I didn't read the article, but my very basic understanding of mRNA vaccines is that they cause your own cells to produce the spike protein so that your immune system can learn to attack it without actually having the virus present. Does this finding imply that the vaccine would also inhibit DNA damage repair? Or is it more like, in combination with the virus, the spike protein inhibits DNA repair?
It does imply that the vaccine would also inhibit DNA damage repair.
I think the key question is timescale. I suspect this would be a short-term side effect, with no real impact. If not -- if it's longitudinal -- it could be scary. I can't imagine how that would happen, though.
Virus would have the same effect, so this isn't an anti-vax argument.
Yeah, for context I'm fully vaccinated and not trying to create distrust of the mRNA vaccines. Just curious because that seems like a pretty bad thing. It makes sense that this would only happen while the spike proteins are actually present in your body. Thanks for the response!
The mRNA vaccines's mRNA has never been the problem its the adjuvant properties such as the PEG allergies and lipid nanoparticles that have been been causing all the issues. I am sure it will be improved, and they're exploring better adjuvants. When were you vaccinated? If its been a while get your booster. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
Effectiveness against infections declined from 88% (95% CI 86–89) during the first month after full vaccination to 47% (43–51) after 5 months. Among sequenced infections, vaccine effectiveness against infections of the delta variant was high during the first month after full vaccination (93% [95% CI 85–97]) but declined to 53% [39–65] after 4 months.
I did not get vaccinated, I was infected and have antibodies. Pfizer has the least amount of foreign bodies, 30ng vs 100ng from Moderna, the JJ can only be used once, so as long as you are upkeeping boosters you will be fine, but the Moderna vaccine with give a stronger immune response.
I was waiting for Novavax but they kept delaying it constantly (they said summer, then autumn and now 2022), so I am keeping an eye on Medicago as well, since I think the protein subunit ones are hardier than the mRNA ones. Because the studies keep changing (moderna used to be the best, then they said pfizer was just as protective, then during delta they said JJ was good) its hard to predict what problems and which of the vaccines will be best suited to that environment. The best immunity seems to be from a natural infection so a mild infection that creates antibodies has been said to be the best protective (many self reported infections weren't covid, but the ones that had testing showed very protective long lasting effects), although I don't think that its worth it to risk long covid for this effect.
Despite all this, the monoclonal antibody treatment is very good. It is userful post infection or when you are worried about being exposed, its thousands of dollars per treatment (gov paid for it already and it won't cost you), but its something to keep in mind about its usage. The US is buying a lot of them for treatment you may want to make a note of it around you with this site. https://protect-public.hhs.gov/pages/therapeutics-distributi...
Half-life of mRNA is fairly small, as there is no shortage of enzymes that basically just break it down for recycling. The real problem would have to stem from DNA damage that occurred in the presence of the vaccine that did not either lead to cell death, or get repaired later.
It doesn't cause damage it seems, it impairs repair, so it would have prevented DNA repair during the few days the mRNA would have created spike protein.
I have no idea how often the body needs to repair DNA and what the effects of not doing it for a few days are though.
>The real problem would have to stem from DNA damage that occurred in the presence of the vaccine that did not either lead to cell death, or get repaired later.
Which is what it sounds like from the title and abstract.
It looks like only the mRNA vaccines. That said, the mRNA vaccines seem better at preventing serious COVID cases for longer, so even if they do screw up one's B and T cells, the serious COVID one might catch once one's J&J runs out will screw them up that much more.
>Does this finding imply that the vaccine would also inhibit DNA damage repair?
Well, yes, but consider the context. If you read the article, and it's almost beyond belief that I have to recommend that you read the article in order to discuss it -- indeed, the information that might assuage your fears is in the very first paragraph -- it's been observed that a consequence of surviving a serious case of COVID is that your immune system is fucked, both during and afterward:
>"SARS–CoV–2 infection extraordinarily affects lymphocyte number and function [3,4,5,6]. Compared with mild and moderate survivors, patients with severe COVID–19 manifest a significantly lower number of total T cells, helper T cells, and suppressor T cells [3,4]. Additionally, COVID–19 delays IgG and IgM levels after symptom onset [5,6]. Collectively, these clinical observations suggest that SARS–CoV–2 affects the adaptive immune system."
