11-24-2018, 02:44 AM
FWIW, my graduate work was all done in a virology lab.
I can try to explain a little bit, but it seems like the argument is moot anyways as you both seem to agree that it [read: flu vaccines] is not 100% effective.
If you think about a virus - like the virus that causes the flu you might liken it to another species such as humans. Viruses like humans exist in populations, not solitarily. While humans are mostly the same e.g. 99.9% the same DNA, there are obviously huge differences like height, weight, ethnicity, etc. and then same can be said of viruses. These changes to viruses however can often result in drastic differences when considering their ability to infect and replicate in hosts or pathogenicity.
The virus populations for some species (particularly true of RNA viruses - yes some viruses are comprised of RNA genomes and have no DNA whatsoever - this includes influenza viruses) are more prone to mutation than others - just as certain groups or ethnicities may be more genetically prone to some types of diseases.
Our vaccines work by recognizing specific ‘shapes’ or epitopes on the exterior of the viruses - more appropriately referred to as virions or individual viral units.
You might liken these ‘shapes’ or epitopes to a child’s toy such as pegs and a box with square, round and triangular holes - the child of course develops manual dexterity by discovering which specific shape can fit into which hole.
The vaccines developed today are designed to recognize all of the epitopes of the influenza virus known/identified thus far by scientists. Imagine how the circular and triangular peg of the right size might fit into a square whole, but a square peg may not be able to fit into a round hole. Anyways, if I haven’t confused you yet you may be able to imagine the possibility of a receptor in a vaccine that could recognize any possible viral epitope - that is essentially the universal flu vaccine they are working on - in laymans terms.
I can try to explain a little bit, but it seems like the argument is moot anyways as you both seem to agree that it [read: flu vaccines] is not 100% effective.
If you think about a virus - like the virus that causes the flu you might liken it to another species such as humans. Viruses like humans exist in populations, not solitarily. While humans are mostly the same e.g. 99.9% the same DNA, there are obviously huge differences like height, weight, ethnicity, etc. and then same can be said of viruses. These changes to viruses however can often result in drastic differences when considering their ability to infect and replicate in hosts or pathogenicity.
The virus populations for some species (particularly true of RNA viruses - yes some viruses are comprised of RNA genomes and have no DNA whatsoever - this includes influenza viruses) are more prone to mutation than others - just as certain groups or ethnicities may be more genetically prone to some types of diseases.
Our vaccines work by recognizing specific ‘shapes’ or epitopes on the exterior of the viruses - more appropriately referred to as virions or individual viral units.
You might liken these ‘shapes’ or epitopes to a child’s toy such as pegs and a box with square, round and triangular holes - the child of course develops manual dexterity by discovering which specific shape can fit into which hole.
The vaccines developed today are designed to recognize all of the epitopes of the influenza virus known/identified thus far by scientists. Imagine how the circular and triangular peg of the right size might fit into a square whole, but a square peg may not be able to fit into a round hole. Anyways, if I haven’t confused you yet you may be able to imagine the possibility of a receptor in a vaccine that could recognize any possible viral epitope - that is essentially the universal flu vaccine they are working on - in laymans terms.