who, beginning in the 1990s, helped uncover a mutation that makes it impossible for most strains of HIV to enter human cells, rendering certain people essentially impervious to the pathogen’s effects. Maybe something analogous could be safeguarding some rare individuals from SARS-CoV-2 as well.



The idea of coronaviral resistance is beguiling enough that scientists around the world are now scouring people’s genomes for any hint that it exists. If it does, they could use that knowledge to understand whom the virus most affects, or leverage it to develop better COVID-taming drugs. For individuals who have yet to catch the contagion—a fast-dwindling proportion of the population—resistance dangles “like a superpower” that people can’t help but think they must have, says Paula Cannon, a geneticist and virologist at the University of Southern California.

As with any superpower, though, bona fide resistance to SARS-CoV-2 infection would likely “be very rare,” says Helen Su, an immunologist at the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Disease. Carrington’s original hunch, for one, eventually proved wrong: She recently returned from a trip to Switzerland and found herself entwined with the virus at last. Like most people who remained unscathed until recently, Carrington had done so for two and a half years through a probable combination of vaccination, cautious behavior, socioeconomic privilege, and luck. It’s entirely possible that inborn coronavirus resistance may not even exist—or that it may come with such enormous costs that it’s not worth the protection it theoretically affords.




Of the 1,400 or so viruses, bacteria, parasites, and fungi known to cause disease in humans, Jean-Laurent Casanova, a geneticist and an immunologist at Rockefeller University, is certain of only three that can be shut out by bodies with one-off genetic tweaks: HIV, norovirus, and a malaria parasite.


The HIV-blocking mutation is maybe the most famous. About three decades ago, researchers, Carrington among them, began looking into a small number of people who “we felt almost certainly had been exposed to the virus multiple times, and almost certainly should have been infected,” and yet had not, she told me. Their superpower was simple: They lacked functional copies of a gene called CCR5, which builds a cell-surface protein that HIV needs in order to hack its way into T cells, the virus’s preferred human prey. Just 1 percent of people of European descent harbor this mutation, called CCR5-Δ32, in two copies; in other populations, the trait is rarer still. Even so, researchers have leveraged its discovery to cook up a powerful class of antiretroviral drugs, and purged the virus from two people with the help of Δ32-based bone-marrow transplants—the closest that medicine has come to developing a functional HIV cure.

The stories with those two other pathogens are similar. Genetic errors in a gene called FUT2, which pastes sugars onto the outsides of gut cells, can render people resistant to norovirus; a genomic tweak erases a protein called Duffy from the walls of red blood cells, stopping Plasmodium vivax, one of several parasites that causes malaria, from wresting its way inside. The Duffy mutation, which affects a gene called DARC/ACKR1, is so common in parts of sub-Saharan Africa that those regions have driven rates of P. vivax infection way down.


In recent years, as genetic technologies have advanced, researchers have begun to investigate a handful of other infection-resistance mutations against other pathogens, among them hepatitis B virus and rotavirus. But the links are tough to definitively nail down, thanks to the number of people these sorts of studies must enroll, and to the thorniness of defining and detecting infection at all; the case with SARS-CoV-2 will likely be the same. For months, Casanova and a global team of collaborators have been in contact with thousands of people from around the world who believe they harbor resistance to the coronavirus in their genes. The best candidates have had intense exposures to the virus—say, via a symptomatic person in their home—and continuously tested negative for both the pathogen and immune responses to it. But respiratory transmission is often muddied by pure chance; the coronavirus can infiltrate people silently, and doesn’t always leave antibodies behind. (The team will be testing for less fickle T-cell responses as well.) People without clear-cut symptoms may not test at all, or may not test properly. And all on its own, the immune system can guard people against infection, especially in the period shortly after vaccination or illness. With HIV, a virus that causes chronic infections, lacks a vaccine, and spreads through clear-cut routes in concentrated social networks, “it was easier to identify those individuals” whom the virus had visited but not put down permanent roots within, says Ravindra Gupta, a virologist at the University of Cambridge. SARS-CoV-2 won’t afford science the same ease of study.



