[Mike 75]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

Not really. Restaurants and gyms--masks are off or more likely to be off, so are a hard no for me. Indoor dining has been proven to be a risk, more subject to HVAC flow patterns, rather than the 6' distancing (which...from my observations around New England the past couple of weeks since limits were relaxed, is not being rigorously followed).

This has been my approach as well. As much as I like going to restaurants, it’s not really worth it to me to dine inside. Although I’ve been comfortable with being inside and maskless with certain friends and family, so perhaps I’m being a bit irrational or inconsistent. It’s just whatever you make your peace with.

[dazzleman]

Originally Posted by Mike 75

This has been my approach as well. As much as I like going to restaurants, it’s not really worth it to me to dine inside. Although I’ve been comfortable with being inside and maskless with certain friends and family, so perhaps I’m being a bit irrational or inconsistent. It’s just whatever you make your peace with.

I think everybody has their own approach, and there are sometimes inconsistencies. I've been out to restaurants with small groups of people and I go to the gym every week. I work out with a trainer and there is a room dedicated to training, so I'm not very close to other people while I am there. My trainer is there 6 days per week and has not gotten COVID yet, and I have not heard of a case of COVID at the gym.

I work with a guy who is super fanatical and thinks that I am too lax about COVID. Yet, he has flown to the west coast several times during the COVID period, while I am waiting until a few weeks after I get my second shot to brave flying.

[htfdcolt]

Since there are many who respect Dr. Gottlieb here, just saw this and thought I'd link it here. Sounds a bit alarming, if proven true!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...w-Yorkers.html

[TheWaffleIron]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

Since there are many who respect Dr. Gottlieb here, just saw this and thought I'd link it here. Sounds a bit alarming, if proven true!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...w-Yorkers.html

I dug up a few papers on MedRxiv and BioRxiv, still going through the review process. Mutants in this variant include T95I, D253G, E484K, D614G, and A701V: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...259v1.full.pdf.

From the same paper, mapped onto the crystal structure of the Spike protein, the E484K mutation lies in the Receptor Binding Domain (RBD). As I recall, it is distal from the site on Spike RBD responsible for macromolecular recognition event of ACE2. Also, the paper shows that, as of currently screened cases, around 11% present E484K mutation. <5% present N501Y mutation; and <1%, both E484K and N501Y. Another interesting point here is that multiple different epitopes on RBD have been identified. Perhaps this is not divorced from RBD function in macromolecular recognition of ACE2? This interaction presents nM Kd, and thus would it not be unreasonable to suggest the presence of more than one binding pocket to occupy -- thereby conferring potency at more than one binding pocket? Hmm....

The general rule of thumb is that shape complementarity and hydrophobic contacts drive potency, whereas hydrogen bonds drive specificity. If, for example, E484 is forming hydrogen bonds (likely as a donor) in the antibody-mediated neutralization binding event targeting RBD, than certainly the "flip" in physiochemical properties (for lack of better terminology) of E484K would attenuate potency. Now, does that completely evade neutralization? I would say unlikely, but difficult to say. Here is where shape complementarity would enter the discussion. That is, if E484 presents shape complementarity for the binding pocket on the anitbody, then I would entertain the discussion.

T95I and D253G mutants in this strain map to the N-terminus of Spike protein. This paper, just published in Cell Host & Microbe, provides the structural basis for SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein N-terminal domain (NTD)-dependent antibody neutralization: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...31312821001335. The upshot of this is that there is one epitope on the surface of the NTD, for which antibodies with nM binding affinities have been identified from covalescent donors. Of the antibodies characterized, one recognition event implicates D253G, yet molecular interaction in question is an intramolecular hydrogen bond that does not appear to contact NTD. In addition, the epitope on NTD is strongly positively charged; that is noteworthy here, given the physiochemical properties of aspartic acid. Further suggestive that the D253G mutant may not evade NTD-dependent neutralizing antibody activity.

[Mike 75]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

Since there are many who respect Dr. Gottlieb here, just saw this and thought I'd link it here. Sounds a bit alarming, if proven true!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...w-Yorkers.html

Really depends on the severity of the re-infection. If people start ending up in hospitals again, then its a problem. If its cold like symptoms, then its not an issue.
My understanding of the vaccines is that they do not necessarily prevent infection, but that they reduce the severity of the infection, so that people don't end up in the hospital. Would think that would be consistent no matter the variant.

[Stylo]

Originally Posted by Mike 75

My understanding of the vaccines is that they do not necessarily prevent infection, but that they reduce the severity of the infection, so that people don't end up in the hospital. Would think that would be consistent no matter the variant.

True of J&J and first dose of Moderna/Pfizer, but the latter after 2nd dose protects against infection ~95%.

[Massimiliano]

Originally Posted by Stylo

True of J&J and first dose of Moderna/Pfizer, but the latter after 2nd dose protects against infection ~95%.

If I understand what you wrote, I think this is backwards.
J&J and first dose of Moderna are protective of asymptomatic infection. Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are ~95% protective against symptomatic disease.

We don't have good data yet on how effective the vaccines are on some of these new variants. We do have evidence that some vaccines (Astra Zeneca) are much less effective against some variants (South African), so the concerns expressed by Dr. Gottlieb seem warranted.

[Stylo]

Originally Posted by Massimiliano

If I understand what you wrote, I think this is backwards.
J&J and first dose of Moderna are protective of asymptomatic infection. Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are ~95% protective against symptomatic disease.

I meant what I said. J&J and first dose of others is protective against severe cases. Second doses prevent infection.

"the Moderna vaccine was 94.1% effective at preventing laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 illness"

That accounts for asymptomatic or symptomatic.

Does asymptomatic really matter? From what I understand, it's unlikely these people are spreading it. Pre-symptomatic seems to be the bigger issue, as you don't have symptoms yet and can unknowingly spread it.

[Massimiliano]

OK, but the following statement about Moderna/Pfizer is incorrect, since their trials after the 2 doses didn't measure infection but symptomatic disease.

Originally Posted by Stylo

True of J&J and first dose of Moderna/Pfizer, but the latter after 2nd dose protects against infection ~95%.

The CDC believes that both asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission account for about 50% of transmission, with presymptomatic accounting for more depending on when the peak of infectiousness is.

[Massimiliano]

There is some new data out of Israel, not sure if peer-reviewed yet, that shows ~90% effectiveness for Pfizer preventing asymptomatic infection. Is that what you're referring to?
If true that's great news.