Searching for a means by which the vaccine might meaningfully damage your adaptive immune system is ill-advised. Frankly, we've got terrifying amounts of information about the deleterious effects of catching and surviving serious COVID, and administration of a vaccine tends to uncontroversially downgrade the seriousness of the COVID infection that you will almost assuredly get eventually. Thus, even if the vaccine harms you in some way, COVID itself will do worse.
That said, the Discussion section does suggest that there may be improvements to full-spike vaccines in future,
>"indicating that full–length spike–based vaccines may inhibit the recombination of V(D)J in B cells, which is also consistent with a recent study that a full–length spike–based vaccine induced lower antibody titers compared to the RBD–based vaccine [28]. This suggests that the use of antigenic epitopes of the spike as a SARS–CoV–2 vaccine might be safer and more efficacious than the full–length spike."
I'll again point out that however the spike might fuck with B and T cells, the full-blown virus will surely do more.
> Searching for a means by which the vaccine might meaningfully damage your adaptive immune system is ill-advised. Frankly, we've got terrifying amounts of information about the deleterious effects of catching and surviving serious COVID, and administration of a vaccine tends to uncontroversially downgrade the seriousness of the COVID infection that you will almost assuredly get eventually. Thus, even if the vaccine harms you in some way, COVID itself will do worse.
Explicitly saying nobody should look into a potential negative side effect of vaccines because they might actually find something is down right scary. Much scarier than any fears of “misinformation”. This kind of thinking is why there is mistrust.
Vax injuries/deaths are happening, and these lives are being swept under the rug - or dismissed as sacrifices to the cause. COVID will most definitely not be worse than the vaccine for everyone.
I especially want to understand the effects on developing immune systems. There are obvious no long term studies and kids are rarely seriously sick from the virus itself.
>Explicitly saying nobody should look into a potential negative side effect of vaccines because they might actually find something is down right scary.
You didn't read the article. Or what I wrote about it. The vaccine can't do any worse than the virus, and this study, that does look into a potential negative side effect, found that the virus does indeed do worse!
Scaremongering while putting words into someone else's mouth is why there is mistrust.
> You didn't read the article. Or what I wrote about it.
I literally quoted your words. Are you suggesting I randomly selected text and copy/pasted it without reading it?
> The vaccine can't do any worse than the virus, and this study, that does look into a potential negative side effect, found that the virus does indeed do worse!
Nothing in what I said implied that the virus could not be and is not worse. It's a more general point that suggesting an angle of research not be attempted because the result might be unflattering regarding vaccines is ill advised.
If an individual is not at risk for serious complications from COVID (e.g. healthy, young, and fit) then it's not irrational to consider the potential side effects of a vaccine v.s. just the risk of the disease itself. Even the comparison to the same types of side effects of an actual infection is not a fair one as that assumes the individual is guaranteed to get sick. Not everyone lives in a city and travels in a sardine can on rails to go to work every morning so the number of human contacts and potential infection points is not uniform.
> Scaremongering while putting words into someone else's mouth is why there is mistrust.
Claiming that quoting someone's own words is "putting words in someone else's mouth" is some fantastic double-think.
I don’t believe any of these states even have a single “sardine can on rails” used by daily commuters.
The idea that you are less likely to be infected in rural Wyoming because you commute by car is pure fiction based on the data. Very few people in the United States are able to avoid grocery stores, pharmacies, or restaurants for more than a week or two.
> I'll again point out that however the spike might fuck with B and T cells, the full-blown virus will surely do more.
Sure. And the full-blown virus trigger the same immune response and create the same spike protein..
BUT, this is all about risk management.