A full analogue to the HIV, malaria, and norovirus stories may not be possible. Genuine resistance can manifest in only so many ways, and tends to be born out of mutations that block a pathogen’s ability to force its way into a cell, or xerox itself once it’s inside. CCR5, Duffy, and the sugars dropped by FUT2, for instance, all act as microbial landing pads; mutations rob the bugs of those perches. If an equivalent mutation exists to counteract SARS-CoV-2, it might logically be found in, say, ACE2, the receptor that the coronavirus needs in order to break into cells, or TMPRSS2, a scissors-like protein that, for at least some variants, speeds the invasive process along. Already, researchers have found that certain genetic variations can dial down ACE2’s presence on cells, or pump out junkier versions of TMPRSS2—hints that there could be tweaks that further strip away the molecules. But “ACE2 is very important” to blood-pressure regulation and the maintenance of lung-tissue health, said Su, of NIAID, who’s one of many scientists collaborating with Casanova to find SARS-CoV-2 resistance genes. A mutation that keeps the coronavirus out might very well “muck around with other aspects of a person’s physiology.” That could make the genetic tweak vanishingly rare, debilitating, or even, as Gupta put it, “not compatible with life.” People with the CCR5-Δ32 mutation, which halts HIV, “are basically completely normal,” Cannon told me, which means “HIV kind of messed up in ‘choosing’ CCR5.” The coronavirus, by contrast, has figured out how to exploit something vital to its host—an ingenious invasive move.


The superpowers of genetic resistance can have other forms of kryptonite. A few strains of HIV have figured out a way to skirt around CCR5, and glom on to another molecule, called CXCR4; against this version of the virus, even people with the Δ32 mutation are not safe. A similar situation has arisen with Plasmodium vivax, which “we do see in some Duffy-negative individuals,” suggesting that the parasite has found a back door, says Dyann Wirth, a malaria researcher at Harvard’s School of Public Health. Evolution is a powerful strategy—and with SARS-CoV-2 spewing out variants at such a blistering clip, “I wouldn’t necessarily expect resistance to be a checkmate move,” Cannon told me. BA.1, for instance, conjured mutations that made it less dependent on TMPRSS2 than Delta was.



Still, protection doesn’t have to be all or nothing to be a perk. Partial genetic resistance, too, can reshape someone’s course of disease. With HIV, researchers have pinpointed changes in groups of so-called HLA genes that, through their impact on assassin-like T cells, can ratchet down people’s risk of progressing to AIDS. And a whole menagerie of mutations that affect red-blood-cell function can mostly keep malaria-causing parasites at bay—though many of these changes come with “a huge human cost,” Wirth told me, saddling people with serious clotting disorders that can sometimes turn lethal themselves.


With COVID-19, too, researchers have started to home in on some trends. Casanova, at Rockefeller, is one of several scientists who has led efforts unveiling the importance of an alarm-like immune molecule called interferon in early control of infection. People who rapidly pump out gobs of the protein in the hours after infection often fare just fine against the virus. But those whose interferon responses are weak or laggy are more prone to getting seriously sick; the same goes for people whose bodies manufacture maladaptive antibodies that attack interferon as it passes messages between cells. Other factors could toggle the risk of severe disease up or down as well: cells’ ability to sense the virus early on; the amount of coordination between different branches of defense; the brakes the immune system puts on itself, so it does not put the host’s own tissues at risk. Casanova and his colleagues are also on the hunt for mutations that might alter people’s risk of developing long COVID and other coronaviral consequences. None of these searches will be easy. But they should be at least simpler than the one for resistance to infection, Casanova told me, because the outcomes they’re measuring—serious and chronic forms of disease—are that much more straightforward to detect.

If resistance doesn’t pan out, that doesn’t have to be a letdown. People don’t need total blockades to triumph over microbes—just a defense that’s good enough. And the protection we’re born with isn’t all the leverage we’ve got. Unlike genetics, immunity can be easily built, modified, and strengthened over time, particularly with the aid of vaccines. Those DIY defenses are probably what kept Carrington’s case of COVID down to “a mild course,” she told me. Immune protection is also a far surer bet than putting a wager on what we may or may not inherit at birth. Better to count on the protections we know we can cook up ourselves, now that the coronavirus is clearly with us for good.

Katherine J. Wu is a staff writer at The Atlantic.
 

Hailz

The Tennis Kid
Joined
Aug 28, 2022
Messages
1,174
Reactions
631
Points
113
Age
16
Location
Maryland, USA
I took the vaccine and I didn't have a problem taking it when my age finally was able to get the vaccines. Being a kid it was not really fully my decision though. Yeah, I wanted to get the vaccine but if I didn't I still would have had to because my parents said to get it. I just wonder about kids my age or a little older or even a little younger who don't really agree with their parents'views one way or the other. They still have to either not get the vaccine or get it. I don't really agree with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kieran

britbox

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
27,403
Reactions
6,211
Points
113
Location
Gold Coast, Australia
Could Genetics Be the Key to Never Getting the Coronavirus?
Scientists have known for decades that some people can be resistant to HIV infection. Why not the coronavirus, too?

By Katherine J. Wu
an illustration of an umbrella held up by a DNA helix
The Atlantic
JULY 25, 2022
SHARE
Last Christmas, as the Omicron variant was ricocheting around the United States, Mary Carrington unknowingly found herself at a superspreader event—an indoor party, packed with more than 20 people, at least one of whom ended up transmitting the virus to most of the gathering’s guests.

