Is there a comprehensible to the layman explanation of why they might think that presenting a fraction of 'the enemy' to the immune system might make the immune system better prepared to meet the enemy than presentation of the real enemy would make it?
By which I mean to refer to the respective immune systems of (a) a survivor after va…
Is there a comprehensible to the layman explanation of why they might think that presenting a fraction of 'the enemy' to the immune system might make the immune system better prepared to meet the enemy than presentation of the real enemy would make it?
By which I mean to refer to the respective immune systems of (a) a survivor after vaccine and (b) a survivor after non vaccine.
It seems to me you'd quite naturally expect a poorer overall performance from the imitation than the real thing.
And the role of the first 'phase' of the immune system could use some explanation to us laypeople, I think.
vaccines so to speak 'hurdle over it' . i.e. it is that early stage where the greatest damage is done, is it not, while the body is preparing it's specific antibodies or whatever?
Proffering these pretenders effectively make an immune system already at 'phase 2' when the enemy turns up. ('phase three' in my little scheme is the phase after the attack).
Now what I mean about the 'need for explanation' is what is the full nature of this first phase and is it notionally prejudiced at all by this proffering of a pretender?
Seems to me instinctively that it would be.
What I understand of original antigenic sin grows out of this.
Can anyone provide a link perhaps to where these things are discussed in layman's terms?
Is there a comprehensible to the layman explanation of why they might think that presenting a fraction of 'the enemy' to the immune system might make the immune system better prepared to meet the enemy than presentation of the real enemy would make it?
By which I mean to refer to the respective immune systems of (a) a survivor after vaccine and (b) a survivor after non vaccine.
It seems to me you'd quite naturally expect a poorer overall performance from the imitation than the real thing.
And the role of the first 'phase' of the immune system could use some explanation to us laypeople, I think.
vaccines so to speak 'hurdle over it' . i.e. it is that early stage where the greatest damage is done, is it not, while the body is preparing it's specific antibodies or whatever?
Proffering these pretenders effectively make an immune system already at 'phase 2' when the enemy turns up. ('phase three' in my little scheme is the phase after the attack).
Now what I mean about the 'need for explanation' is what is the full nature of this first phase and is it notionally prejudiced at all by this proffering of a pretender?
Seems to me instinctively that it would be.
What I understand of original antigenic sin grows out of this.
Can anyone provide a link perhaps to where these things are discussed in layman's terms?