19 ms·

Pfizer submits Covid vaccine to FDA for approval, to distribute in December

225 points by KoftaBob 6y ago

gvv 6y ago
Well just like I don't immediately update to the latest OS I think I'll wait for the beta testing to happen :)
- solarhoma 6y ago
  Do you think private companies will require vaccination to return to work? *Here is an article I found on the subject. Essentially stating in general employers could require vaccination. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/08/26/coronavirus-vaccine-mandates-covid-19/3346210001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/08/26/coronavirus-...
  - strombofulous 6y ago
    I hope so. I would be upset if I got the vaccine and people who didn't have it were allowed to work near me, but I would just keep WFH. I would be outraged if I were forced to work with them
    - unnouinceput 6y ago
      Why would you be upset for? It's their life, not yours. Once you get vaccinated, ideally, you get immune to the virus. You neither can develop the disease nor spread it. It's the same as saying you don't want to work with people who didn't got vaccinated by any other number of vaccines (let you search wiki for full list as exercise) and I'm pretty sure it already happened.
      - macintux 6y ago
        * the vaccine is not 100% effective * we don’t yet know whether the vaccine prevents transmission. You can probably be a carrier and spreader even if vaccinated Those two facts alone mean we’re going to be wearing masks for quite some time, things won’t go back to normal for a while, and people are justified in being upset with others who refuse to protect everyone around them.
        unnouinceput 6y ago
        You really missed my point. Read again my above comment.
        bamboozled 6y ago
        If we don’t even know a basic facts about the vaccine (whether people vaccinated can still transmit, how long it lasts), isn’t it natural for people too feel concerned about what else we don’t know ? Seems to be a few unknowns still ?
        floatingatoll 6y ago
        It’s natural for people to want perfect certainty before making health care decisions. That’s why public health policy exists: because there is never perfect certainty in vaccination, and yet we’ll be required to all the same.
      - vharuck 6y ago
        >It's their life, not yours It's a lot of people's lives, not just theirs. Like with most vaccines, there'll be a fraction of the population who cannot safely get vaccinated. We need to think of this from a public health perspective: more unvaccinated people in spreading-prone situations means more risk to others (including those beyond the immediate situation) and more burden on health systems.
        unnouinceput 6y ago
        Dude, read my point again. I was asking why would he get upset if is his colleagues decide not to vaccinate. Not anything else.
        just-juan-post 6y ago
        isn't in insane how over the last few months people just assume their fellow man is a murderer for BREATHING? this virus is causing more insanity than health effects.
      - bluGill 6y ago
        Because it is only 95% effective. If everyone around me is also vaccinated it is likely that even if my vaccine doesn't work I'm still protected. This is what herd immunity is about. Note that we don't know if vaccinated people can spread covid or not. It seems unlikely, but if it turns out being vaccinated means you become a non-symptomatic super spreader I reserve the right to change my stance based on that information.
        anonuser123456 6y ago
        The 95% effective is not a cliff function. The 5% that ‘get it’ have mild symptoms. We won’t know how effective it at preventing serious disease until millions have been inoculated, but it will likely be 99%+ effective with that outcome.
        bluGill 6y ago
        We know that in one of the trials one of the serious cases was in the intervention group. We will of course need a lot more data to figure out what the real reduction in rate of serious events is.
      - prh8 6y ago
        > It's their life, not yours This attitude is why the pandemic rages on with such intensity in so many places
      - strombofulous 6y ago
        Because I don't want to be around people with a disease that's serious enough to shut down our society, if I am only 95% resistant to it
        fuzxi 6y ago
        The 95% effective figure refers to the percentage of people who develop full immunity, not how resistant an individual is. A more accurate way of phrasing that would be "[...] if I only have a 95% chance of immunity". I don't mean to split hairs; the distinction is important.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    I think it will depend on the political climate of the particular workspace.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    I fully expect that once it is widely available (major caveat), many workplaces and schools will require it absent medical exceptions. Certainly, most schools require vaccinations today and I don't expect there will be a lot of sympathy for those that want to hold off.