After two years of avoiding the coronavirus, Carrington felt sure that her time had come: She’d been holding her great-niece, who tested positive soon after, “and she was giving me kisses,” Carrington told me. But she never caught the bug. “And I just thought, Wow, I might really be resistant here.” She wasn’t thinking about immunity, which she had thanks to multiple doses of a COVID vaccine. Rather, perhaps via some inborn genetic quirk, her cells had found a way to naturally repel the pathogen’s assaults instead.


Carrington, of all people, understood what that would mean. An expert in immunogenetics at the National Cancer Institute, she was one of several scientists who, beginning in the 1990s, helped uncover a mutation that makes it impossible for most strains of HIV to enter human cells, rendering certain people essentially impervious to the pathogen’s effects. Maybe something analogous could be safeguarding some rare individuals from SARS-CoV-2 as well.



The idea of coronaviral resistance is beguiling enough that scientists around the world are now scouring people’s genomes for any hint that it exists. If it does, they could use that knowledge to understand whom the virus most affects, or leverage it to develop better COVID-taming drugs. For individuals who have yet to catch the contagion—a fast-dwindling proportion of the population—resistance dangles “like a superpower” that people can’t help but think they must have, says Paula Cannon, a geneticist and virologist at the University of Southern California.

As with any superpower, though, bona fide resistance to SARS-CoV-2 infection would likely “be very rare,” says Helen Su, an immunologist at the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Disease. Carrington’s original hunch, for one, eventually proved wrong: She recently returned from a trip to Switzerland and found herself entwined with the virus at last. Like most people who remained unscathed until recently, Carrington had done so for two and a half years through a probable combination of vaccination, cautious behavior, socioeconomic privilege, and luck. It’s entirely possible that inborn coronavirus resistance may not even exist—or that it may come with such enormous costs that it’s not worth the protection it theoretically affords.




Of the 1,400 or so viruses, bacteria, parasites, and fungi known to cause disease in humans, Jean-Laurent Casanova, a geneticist and an immunologist at Rockefeller University, is certain of only three that can be shut out by bodies with one-off genetic tweaks: HIV, norovirus, and a malaria parasite.


The HIV-blocking mutation is maybe the most famous. About three decades ago, researchers, Carrington among them, began looking into a small number of people who “we felt almost certainly had been exposed to the virus multiple times, and almost certainly should have been infected,” and yet had not, she told me. Their superpower was simple: They lacked functional copies of a gene called CCR5, which builds a cell-surface protein that HIV needs in order to hack its way into T cells, the virus’s preferred human prey. Just 1 percent of people of European descent harbor this mutation, called CCR5-Δ32, in two copies; in other populations, the trait is rarer still. Even so, researchers have leveraged its discovery to cook up a powerful class of antiretroviral drugs, and purged the virus from two people with the help of Δ32-based bone-marrow transplants—the closest that medicine has come to developing a functional HIV cure.

The stories with those two other pathogens are similar. Genetic errors in a gene called FUT2, which pastes sugars onto the outsides of gut cells, can render people resistant to norovirus; a genomic tweak erases a protein called Duffy from the walls of red blood cells, stopping Plasmodium vivax, one of several parasites that causes malaria, from wresting its way inside. The Duffy mutation, which affects a gene called DARC/ACKR1, is so common in parts of sub-Saharan Africa that those regions have driven rates of P. vivax infection way down.


In recent years, as genetic technologies have advanced, researchers have begun to investigate a handful of other infection-resistance mutations against other pathogens, among them hepatitis B virus and rotavirus. But the links are tough to definitively nail down, thanks to the number of people these sorts of studies must enroll, and to the thorniness of defining and detecting infection at all; the case with SARS-CoV-2 will likely be the same. For months, Casanova and a global team of collaborators have been in contact with thousands of people from around the world who believe they harbor resistance to the coronavirus in their genes. The best candidates have had intense exposures to the virus—say, via a symptomatic person in their home—and continuously tested negative for both the pathogen and immune responses to it. But respiratory transmission is often muddied by pure chance; the coronavirus can infiltrate people silently, and doesn’t always leave antibodies behind. (The team will be testing for less fickle T-cell responses as well.) People without clear-cut symptoms may not test at all, or may not test properly. And all on its own, the immune system can guard people against infection, especially in the period shortly after vaccination or illness. With HIV, a virus that causes chronic infections, lacks a vaccine, and spreads through clear-cut routes in concentrated social networks, “it was easier to identify those individuals” whom the virus had visited but not put down permanent roots within, says Ravindra Gupta, a virologist at the University of Cambridge. SARS-CoV-2 won’t afford science the same ease of study.



