Dullard said:
"COVID-19, even in the absence of a vaccine, would be unlikely to cause many long lasting evolutionary changes. At worst, ~1% of the world's population would be expected to die from the disease..."
Source
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/stunning-effectiveness-of-covid-vaccine.1003823/page-2
Particularly since 90+ percent of the 1% would be beyond reproductive age - their deaths are almost meaningless in evolutionary terms.
There is a basic misunderstanding in play over what I desired to ask in regards if there are metrics for immunological evolution.
I'll explain it step by step in the hope of clarifying, but fear I won't clarify it. I will try;
In evolutionary terms, we do not merely evolve one specific characteristic towards one specific outcome, but a species experiences a range of random mutations over time, some of which have no expression and no effect on survivability in maybe one, two or several generations. Maybe thousands. But an apparently 'useless' mutation may become selected for in some later period of stress on a species. So long as any given mutation doesn't get in the way and reduce survivability, then species exists with a variety of characteristics and 'benign' mutations.
During stress events those characteristics
may suddenly find utility, and lead to some fractions surviving and other fractions not surviving.
It is not the exposure to one single stressor on a species that might see a particular cadre of phenotypes eliminated, but it may reduce in total percentage that one particular cadre in favour of other phenotypes.
In our population we have a range of immunological responses, some have a better ability to defend against new random and never been seen before pathogens than others. This has to be the case, it is in the nature of random mutations.
By being routinely exposed to new random and never been seen before pathogens, various phenotypes will be selected for that can respond, survive and thrive even in the face of new random and never been seen before pathogens.
If we ALWAYS defeat new random and never been seen before pathogens with medications and never allow such phenotypes to be selected, my point is that we are not selecting the strongest responses to new random and never been seen before pathogens.
Like all other species, we've evolved over millions of years to a species that has evolved
to evolve. It is not merely the singular generational response to a singular generational stressor. That may mark an
evolutionary event that preferentially selects a phenotype from a sea of random benign mutations. But it does not explain, and ignores, the evolution for having gained that range of phenotypes and benign mutations in the first place.
It is in the nature of the evolution of sexual reproduction
itself to produce, at anyone time, a sea of phenotypes, from which evolutionary selection would take place at times of stress on the species.
My question is whether vaccination reduces the evolution of
those processes which give our species a range of autoimmunological mutations? If the selection conditions no longer exist (because everyone is getting an 'artificially enhanced' immunological response) then weak phenotypes (in this respect) are allowed to continue to thrive at the same rates as strong phenotypes, which can only dilute the average strength of the phenotype over extended generations.
We have been using man-made vaccines (or at least man-directed inoculations, considering cow-pox used for vaccination for small-pox) for just 200 years.
My grandfather used to tell me stories about his grandparents who lived then. We are not talking about a time period in which strong autoimmune phenotypes are going to be selected or deselected, so to say modern vaccines have no effect on autoimmune phenotypes would be premature.
In particular, the current range of RNA vaccines have
never been used before and are unlike previous vaccination means.
[In fact, they are
so new, the vaccines are not even properly licenced (at least here in the UK) but issued under emergency protocols (it means the users and recipients are accepting
all the risks of adverse consequences, not the drug companies, which is not the case for licenced vaccines).]
So we simply have no history of how these may affect autoimmune phenotypes over several generations.
My point is that if we are not deriving any metrics for autoimmune phenotypes over time and in response to the use of vaccines, how would we spot if it is a good thing or not?
As mentioned before, it
might well be that if vaccinations slow down but do not entirely prevent phenotype selections (which must be true in some capacity, because being vaccinated is neither a guarantee of not acquiring a virus nor the resultant syndrome), then it might
improve that outcome. I don't deny this might be the case, I just don't know and no-one can unless we develop an understanding of autoimmune phenotypes over a few dozen generations.
But what I do know is that we exist today as a species after 100,000 years of evolution
without vaccines. What I
don't know, and cannot be said, is whether we survive after a 100,000 years of vaccinations.