    - peteradio 6y ago
      Most schools require vaccines which have been in circulation for a long long time and presumably whose long term risks are well understood. I think it would be pretty stupid to force mass vaccinate such a rushed vaccine, don't you think?
      - massysett 6y ago
        A lot less stupid than continuing with "distance learning".
        peteradio 6y ago
        You and I have very different definitions of stupid. Requiring an entire country to go whole hog on something with zero real understanding of long term effects is my definition of stupid. When is that ever the wise thing to do?
        floatingatoll 6y ago
        It was the wise thing to do for the polio vaccine.
        peteradio 6y ago
        The risk profile for all the age groups is wildly different. I don't think its a bad idea for people > age X to get this vaccine, one because they have a much higher risk of serious harm from corona _AND_ perhaps less risk of long term affects. But for someone who has very low risk of serious harm from corona, perhaps it makes sense to wait a little bit?
- mindcrime 6y ago
  Same. I'm not an anti-vaxxer or anything like that. But I think "don't use version 1.0" advice applies here just like it does for software. Especially given the possibility that things have been "hurried" in the name of expediency in terms of getting the vaccine(s) developed, tested, and approved. The good news, in a sort of perverse sense, is that some delay to see what happens with "early adopters" is kinda inevitable anyway, due to the distribution logistics. Unless you're a health care provider, first responder, or in a high risk group, you'll probably have to wait a while to get access to the vaccine even if you want to take "version 1.0".
  - nojito 6y ago
    You would be foolish not to get vaccinated given what we know about COVID. The idea that this vaccine is a "beta" version is absolute nonsensical propaganda.
    - eplanit 6y ago
      We now know that Covid is not nearly as deadly as was first perceived, and that a relatively narrow band of the population is vulnerable to its worst effects. It's foolish to act as though this is worse than it is.
      - StillBored 6y ago
        We now know that Covid is not nearly as deadly as was first perceived That seems to depend on where you live. The 250k deaths from 11M infections number in the US is putting it within the original estimates. If you assume the actual case count is 2x or 3x the tested positive number, then its still roughly 1%, which will result in a lot of early deaths. If your over 50 then you should be taking it very seriously. If the vaccine numbers are right, it could literally save over a million peoples lives just in the US.
      - smaddox 6y ago
        1917 people died from COVID-19 yesterday in the US, alone. That's a 9/11 of deaths every 36 hours. It might not be as deadly as was first feared, but it is deadly.
- refurb 6y ago
  As someone who has some experience with clinical trials and drug approvals, I'd be quite comfortable taking the vaccine. A clinical trial size of 40,000 (20,000 receiving the vaccine) is way larger than a lot of other drugs that people are comfortable taking. Is there zero risk of serious side effects? Of course not, there never is. But the trial gives enough data to say the risk is worth the benefit. Edit: The FDA has already hinted that their initial approval (EUA) may be restricted to certain populations where the risk-benefit is justified. In other words, they may not approve it for healthy, young adults where the risk of serious Covid complications is low. That "full" approval could come later after additional clinical experience is gained.
  - xiphias2 6y ago
    It also depends on the known safety profile. With AstraZeneca some people already have to take pain medications after taking the vaccine...I wouldn't be comfortable putting using that vaccine without much wider testing. Fortunately I don't need to though, because soon we'll probably have 2 great vaccines to choose from.
    - refurb 6y ago
      Taking OTC pain relief medicines after a vaccine is not that unusual, either for pain or fever. Ask any parent who has gone through a vaccine series with their kid. And I can remember getting my tetanus booster in secondary school and when I rolled over in my sleep waking up because my shoulder was so swollen and painful. I'm not dismissing the fact that the vaccines might cause serious side effects. In fact, it's expected that some very small percentage will. But for the vast majority of patients, the Pfizer vaccine has a similar safety profile to other approved vaccines.