If you live alone in somewhere very low infection rate and don't meet people, there is no point taking this risk.
If you need a vaccine, there are safer (but less effective) alternative vaccines.
>If you live alone in somewhere very low infection rate and don't meet people
Heh, good luck! Delta's r0 of 6 to 8 is too high to meaningfully avoid. Sure, if you're some sort of hermit, you can probably manage, but if you're in North America, vaccination rates in rural areas will work against you. Frankly, there's no point in taking the risk.
Thanks for the response! And absolutely a fair point about reading the article. I wasn't really trying to look for ways that the vaccines do damage, given that the risks of covid seem to clearly be higher. Just wanted to check if I understood the implication correctly. Thanks again!
Ehh I didn’t say that did I? The choice I refer to is, get vaccinated or do not.
This sub outsmarts itself so often and it shows. Medical professionals, scientists, researchers, etc are more qualified than I. There’s nothing blind about it.
Except the researchers raise the possibility that this could be an issue:
> This suggests that the use of antigenic epitopes of the spike as a SARS–CoV–2 vaccine might be safer and more efficacious than the full–length spike. Taken together, we identified one of the potentially important mechanisms of SARS–CoV–2 suppression of the host adaptive immune machinery. Furthermore, our findings also imply a potential side effect of the full–length spike–based vaccine.
And that made targeting the spike protein with the vaccines a good idea? No. The spike protein itself is the problem, regardless of its source. The vaccine designers picked a bad target.
How so? No matter how you get the spike proteins in you (virus, mRNA vaccine, or traditional vax using the spike protein as target) the preferential targeting of the virus for immune system cells, combined with the properties being exhibited by the spike protein, means that the immune system isn't able to properly develop the immunity you should be getting from infection or from vaccination.
If a different target from the virus was chosen, perhaps it'd be a different story, but going for the spike protein without having a fuller understanding of what it does in our cells has made the vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 questionable given the findings in this paper.
> I agree, but the mRNA vaccines factually aren't long lasting. Get your booster if you haven't yet, its important since the protection is about half in under half a year.
This is misinformation. From your link:
> Vaccine effectiveness against hospital admissions for infections with the delta variant for all ages was high overall (93% [95% CI 84–96]) up to 6 months.
A post regarding a possible "issue" with the vaccines is a strange place to engage in "get your booster!" fearmongering by highlighting VE against infection as compared to the far more important endpoints of hospitalization and death.
"Up to" 6 months isn't long lasting, thats salesmen speak, and the average again was 53% after 4 months.
>vaccine effectiveness against infections of the delta variant was high during the first month after full vaccination (93% [95% CI 85–97]) but declined to 53% [39–65] after 4 months.
>Reduction in vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infections over time is probably primarily due to waning immunity with time rather than the delta variant escaping vaccine protection.
Its why its important to get a booster shot. Most people who didn't get vaccinated also don't go to the hospital or die, so its not like that information is significant when the control isn't a black and white difference. People don't want to get infected in the first place so they don't get long covid.
I pointed out that the VE against hospitalization remains high (>90%) at 6 months and you continue to highlight VE against infection. These are not the same endpoints.
> People don't want to get infected so they don't get long covid.
Notwithstanding the fact there's some evidence the vaccines don't protect as well against long COVID as previously suggested[1], if this is the case and large numbers of people are eager to boost every 4-6 months out of fear they might get long COVID if they don't, you don't need to remind everyone to "get your booster!"
We should be able to have discussions about the virus and vaccines without gratuitous PSAs.
Sure, feel free to post the hospitalization rates of delta positive non vaccinated people. What is their delta hospital admissions in comparison? Lets compare those rates.
Many people who got covid didn't go to the hospital, didn't die and were asymptomatic, so that statistic you posted is mostly noise. Most people who take the vaccine don't want to get covid at all.