A full analogue to the HIV, malaria, and norovirus stories may not be possible. Genuine resistance can manifest in only so many ways, and tends to be born out of mutations that block a pathogen’s ability to force its way into a cell, or xerox itself once it’s inside. CCR5, Duffy, and the sugars dropped by FUT2, for instance, all act as microbial landing pads; mutations rob the bugs of those perches. If an equivalent mutation exists to counteract SARS-CoV-2, it might logically be found in, say, ACE2, the receptor that the coronavirus needs in order to break into cells, or TMPRSS2, a scissors-like protein that, for at least some variants, speeds the invasive process along. Already, researchers have found that certain genetic variations can dial down ACE2’s presence on cells, or pump out junkier versions of TMPRSS2—hints that there could be tweaks that further strip away the molecules. But “ACE2 is very important” to blood-pressure regulation and the maintenance of lung-tissue health, said Su, of NIAID, who’s one of many scientists collaborating with Casanova to find SARS-CoV-2 resistance genes. A mutation that keeps the coronavirus out might very well “muck around with other aspects of a person’s physiology.” That could make the genetic tweak vanishingly rare, debilitating, or even, as Gupta put it, “not compatible with life.” People with the CCR5-Δ32 mutation, which halts HIV, “are basically completely normal,” Cannon told me, which means “HIV kind of messed up in ‘choosing’ CCR5.” The coronavirus, by contrast, has figured out how to exploit something vital to its host—an ingenious invasive move.


The superpowers of genetic resistance can have other forms of kryptonite. A few strains of HIV have figured out a way to skirt around CCR5, and glom on to another molecule, called CXCR4; against this version of the virus, even people with the Δ32 mutation are not safe. A similar situation has arisen with Plasmodium vivax, which “we do see in some Duffy-negative individuals,” suggesting that the parasite has found a back door, says Dyann Wirth, a malaria researcher at Harvard’s School of Public Health. Evolution is a powerful strategy—and with SARS-CoV-2 spewing out variants at such a blistering clip, “I wouldn’t necessarily expect resistance to be a checkmate move,” Cannon told me. BA.1, for instance, conjured mutations that made it less dependent on TMPRSS2 than Delta was.



Still, protection doesn’t have to be all or nothing to be a perk. Partial genetic resistance, too, can reshape someone’s course of disease. With HIV, researchers have pinpointed changes in groups of so-called HLA genes that, through their impact on assassin-like T cells, can ratchet down people’s risk of progressing to AIDS. And a whole menagerie of mutations that affect red-blood-cell function can mostly keep malaria-causing parasites at bay—though many of these changes come with “a huge human cost,” Wirth told me, saddling people with serious clotting disorders that can sometimes turn lethal themselves.


With COVID-19, too, researchers have started to home in on some trends. Casanova, at Rockefeller, is one of several scientists who has led efforts unveiling the importance of an alarm-like immune molecule called interferon in early control of infection. People who rapidly pump out gobs of the protein in the hours after infection often fare just fine against the virus. But those whose interferon responses are weak or laggy are more prone to getting seriously sick; the same goes for people whose bodies manufacture maladaptive antibodies that attack interferon as it passes messages between cells. Other factors could toggle the risk of severe disease up or down as well: cells’ ability to sense the virus early on; the amount of coordination between different branches of defense; the brakes the immune system puts on itself, so it does not put the host’s own tissues at risk. Casanova and his colleagues are also on the hunt for mutations that might alter people’s risk of developing long COVID and other coronaviral consequences. None of these searches will be easy. But they should be at least simpler than the one for resistance to infection, Casanova told me, because the outcomes they’re measuring—serious and chronic forms of disease—are that much more straightforward to detect.

If resistance doesn’t pan out, that doesn’t have to be a letdown. People don’t need total blockades to triumph over microbes—just a defense that’s good enough. And the protection we’re born with isn’t all the leverage we’ve got. Unlike genetics, immunity can be easily built, modified, and strengthened over time, particularly with the aid of vaccines. Those DIY defenses are probably what kept Carrington’s case of COVID down to “a mild course,” she told me. Immune protection is also a far surer bet than putting a wager on what we may or may not inherit at birth. Better to count on the protections we know we can cook up ourselves, now that the coronavirus is clearly with us for good.

Katherine J. Wu is a staff writer at The Atlantic.
Frankenstein's monster comes to mind.
 

britbox

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
27,403
Reactions
6,211
Points
113
Location
Gold Coast, Australia


We have data from 8 mice to validate the rollout the next bunch of jabs to 300+ million Americans... "non-mice". Follow the "Science". Seriously, wake the f**k up.
 

kskate2

Administrator
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
31,025
Reactions
10,034
Points
113
Age
55
Location
Tampa Bay
Guess I'll put this here. A classmate from high school posted this on our Reunion FB page yesterday:
1663714761802.png