      - xiphias2 6y ago
        I was talking about AstraZeneca that would be the first vaccine using a modified adenovirus. It looks to have somewhat more side effects than the Pfitzer vaccine.
    - 6y ago
- sekai 6y ago
  Few key facts: • In the entire history of vaccines, only one has been recalled because the vaccine itself caused long term side effects (a rotavirus vaccine that had rare complications and no deaths for those under 1yr). If you can't find any papers about it, that's why. It's like finding a paper on death by lava lamp explosions. It's happened (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-dec-01-na-briefs1.5-story.html#:%7E:text=A%20man%20who%20placed%20a,said%20police%20spokesman%20Paul%20Petersen https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-dec-01-na-brief....), but not enough to study it. • Much of the speed was gained by relaxing enrollment rules, which are for study participant safety. The majority of normal study participants join in the last year or two anyways. • These studies were larger than usual to make up for the decreased time. 30,000 people is a lot, and plenty to check for rare side effects. • Then compare the odds that there's a common reaction that didn't show up in 30,000 participants against the ~5-10% chance of serious health complications from COVID. It's a no-brainer. You can read the list of recalled vaccines and why they were recalled straight from the FDA (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history....).
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > These studies were larger than usual to make up for the decreased time Larger studies don't make up for decreased time in either identifying long term effectiveness or identifying delayed effects.
    - coldcode 6y ago
      If you want to wait a lifetime to see if there are any issues you have that choice. But vaccines, even mRNA ones, are unlikely to have any long term effects worse than the disease itself.
      - ahulak 6y ago
        This sums it up quite nicely. What is worse? The vaccine or covid?
  - aphextron 6y ago
- thinkingemote 6y ago
  Its likely, that, like the flu jab, those most at risk will get it first. The vast majority of diligent users here will not be beta testers. Depending on how it works that is. It might be more effective to jab those most likely to transmit the disease first. (E.g. medical workers, children before Christmas meeting the family) or it might be better to jab those most at risk first.
  - 737maxtw 6y ago
    My understanding of at least the Pfizer vaccine was that it primarily lowered the risk of developing COVID from a COV-19 infection. Also if I read it properly that means you could/would wond up in the asymptomatic spreader category. IF all of that is true (and if i misunderstood, please correct me!) It would make the most sense to give it to higher risk individuals first.
    - enragedcacti 6y ago
      Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but the latest I had heard was that _pre-symptomatic_ spread was the issue rather than asysmptomatic. As in, if you got covid but never developed symptoms, you likely never had enough viral load to transmit the virus. If you later showed symptoms then you likely had a high viral load between contraction and showing symptoms and were likely to transmit the virus. So if this stops the symptoms, it may also stop the viral load from reaching transmitable levels.
      - _jesseb 6y ago
        Yeah, that's my understanding as well. There's a period of time between when you initially get it and when you start showing symptoms (4-5 days is the number I've heard) where you are contagious but most likely don't know it. That's why Covid is particularly nasty, because it spreads before it shows symptoms.
    - timerol 6y ago
      This is another specific scientific communication, of the type that are widely misunderstood. Remember "no evidence that masks reduce transmission" and "no evidence that immunity from COVID will last"? Both were true statements at the time, and widely misunderstood. "No evidence" of X does not mean that X is at all likely to happen, based on our current understanding of disease. Because of the test design, the test itself only measured people who got COVID. But based on current scientific consensus around disease, that means there is a very high likelihood that it also prevents asymptomatic transmission, as the immune system will generally fight off infection. One test being narrowly worded (as is correct scientific practice) does not overthrow our entire understanding of disease.
- bluGill 6y ago
  Too late for that - the beta testers have already found it good. A phase 3 trial is beta test.
  - jdndbfbf 6y ago
    I'll let you test it for me and find out what the long term effects are.