What plotting library were you using? The "first plot of the day" is a bit slow for me, but certainly it doesn't take minutes. I just opened a fresh repl and "using PyPlot" took a little over 5 seconds, and the first plot took around 1.2 seconds. Plots after that are around 0.001 seconds.
Granted, if you were plotting in a small script, I guess every run would take about 7 seconds to get the plotting functionality.
This is what PackageCompiler.jl aims to do, for whatever plotting etc. packages you use all the time. It seems to work well for some people but is, right now, a bit fiddly to get set up.
I haven't read the article, but there have been a number of games that I found personally helpful. It's not that they're helpful because they provide an escape from real life and its problems. Instead, they can be a source of meaningful dialogue about common problems, and they can help us to see that we are not isolated and that our troubles are not as impossibly unique as they might feel. After a quick skim, I haven't played any of the games in the article, but two games that made a fairly large impact for me were Celeste and OwlBoy.
I've played Celeste. It barely says anything. At most mental health is identifiable as a problem, and the character metaphorically overcomes the issue.
I'm a little confused by this. If the chromecast didn't know my wifi password, how could it connect to google to receive any information / configuration? Mostly commenting because I want to know if there's some cool mechanism for getting around that! Thanks!
Just guessing, but it could be that they are claiming that 200 million unique videos are recommended on a given day, with the number of unique videos being a proxy for how diverse they are. Perhaps before some of their recent changes, the number of unique videos was smaller. (Who can say for sure, though)
I whole-heartedly agree. This is one of the reasons I think that education about AI and ML is important (and, on the flip side, I also think that it wouldn't hurt to educate AI and ML researchers/engineers about humanist issues so that they can participate in non-technical debate).
I found there's not much to learn about "humanist" issues, in the sense of background knowledge of consensus of the field. United States and North Korea agree on nuclear physics: they use the exactly same number for cross section. They don't agree much on humanist issues.
> United States and North Korea agree on nuclear physics: they use the exactly same number for cross section. They don't agree much on humanist issues.
This is true but concluding that therefore there's "not much to learn" seems like the worst possible way of resolving this conflict.
"humanist issues" are about the management (not the solution) of unsolvable disagreements. The knowledge is different in nature from scientific knowledge but for no reason should it be considered inferior. By thinking this way you just exclude yourself from any discourse and just hinder your condition.
I agree with the sentiment that the discussion about AI and Machine Learning should not be entirely driven by industry.
At the same time, this article seems to be a bit down on AI itself, and part of their message is that AI doesn't provide "relevant and competent" solutions to problems. It also sounds like they are writing off real work (both in industry and academia) focusing on real ethical concerns with AI and what can be done to address them (e.g., the FAT* conference, a growing number of sessions on fairness, privacy, and other related topics at NeurIPS and ICML, etc).
I think the most important issue is educating the general public about AI and giving them familiarity with what types of things are automatable, what things can be learned from their data, where and how AI is being used in the real world currently, etc. A big part of this is to have the mainstream media be a bit more self-guided.
A final thought: one of the suggestions from the Reuter's article is that we should hear more from scientists and activists in the media. This seems a bit troubling to me, since in ML and AI research there are very strong ties between academia and industry (and often people move fairly freely between the two). I'm not sure we would hear a significantly different narrative if we talked to researchers in academia...
there is this humor show (the fix, on Netflix) where they were supposed to “fix” AI.
I think it’s quite telling that the entire show instead ended up talking about robotics. I don’t think any of the participants reflects at all on how AI is used today in the systems they interact with.
So that’s probably the first step in educating the public. Find a basic mental framework for thinking about AI that doesn’t involve robots or skynet.
That's a really interesting point - it does seem like most people immediately jump to skynet or our robot overlords whenever the topic of AI comes up. I don't have any really solid suggestions for what a good mental framework for thinking about AI would be, but I think giving an alternative to these unrealistic versions would be super helpful.
I always explain it using recommendation engines. You buy a vacuum and you get suggestions for 10 vacuums you might want to get next. Not so good. You buy a film with Tom Cruise, and you see 10 other Tom Cruise moves suggested, thats not so bad.
