Recent comments in /f/askscience

kurai_tori t1_jdjboh1 wrote

This is why the latest booster is based on the mRNA of two variants. Both to increase your immunity to an increased number of variants (there is some cross protection from related variants, depends on how similar the spike protein/antigen is to the original that the antibodies previously produced (e.g. via vaccination).) as well as to increase your "standing army" of antibodies (specific antibodies levels drop after a while, leaving memory cells that will "activate" when reexposed to the Covid antigen (variant-specfic spike protein). Problem is the memory cell response might be too slow, hence the need for boosters of the same variant.

Flu shots are a good example of this and we will likely be moving to a similar approach with COVID.

29

fakeittil_youmakeit t1_jdjbodw wrote

Question for you - I couldn't get the most recent booster due to some health issues at the time. I'm doing much better now and could probably be in a good enough place to do it in the next couple of months or so, at that point, is it even worth it or will the serotypes have changed so much it's not effective anymore? If that's the case are there going to be annual boosters and should I just wait for the next one in October or something? TIA!

9

Alwayssunnyinarizona t1_jdjaqo7 wrote

There's no real specific guidance, but it's starting to turn into more flu-like guidance - vaccines recommended every year around the same time you'd be getting an annual flu vaccine, regardless of whether you were infected in the last 6-12 months or not. Expect there to be additional combo vaccines this fall (flu/covid), and that may persist for years until/unless covid starts to fall below background common cold status.

49

Not_Pictured t1_jdjal7z wrote

I guess. The mathematical models we are using to guess at what is going on already break with what we've got.

Really as someone who intends to never enter an event horizon, mathematically there is no difference between the matter of a black hole being in a singularity, or being evenly spread just under the event horizon. The stuff that comes out of a black hole, gravity and charge, don't care so in a very real sense there isn't a difference.

In fact it might not even be defined in the same sense that many things in quantum mechanics aren't defined until measured. And since it can't be measured as far as the external universe is concerned, why would reality care to pick?

8

Not_Pictured t1_jdj9ate wrote

The singularity is a finite distance from the event horizon which means it's a finite time away (as measured in both time and space and the distinction could matter in this case) when inside the event horizon. You will catch up to something and that something should be a singularity.

The acceleration felt by the atoms or neutrons in a neutron star is > the speed of light. Nothing can resist ending up in the infinitely dense center. There is no physical mechanism we know of that could resist it.

5

Matrix17 t1_jdj64rx wrote

> viruses tend to become less lethal and more contagious

This is not always true. Remember, there has to be some sort of evolutionary selection for it. As an example, the reason delta even became a thing, which was more deadly than the original strain, is because covid was spreading before people had symptoms. So it didn't matter if it killed the host or not, because they likely spread it before they even knew they had it. So there was no selective pressure for it to become less deadly. If covid had only spread after someone was symptomatic, it may not have turned into a pandemic at all

We just got lucky that the omicron mutation happened. If delta was still circulating, we would be in a very bad spot

71