机理不一样的，这个叫Original antigenic sin Speculation that vaccines could paradoxically increase the risk of infections possibly originated following the 2009 influenza A (H1N1pdm09) pandemic, when four Canadian studies suggested that getting the seasonal influenza vaccine increased the risk of laboratory-confirmed infections. This led to five additional studies, each of which substantiated these initial findings. One proposed mechanism for this phenomenon is called original antigenic sin. It was first used to describe how one’s first exposure to the influenza virus shapes the outcome of subsequent exposures to antigenically related strains. (The antigen is the part of the object that provokes the immune response – like the novel coronavirus’s spike protein.) This specific immune phenomenon explains the failure of the immune system to generate an immune response against related antigens. When an individual is infected by an evolved strain with a new dominant antigen, slightly different from the original strain against which the person has been vaccinated, the immune system produces antibodies against the original strain. This happens through high-affinity memory B-cells that inhibit activation of naïve B-cells, resulting in a weak immune response against the newer strain. So the risk of infection paradoxically increased in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated individuals.
机理不一样的，这个叫Original antigenic sin Speculation that vaccines could paradoxically increase the risk of infections possibly originated following the 2009 influenza A (H1N1pdm09) pandemic, when four Canadian studies suggested that getting the seasonal influenza vaccine increased the risk of laboratory-confirmed infections. This led to five additional studies, each of which substantiated these initial findings. One proposed mechanism for this phenomenon is called original antigenic sin. It was first used to describe how one’s first exposure to the influenza virus shapes the outcome of subsequent exposures to antigenically related strains. (The antigen is the part of the object that provokes the immune response – like the novel coronavirus’s spike protein.) This specific immune phenomenon explains the failure of the immune system to generate an immune response against related antigens. When an individual is infected by an evolved strain with a new dominant antigen, slightly different from the original strain against which the person has been vaccinated, the immune system produces antibodies against the original strain. This happens through high-affinity memory B-cells that inhibit activation of naïve B-cells, resulting in a weak immune response against the newer strain. So the risk of infection paradoxically increased in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated individuals. Beau 发表于 2021-05-11 14:46
机理不一样的，这个叫Original antigenic sin Speculation that vaccines could paradoxically increase the risk of infections possibly originated following the 2009 influenza A (H1N1pdm09) pandemic, when four Canadian studies suggested that getting the seasonal influenza vaccine increased the risk of laboratory-confirmed infections. This led to five additional studies, each of which substantiated these initial findings. One proposed mechanism for this phenomenon is called original antigenic sin. It was first used to describe how one’s first exposure to the influenza virus shapes the outcome of subsequent exposures to antigenically related strains. (The antigen is the part of the object that provokes the immune response – like the novel