    - bluGill 6y ago
      I'll take my chances. My sister-in-law is dead. A brother-in-law is still unsure if we can talk across a room without fainting (6 months ago he was running several miles a day). This is just in my tiny circle of close family. Thousands in a much larger sample of had the vaccine with no side effects anywhere near that bad.
      - _Microft 6y ago
        If it cheers you up: I'll get myself vaccinated as soon as possible. Not just for myself but also because "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" as Mr. Spock would say.
      - jdndbfbf 6y ago
        n=1 is irrelevant I don't care about one persons experiences.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        hobby-coder-guy 6y ago
        Why are you a dickhead?
        fractionalhare 6y ago
        > I don't care about one persons experiences. You're not wrong about anecdata. But there's a less callous way to respond to someone who just explained that two of their relatives are dead or seriously ill...
- mariojv 6y ago
  This comment and another got me looking into mRNA more. It seems like an mRNA vaccine is more akin to food you consume that produces a desired effect, rather than something permanently sticking around in your body. It doesn't permanently modify your genetics. mRNA is usually produced by DNA and is temporarily used by cells to create proteins. In this case, the mRNA is used to create proteins with a similar structure to the coronavirus. These proteins produce the desired immune response but do not harm you. Like other proteins, they don't stick around permanently, just the immune response does. Additionally, the mRNA itself only lasts several minutes to days. [0] It's a relatively simple biological process that's well understood. This gives me a lot of confidence in its safety profile. Unlike a regular vaccine, you also don't have to create the protein directly, which leads to fewer errors during production from my understanding. You're producing a simpler, more basic compound, and can be more certain about the quality of individual doses. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messenger_RNA#Degradation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messenger_RNA#Degradation
  - aphextron 6y ago
    > It seems like an mRNA vaccine is more akin to food you consume that produces a desired effect, rather than something permanently sticking around in your body. It doesn't permanently modify your genetics. This is a really good analogy. It's important to note that this stuff literally has to be stored at cryogenic temperatures just so it won't completely degrade before being injected. Once inside your body, it's completely gone within hours.
    - brewdad 6y ago
      Is there a way to package the vaccine that would "prove" proper handling all through the chain of custody? Sort of the biological equivalent of the shock tags moving companies put on boxes containing fragile items. Given how sensitive to temperature this vaccine is, I would like some reassurance that no one mishandled it along the way.
      - mariojv 6y ago
        It's not proof to you, but Pfizer is shipping the vaccine in boxes that monitor temperature and location and transmit it to them so they can watch it. I trust that they wouldn't allow risky doses to be used. The risk to them of something bad happening and the public losing trust in the vaccine is too great.
- anonuser123456 6y ago
  On a risk basis, it’s clearly better to get the shot than COVID. But you aren’t wrong in you belief the vaccine may have unknown side effects. The trails were not powered to find the 1 in 10000 side effects that pop up. We won’t know those for months. Not that you’ll be able to get the vaccine for months anyway, unless you work in healthcare.
- mhandley 6y ago
  Well, unless you're over 75, you probably won't be offered it for quite a long time. For that age group, the chances of dying of covid are far higher than the risks from the vaccine, to the degree of precision we know from the phase 3 trial. By the time they've been vaccinated, we'll have a lot more data, and those error bounds will be quantified so you can make a better informed decision.
- credit_guy 6y ago
  Don't worry to much, you will not be able to get your hands on a vaccine for quite a while even if you wanted it. By the time this will be available for regular people like you and me, millions of frontline healthcare workers and emergency personnel will have gotten it.
- george43m 6y ago
  The real ques is: What % of the population are willing to be the "early adopters"? I wonder how things will develop in countries where that % is less than 5.