All the research in fairness, privacy, and other related topics at academic conferences is irrelevant if the industry continues to recklessly deploy unethical machine learning in production.
In fact, it can be argued that industry funds such research only to appear to be ethical and to give themselves cover to continue to use unethical machine learning.
I don't know if I'd say it's irrelevant if it's not used by the current industry. It's always helpful to understand what is possible and how to achieve it. And beyond actual application, formalizations of fairness notions and thinking about their implications for computing gives us another lens to think about fairness more broadly (as in, these kinds of technical discussions can give specificity and clarity to discussions of fairness even beyond machine learning and computing).
To your second point, it's very difficult to attribute a single intention to large companies. There are certainly employees and researchers at large tech companies that work on fairness and privacy preservation because they think it's important and want to make their companies more responsible (I know some!). It's also certainly true that exploring this type of research looks good for the company, and some other employees are surely aware of that and promoting it for those reasons.
Why would it? Eigen-faces tend to not even look like faces (which makes sense, given that the goal is to represent a collection of real faces as linear combinations of the orthogonal eigen-faces). One possibility would be to generate random faces as random linear combinations of the eigen-face basis, but this type of attack could be thwarted by rate limiting.
A real "master face" would be a face that looks like many people, and it seems like you could try to obtain faces like that by playing a two-player game between a recognizer and a face generator (as is done when training GANs).
The images that screw up image recognition systems to get very high confidence of very wrong classifications don't look like the thing they're mistaken for at all. All the GANs I've seen produce what looks like colorful static to a human eye. I'm not sure where you're getting the info that it would look like an average face because I've never seen ML systems defeated with GANs like that.
I think it depends on what you mean. I don't think that just the number of bytes of data should be used to measure the size of your dataset. For example, if I have 1TB of all 1's, this is a lot of data, but not very interesting.
I think a more nuanced notion of size is the /information content/ of the datasets. I haven't thought about it carefully, but I'm sure you can quantify this more explicitly in terms of information theory or other non-bit-based complexity measures.
From this point of view, literature may not be large (in terms of the number of bytes), but in terms of information content, it is incredibly dense. A large portion of human knowledge is written somewhere. From this point of view, it is in fact big data.
Here in his famous tour de force Claude Shannon lays out the way we can estimate the amount of actual information in an act of communication (e.g. a literary work) and relates it to system entropy.
To your point, !TB of all 1's compresses to a just few bits of actual information.
But I suspect you are not actually speaking about the information contained in a literary work. You are probably thinking: how much expansive commentary and explanation could a literary work spawn? That is another question. The answer is always: unbounded.
Everything I've read by Chaitin is interesting and thoughtful, but this piece is particularly accessible and entertaining: https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0303352
"You have a terabyte of data? For $30,000 you can put that in main memory. If your dataset fits in main memory, it's not big data." Source: Michael Stonebraker, January 2015.
Try Google. You want to see my arrest record? How can I prove to you the absence of evidence?
Telling someone what happened to them instead of listening to them because you don't want to believe them isn't very reasonable. You have the same reaction as most people at CMU: you don't believe what happened, so something must be wrong with me.
I'm sorry for getting a Computer Science degree at Carnegie Mellon University just because I wanted to become a programmer. Before I went to college people suggested to me that is what I should do if I wanted to get a job. People said professors would help you if you need help with schoolwork or getting a job, nobody suggested they would be rich and not care about any of the students. You can go down to CMU and ask if there's anyone to talk to or to help get a job but no professors of faculty will help you. They don't tell us what resources are available. I here about people at other schools who can get their school to help them. But when I ask at CMU everyone says they'll help me and then they ignore me. They tell me help should be available, but when I ask for it, everyone just gets angry at me.
So, yes, you are being offensive. Try figuring things out for yourself instead of insulting people with your unreasonableness.