coronavirus’s spike protein.) This specific immune phenomenon explains the failure of the immune system to generate an immune response against related antigens. When an individual is infected by an evolved strain with a new dominant antigen, slightly different from the original strain against which the person has been vaccinated, the immune system produces antibodies against the original strain. This happens through high-affinity memory B-cells that inhibit activation of naïve B-cells, resulting in a weak immune response against the newer strain. So the risk of infection paradoxically increased in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated individuals. Beau 发表于 2021-05-11 14:46
英国官方医界这几天的说法已有变化： 上周五： Public Health England said on Friday that coronavirus variant B.1.617.2, which was first identified in India, would be classified as a variant of concern due to evidence it was more transmissible. https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/public-health-england-says-coronavirus-variant-b16172-is-variant-concern-2021-05-07/ 这周二： Variant B.1.617.2, the new “highly transmissible” Covid variant is less likely to be capable of evading vaccines, said the UK’s chief medical officer Chris Whitty. Professor Sharon Peacock, head of the UK’s genetic surveillance programme, said England’s public health body has moderate confidence that the B.1.617.2 variant has a similar capability of transmission as B.1.1.7, which originated in the UK. But said there is more to be known about the Indian variant which is leading to “huge amount of uncertainty” at the moment. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/indian-variant-vaccine-uk-b1845377.html 一些有利因素： 1. 原病毒的自然传播速度是每周传染人数翻十倍，目前该变种只翻了一倍， 2. 有可能那一周从200多人翻倍到520人受从印度旅行来英国的人数所影响，（如来的人多了，每个人传染另一个人）。 3. 即使（虚拟）该病毒变异能逃脱牛津疫苗，不代表能逃脱mRNA疫苗。
印度B.1.617变种有三个亚种，从这两天公布的一些数据来看，B.1.617.1和B.1.617.2这两个亚种似乎都非常危险。其中B.1.617.1亚种在B.1.617的基础上又上多了G142D, E154K, P681R, Q1071H这四个突变，昨天Emory的Mehul Suthar在biorxiv上贴了一篇文章，这个突变能够让超过20%的康复患者血清完全失去中和能力，让两个mRNA疫苗的中和滴度下降7倍。在之前的文章中，同样的活病毒FRNT50中和试验，mRNA疫苗对南非变种的中和滴度下降了7.6倍。这个结果基本上可以推断印度的B.1.617.1亚种对疫苗的影响已经和南非突变比较接近了，考虑到印度突变更强的传染能力，这是个非常不好的消息。
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.09.443299v1
另外印度人还有一个小规模的动物实验说B.1.617.1突变对仓鼠的毒性显著增加。
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.05.442760v1
第二个亚种是B.1.617.2，这个亚种上面丢失了E484Q，多了一个T478K突变，另外在别的地方还有一些变化。我们已经知道E484Q对疫苗有一定的影响，T478K突变目前的影响还不完全清楚，所以目前还不知道E484Q换成T478K对打过疫苗的人来说到底是好消息还是坏消息。但是一个信息是2021年以来T478K突变的频率显著增加，并且看到有一篇计算化学的文章说T478K突变和ACE2受体的结合能力大幅提高。从目前的信息推测的话这个亚种和B.1.617毒株和B.1.617.1亚种比起来可能主要增强的还是传染能力。目前这个亚种在英国出现的频率暴涨，已经超过了10%，考虑到英国目前的疫苗普及程度，猜测这个突变有可能是传染能力超强，并且对疫苗的影响接近或者达到了B.1.617.1亚种的水平，总是是个很不好的消息。
三个突变说的是印度变种的早期版本B.1.617，B.1.617.1在这个基础上又增加了四个突变
https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/health/covid-19-patients-might-experience-more-severe-symptoms-on-reinfection-study
COVID-19 patients might experience more severe symptoms on reinfection: Study
COVID-19 patients infected with the virus for a second time might experience more severe symptoms, according to a study which is the first to confirm a case of reinfection with the virus in the US
这个说的是美国去年的一个病例，48天后第二次感染结果症状更严重，估计是第一次感染没能产生足够的抗体，和现在印度这波疫情没什么关系
对不熟悉你领域的，看得稀里糊涂，写的不好！
我改了一下原文
太恐怖了， 感觉印度迟早会变异出来一个巨牛无比干掉所有疫苗的毒王
这篇写的太逗了。越南的病例跟踪很厉害啊。
看起来传染度很强，不知道严重程度有什么区别。
目前还没有疫苗是针对印度变异毒株的，BioNTech CEO 刚说过他家原始版疫苗 works against indian variants.
天，这个传染率和速度也太快了。来了美国就是11月份的节奏啊。。
希望美国能顶住吧。。。
不是说疫苗对印度变种病毒是有效的吗？不过谁也没看到真实数据，不知真假
不需要是毒王，只要变异出ADE，人类就团灭吧
這堆符號是啥意思 B 1.617.1 是第 617 個胺基酸被怎樣了?
G142D 是第 142個胺基酸被從 G 改成D 嗎?
