Zhang Wenhong: Is the first batch of vaccine difficult to prevent reinfection?
Professor Zhang Wenhong is out to make judgments again!
At the Sino-US High-end Forum on Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases held recently, Professor Zhang Wenhong expressed the following opinions:
There are now multiple subtypes of Omicron virus, and after being infected with one subtype, you may be infected with another subtype. Ultimately it may be like the influenza virus, with seasonal and regional infection characteristics. After the human body is infected with multiple virus subtypes, under the pressure of the human body's immune memory, the virulence of the virus will eventually decrease.
The first batch of vaccines currently being administered to the domestic population comes from the original virus strain. After the virus mutates many times, the protective effect of the vaccine becomes weaker and weaker, making it difficult to prevent reinfection with the new coronavirus.
" The first batch of vaccines are difficult to prevent reinfection of the new coronavirus." The implication is that there are other "batches" of vaccines that can prevent reinfection of the new coronavirus?
Put it this way, can we expect that one day we will be able to use a vaccine that completely prevents reinfection of the new coronavirus?
Zhang Wenhong ’s contradiction VS Zhang Wenhong’s shield
On December 12, Professor Zhang Wenhong just published an article on the "Huashan Infection" public account, saying that the new crown epidemic will eventually transform into a seasonal epidemic.
"The new crown pandemic will eventually become a seasonal epidemic" is not a new statement. It was put forward by foreign scientists specializing in coronavirus shortly after the outbreak of the new crown epidemic in early 2020, and it soon received widespread recognition and support from the academic community.
I wrote an article in April 2020, looking at the outcome of the new coronavirus epidemic from the perspective of human coronaviruses, and introduced the high probability of transforming into a seasonal new coronavirus disease.
Looking now, the scientists’ original prediction was quite accurate. The only small deviation
has is that the new crown epidemic has not shown any seasonal characteristics so far. Foreign scientists have already corrected this small deviation long ago.
's current statement is that " the new crown pandemic will eventually become an endemic epidemic ." Why does
say this is only a small deviation?
Because the full name of "seasonal epidemic" should be "seasonal endemic epidemic", that is, "endemic epidemic" with seasonality.
However, I still insist that the new crown epidemic will eventually show seasonal epidemic characteristics.
Without repeated infections, the epidemic will not become an endemic epidemic.
Some people have said that they do not see the contradiction between "the first batch of vaccines will not prevent reinfection" and "the new crown pandemic will eventually become a seasonal epidemic."
That’s because, like Professor Zhang Wenhong, you don’t understand why repeated infections of the new coronavirus inevitably occur and what an “endemic epidemic” is.
The principle is very simple. If there is a vaccine that can induce the human body to produce immunity that can completely prevent reinfection after vaccination, then everyone only needs to be vaccinated once, and the entire population will have complete immunity to the virus;
Moreover, the ceiling of any vaccine is natural infection.
Assuming that vaccination can completely prevent reinfection, then the entire population will be "passed through" natural infection, and susceptible people will also be completely "eliminated".
We know that viruses cannot survive independently, but must infect host cells to continue to replicate. Once there is no host to infect, the virus will disappear from the earth, just like the smallpox virus.
cannot be infected again. Without susceptible people, the new coronavirus has lost its infection targets. Where is it still popular? How can we talk about "endemic epidemics"?
Therefore, Professor Zhang Wenhong said that "the first batch of vaccines will be difficult to prevent reinfection of the new coronavirus", which means that he believes that other "batches" of vaccines can prevent reinfection; and in less than a week, he said that "the new coronavirus pandemic will eventually become a seasonal epidemic." The two are of course not self-consistent.
Just as Socrates said, it’s just that Professor Zhang Wenhong doesn’t know that he is not logically self-consistent.
Why is it said that repeated reinfection of the new coronavirus is inevitable and has nothing to do with the vaccine?
Some people say that as the epidemic spreads in the country, 80 to 90% of people will have to go through it again.
In the short term, there is nothing wrong with that.
However, in the long run, it is definitely more than just "going through it once". As long as a person's life is not very short, he will inevitably live it many times.
Not only can you be infected again, but you can be infected again and again countless times throughout your life, just like the four traditional human coronaviruses that cause the common cold.
This is determined by the biological characteristics of the coronavirus itself and has nothing to do with the vaccine.
