Talk:2406: Viral Vector Immunity

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search

Mentioning explainxkcd on Randall's tweet https://twitter.com/xkcd/status/1345061851424501761 started off some explanations 162.158.155.150 18:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Is anyone else reminded of the "Boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew" rhythm? "Burn it, smash it, push it into the gorge". Into breaks the rhythm a bit, but perhaps it could be a The Two Towers (Lord of the Rings) movie reference? 141.101.69.107 19:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Couldn't a similar comic be used to explain how immunity works in general? Instead of the horse being a vaccine vector, it would be a pathogen, and the immune cells recognize it from a previous encounter and attack it. Vaccine vector failure occurs when the vector resembles something you've developed immunity to. Barmar (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this — the current explanation for the comic (Trojan horse = immunity vector, Steve-trampling horse = common pathogen) doesn't explain how viral vector immunity works, it explains how it fails to work. I think a more appropriate explanation for the comic would have the Trojan horse be the pathogen against which immunity was desired, and the Steve-trampling horse be the DNA carried by the immunity vector. This would also be consistent with the traditional use of the Trojan horse to signify an unexpected threat (as opposed to the current interpretation's, whcih has the Trojan horse be beneficial). 162.158.129.64 08:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I think you're absolutely right that the current explanation is interpreting the comic as an explanation of how viral vector immunity fails to work, while your suggested explanation interprets the comic as an explanation of how viral vector immunity works. The caption of the cartoon, "how vaccine failure due to viral vector immunity works" shows that the existing interpretation is the intended one.Yp17 (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I think you are misunderstood about the workings of a viral vector vaccine. The whole premise of this approach to vaccination is to use the ability of a virus to sneak into a human body undetected, later releasing its payload into the cells, but for a beneficial gain, rather than harm. The vector virus is perfectly represented by a trojan horse - it is supposed to enter the gates unrestricted. In the case of a real infection, the virus RNA injects itself into the cell and takes over its live processes, much like the soldiers took over the city after coming out of the Trojan horse. In the case of a vector vaccine, the trojan horse bears a beneficial payload inside. The trampling-horse is an incidental "immunity" to everything that looks like horses, i.e. immunity to the vector virus, not the payload virus (which they never get to experience since the horse never makes it in). 162.158.158.215 02:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I think the issue is that it's an imperfect, flawed analogy to begin with where the details and their relationships don't quite match those of the subject it is being compared to, so any attempt to accurately explain the analogy can't be perfect either.--162.158.75.152 05:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I would disagree with the title text explanation, at least to a degree. The narrator is the person being recognised and threatened with the sword, but the narrator is not the vehicle of delivery of the modified payload (the coffee), that would still be the cup. I think either the metaphor or the explanation breaks at this point, which is not uncharacteristic of the title text often deviating from the stricter rules of the comic. 141.101.98.130 21:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Right. The common theme is that the victim of a trick has seen through the ruse. In the title text, the narrator is the perpetrator of the coffee replacement trick, and the victim has detected the difference (or already knows about it by hearing from someone else -- similar to the way the immune system is forewarned by vaccines) and is now coming after the narrator with a sword. Barmar (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it's so much the victim seeing through the ruse, it's that the victim has other reasons for attacking the narrator, before even getting to the point where she would drink the coffee and possibly notice any difference, removing the whole point of the ruse without the victim realising that there was a ruse. In the case of the Trojan Horse, this other reason is Steve's previous encounter with a horse, leading them to destroy the horse statue without the Greeks inside it ever coming into play. In the case of the viral vector, the other reason is the previous immunity to the carrier virus, destroying it before the payload can be delivered into the cells. In both these cases, the "ruses" fail because of unconnected reasons the "perpetrators" didn't know about. In the case of the title text, even the reader doesn't know this unconnected reason.141.101.76.240 11:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The narrator in the alt text/title text is the scientist/researcher performing the experiment. Except that the researcher doesn't usually get threatened with attack from the research subject. In some cases perhaps they should though, such as the Tuskegee experiments.

In the other comics mentioning Steve no-one liked him too much...--Gunterkoenigsmann (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

There is a huge gorge several kilometers southeast of Troy at Kemer Creek. 172.68.142.189 22:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)