从体外实验来看疫苗对B.1.617和B.1.617.1肯定还是有效的。参考卡塔尔的实战结果，Pfizer疫苗对更厉害的南非变种可以减少75%的PCR阳性，如果只算有症状感染的话有效率还会增加。但是这个幅度的下降会严重影响长期有效性，还是参考南非变种，接种Moderna疫苗6-8个月以后有90%以上的人还可以有效中和wild type毒株，但是接近一半人的血清对南非变种的中和能力跌到了检测下限以外。
B.1.617.2对疫苗的影响还不清楚，少了个已知有逃逸能力的E484Q，多了个和受体结合能力显著增强的T478K，盲猜的话情况应该不会比B.1.617.1更差
据说很高
接种灭活疫苗后又感染算不算reinfection？
去年三月也是这么想的，结果....
更新一下，刚才看Ravi Gupta在Twitter上说他们发现T478K突变可以逃逸Regeneron两个单抗中的一个，这么看的话很难判断这两个亚种对疫苗的影响到底哪个更大，等数据吧
英国为啥一下子这么好，是strick lock down 和疫苗的作用吗？美国要能达到这个水平就好了。
不用ADE，昨天有篇印度论文说打了疫苗的对变种更易感。。。
没身份的老中父母来探亲的这一年来也不少，先了解下travel ban是啥意思，对中国人怎么执行的对印度人就是怎么执行的
我觉得只靠T细胞不太可能避免所有的有症状感染，不过还是要看实战数据，参加三期临床的人什么时候感染率开始快速增加药厂肯定是知道的
你猜
ADE就是有抗体的（以前得过或者打过疫苗）的更容易感染，症状也更重。
但新冠这么高的致病率和致死率，不打疫苗的话，人类就放弃抵抗，躺平等死吗？
那打了疫苗反而更不好，为啥还要打。 我可没看到高致死率。
又来造谣，哪个论文？贴出来看看？昨天的帖子不是说打了疫苗还没免疫立刻浪才造成感染变多吗？打了疫苗更不好那印度还哭着闹着要美国放弃mRNA 产权？
机理不一样的，这个叫Original antigenic sin Speculation that vaccines could paradoxically increase the risk of infections possibly originated following the 2009 influenza A (H1N1pdm09) pandemic, when four Canadian studies suggested that getting the seasonal influenza vaccine increased the risk of laboratory-confirmed infections. This led to five additional studies, each of which substantiated these initial findings. One proposed mechanism for this phenomenon is called original antigenic sin. It was first used to describe how one’s first exposure to the influenza virus shapes the outcome of subsequent exposures to antigenically related strains. (The antigen is the part of the object that provokes the immune response – like the novel coronavirus’s spike protein.) This specific immune phenomenon explains the failure of the immune system to generate an immune response against related antigens. When an individual is infected by an evolved strain with a new dominant antigen, slightly different from the original strain against which the person has been vaccinated, the immune system produces antibodies against the original strain. This happens through high-affinity memory B-cells that inhibit activation of naïve B-cells, resulting in a weak immune response against the newer strain. So the risk of infection paradoxically increased in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated individuals.
灭活疫苗和腺病毒疫苗，也就是印度现有的两种疫苗，容易产生免疫原罪。
Moderna第三针booster 已经证实mRNA对变种防护效率很好，没有免疫原罪。
打了疫苗当然会更好，而不是更不好。疫苗多少可以减少病毒的复制和传播，病毒越少，出变种的可能性就越低。只有在躺平放任病毒四处感染的地方，才会有可能出现奇奇怪怪的变种。
目前看来这病毒致死率的确不算很高，但是传染性太过于可怕，在患者数量很高的地方，就会有大批病患挤兑医疗资源。去年年初的武汉，今年一月的美国，上个月的印度，都是如此。千万别以为轮不到自己住院治疗新冠就没事了，医疗系统击穿对于所有需要去医院的人都是极大的威胁。
人类历史上多少病毒都是靠疫苗压下来甚至消灭的，这些人真是反智。
这论坛里带任务的倒不一定是反智，就是坏逼
完了，完了，你要完了
真要想了解免疫的话就认真读点书，不要当名词党
新冠现在的几个变种其实都很接近，比流感的不同毒株近多了，不太可能看到OAS。一个证据是Pfizer疫苗对突变最厉害的南非变种仍旧保持很高的有效率，前两天NEJM上刚有过文章，在卡塔尔发现的上百个breakthrough case里面没有看到一个重症。另一个证据是Moderna针对南非变种的第三针可以同时大幅提高对wild type、南非毒株、巴西毒株的中和滴度。
这阅读能力。。。
Beau 是个个贴里带节奏的！
如果真的这样的话 那世界上中国相对最安全了
发着抖问Johnson & Johnson怎么样，能有效用吗，有没有可能产生ＡＤＥ？
感谢楼主的持续科普
看了知乎吓死了
那个隔离旅店的图。。。。
你斗争的弦崩的太紧了吧？
这周二： Variant B.1.617.2, the new “highly transmissible” Covid variant is less likely to be capable of evading vaccines, said the UK’s chief medical officer Chris Whitty.