The reason why the new coronavirus is inevitably re-infected is due to both the virus and the host:
From a viral perspective, the new coronavirus continues to mutate, and new variants escape the immunity induced by previous strain infections, thus gaining the ability to reinfect. This has been verified by the epidemic facts and a large amount of research evidence over the past three years;
From the perspective of the host (which is actually determined by the biological characteristics of the new coronavirus), immunity induced by natural infection or vaccination cannot be long-lasting, but rapidly decays, and the protection against infection will be completely lost in as soon as 2 or 3 months.
This has also been verified by a large amount of research evidence and frequent reinfections.
Why is this?
How will the epidemic develop in our country after we relax restrictions? Will we be able to return to the life we had before the epidemic in less than three years? As introduced in the article, the immunity produced by the virus-induced host immune system includes three levels:
immunity that protects the host from reinfection (immune efficacy with respect to susceptibility, IES);
Even if it cannot prevent reinfection, it can still produce:
immunity that reduces the pathological changes and disease severity caused by reinfection, that is, immunity that reduces the severity of the disease (immune efficacy attenuate pathology due to reinfection (IEP);
and/or reduce infectious immunity (immune efficacy reduce transmissibility or infectiousness, IEI).
In-depth research on 4 traditional coronaviruses It is known that the IES induced by coronaviruses will rapidly decay within a few months and lose the ability to prevent reinfection; however, IEP and IEI that reduce the severity and infectivity of reinfection can be maintained for a longer period of time and can be superimposed.
This also means that the coronavirus will inevitably be reinfected again and again; and in this process it will gradually "detoxify", and the diseases caused by the infection will become less and less harmful.
html The changes in the COVID-19 epidemic in the past 2003 years also prove that the COVID-19 virus is still a coronavirus after all, with the above-mentioned typical characteristics of coronaviruses.The ceiling for vaccines in any technical path is natural infection
As can be seen from the above, even repeated natural infections cannot produce immunity that completely prevents reinfection.
So, can vaccination surpass natural infection in this regard and induce immunity that completely prevents reinfection? Of course
cannot.
The immunity induced by natural infection is naturally higher than any technical vaccine. Regarding this point, I wrote an article in April 2020. Is asymptomatic infection equivalent to being vaccinated? It is introduced in principle.
Why is it said that immunity induced by natural infection is the ceiling of any technical vaccine?
For a long time, many people, including some well-known domestic experts, have been saying that mRNA vaccines are more effective in preventing infection and severe disease. I disagree and insist that in the long run, there is no fundamental difference in the effectiveness of any vaccine. Neither vaccine can completely prevent repeated infections, but it can also reduce the risk of severe illness and death to a certain extent.
To make this clear, we first need to understand how natural infection or vaccine induces an immune response:
It is known that the first step in a viral infection stimulating the immune system is for the virus particles to be engulfed by macrophages . The macrophages extract the antigen of the virus (there are many types), present it to the helper T cells attached to their bodies, and then continue the subsequent series of reactions to generate corresponding immunity.
The effect of the inactivated vaccine is the same as that of the live virus. The difference is that the inactivated vaccine cannot replicate itself. The number of antigens it can bring to large and small cells is certain, and the immune response it can stimulate may also be relatively low.
Let’s look at the self-introduction of the working principle of Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine, which has been praised by many people. The vaccine itself has changed from virus particles to information RNA fragments wrapped by artificial lipid membranes. After entering the body, these vaccine particles are also phagocytosed by macrophages by simulating natural virus infection. Information RNA can use cell organelles to synthesize specific fragments of the new coronavirus spike protein. The antigen of this protein fragment with immunogenicity is extracted by large and small cells and presented to helper T cells, and then continues the subsequent series of reactions to produce corresponding immunity.
Vaccines in other technical paths are also similar.
In short, no matter what technical route the vaccine is, its ultimate role is just as a transport vehicle for the "target" antigen of the new coronavirus. No matter what type of vehicle is used for transport, as long as the antigen can be transported into the body and presented to the relevant immune cells , the mission has been completed.
The subsequent immune response is completely completed by the immune system independently and has nothing to do with the model of the transport vehicle.
If we must say that the differences between different vaccines are just differences in the "purity" and quantity of the transported antigens, they cannot change the inherent characteristics of immunity induced by the new coronavirus.
Moreover, no matter what technical route the vaccine takes, it is far inferior to natural infection in terms of antigen presentation.
Therefore, immunity induced by natural infection is the ceiling of any technical vaccine.
Natural infection cannot prevent reinfection, let alone any vaccination can be expected to prevent reinfection.
At this point, it is not difficult to understand that reinfection of the new coronavirus is determined by the biological characteristics of the virus itself. There is absolutely no so-called better vaccine that can prevent this reinfection.
The better vaccine that some people long for is just a mirror image.