Professor Sharon Peacock, head of the UK’s genetic surveillance programme, said England’s public health body has moderate confidence that the B.1.617.2 variant has a similar capability of transmission as B.1.1.7, which originated in the UK. But said there is more to be known about the Indian variant which is leading to “huge amount of uncertainty” at the moment. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/indian-variant-vaccine-uk-b1845377.html
一些有利因素： 1. 原病毒的自然传播速度是每周传染人数翻十倍，目前该变种只翻了一倍， 2. 有可能那一周从200多人翻倍到520人受从印度旅行来英国的人数所影响，（如来的人多了，每个人传染另一个人）。 3. 即使（虚拟）该病毒变异能逃脱牛津疫苗，不代表能逃脱mRNA疫苗。
对，英国的很多病例可能是印度输入的或者第二代输入病例，所以还要再观察一阵才能下结论。
mRNA疫苗对这几个印度变种最差估计也就是对南非变种那个样子，但是美国现在misinformation太厉害的疫苗接种意愿并不高，给一部分小孩打疫苗再加上医院之类的地方强制接种，最后撑死能有个60%的接种率。只要这个变种传染性明显高于英国变种并且能够逃掉一部分“自然免疫”，就需要上千万自然感染来填这个口子。另外抗体水平会随时间下降，6-8个月以后对wild type可能还好，但是对变种的有效率可能就很难看了，到时候正好还是冬季，又是个大麻烦。
misinformation，中国外宣起了扰乱作用，包括抖音等。若以后感染的人大都是没打疫苗的，人们会改变观念的。 前面那个知乎连接里的传染事件，如果都是真的，这个变种还是很厉害的。
要看看是什么时候进去社区的，而且你给的这个数据里，印度变种已经超过50%了。
我觉得外宣在这个过程中占的是小头，倒是宗教因素更大。一方面蓝州的接种率普遍高过红州；另一方面，作为摇摆州的北卡的接种率连深红的南北达科他和蒙大拿都不如，估计就是因为这里的反疫苗宗教势力过大的缘故。几年前Asheville的学校爆了几十年没见过的水痘就是反疫苗宗教的影响。
谢谢mm的预警，其实没那么晚，现在开始倒数33天。小病毒计划周详，先让大家看一看这个夏天
哈哈，有些人都不知道靠啥生活，要光看言论，那就是靠仇恨生活。每天都在骂，骂这骂那的，满满的负能量！
还好还好，吓坏了吓坏了。
一小撮搅混水的，一大部分只会看中文消息的过的惶惶不可终日。
你自己转发数据还裁掉一半，成心误导大家吗？另外，这是哪天的数据，印度的变种什么时候开始出现的很关键，毕竟基数小，再强的传染性，也需要时间来build up。
Santa Clara county
没有截掉一半，county website 就长成那样 https://covid19.sccgov.org/covid-19-variant-dashboard
第三国呆了14天？
不鼓励打疫苗，大家肉身抗疫啊？ 疫苗是唯一出路。
被那些傻x洗脑了。目前数据根本不支持任何ADE。打了疫苗有效保护被感染。
Beau明显就是带任务的。不是五毛就是灵馆人员。别太在意他说的。
13, 14年的流感和0809年的相比在HA上只差了几个碱基， 报道是有sin (J Immunol 2019; 202:335-340; ;)
当然流感疫苗也是灭活的，新冠数据出来了似乎是没有。