- chadash 6y ago
  I think differently than you. I figure that 20,000 people have had this and haven't had serious complications. So probably a better than 1/20k change that if I get this I'll be okay. And I'll have a much better idea of this by the time I get it since I'm unlikely to get the first round of vaccines anyway since I'm not in an elevated risk group. Meanwhile, out of a 23,359,180 males in my age group (25-34) in the US, 1,144--or 1 in 20,418--have died [0]. And obviously, the death rate is significantly higher than 1 in 20,418, because not every 25-34 year old has had COVID. If I get the vaccine and I can go back to living my life normally, that alone is worth the low risk to me. And sure, there's the (remote) possibility that the vaccine has some long-term side effects, but I have to weigh that against the (in my mind higher) possibility of COVID having some long term side effect. Given that I can't practically isolate myself completely for the next 8 months, I'm getting this vaccine as soon as possible. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm
- Exmoor 6y ago
  To continue this analogy, this is more along the lines of a patch to fix a remote code execution bug that is being actively exploited in the wild at an increasing rate. Your alternative is to only connect to the network very infrequently, using a draconian firewall which doesn't completely protect you and hope for the best. The security patch has been tested on tens of thousands instances for several months, the source code peer reviewed by literally the best experts in the world, and you'll most likely have to wait until its been installed on several million other endpoints before you get a chance at distribution?
  - faeyanpiraat 6y ago
    The difference is that it is not yet fully understood how humans work. If you patch a machine and leave it alone, it will stay like that. Humans age, already have or will get other kinds of diseases, have wildly varied genes, etc.. Drugs could have side effects not manifesting immediately, v2 of the same drug might have less of those side effects.
- tinus_hn 6y ago
  That’s fine, as long as you don’t expect other people to limit their lives in lockdowns because of your choices.
- tomjen3 6y ago
  There is a known zero day in the current version that is being actively exploited in the wild. If your system is sufficiently air gabbed waiting is probably fine, but otherwise would you risk it?
technoplato 6y ago
Isn’t this exactly how “I Am Legend” starts; just about to the T?
- Xenoamorphous 6y ago
  Not sure about the book as I haven’t read it, but in the movie they modify the measles virus to fight cancer.
- splaytreemap 6y ago
  We shouldn't be using fiction to inform anything about our actions in real life.
Neil44 6y ago
This will save lives. However I imagine most people will end up getting the Oxford vaccine, that doesn't have the storage requirements or need a second dose and is a fraction of the cost.
- lmilcin 6y ago
  Well, I wouldn't be so happy. Think about it. Out of million people only small percentage would become infected with covid and of that, only small percentage would die. On the other hand, vaccine must be distributed to everybody. Alternatively to people who, by occupation, have to contact many other people, daily. We don't know yet if there are complications from the vaccine. It is not possible to judge long term effects of anything based on very short exposure. The value of vaccine is in preventing future infections, but for a given person now it is not yet know if the vaccine is actually a good deal or not. Only time will tell. Looking at this selfishly and from PoV of game theory, the best decision is to let vaccinate everybody else but don't take vaccine yourself. Obviously, not everybody can make same decision.
  - aviraldg 6y ago
    Is there an example of a vaccine in history that produced no initial side effects but only very long term side effects (ie. several years later)?
    - tuna-piano 6y ago
      I haven't seen that, but I'd be careful to draw the meaningfulness of that metric, as there has also never been an mRNA vaccine deployed until this year. That said, the large size of these studies should be extremely comforting to people.
      - bamboozled 6y ago
        What I don’t find comforting is the fact that companies have not had approval (or even applied) for approval for a mRNA based vaccine until now. Even though they’ve had many years to do so. I know nothing about vaccines or medicine really, but I just find it hard to believe that it’s just luck that we’re all going to be taking one in under a year when there hasn’t been much push for approval before this ? Hopefully we’re not going to be pressured to be inoculated with something, anything that works, because of desperation and because managing the situation in an adult way was too hard for most world leaders. As others have said, if you’re not in a high risk group, maybe some skepticism is warranted?
justforfunhere 6y ago
>> The company has developed specially designed, temperature-controlled shippers for the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate, which can maintain recommended storage conditions (-70°C ±10°C) up to 15 days. Each shipper contains a GPS-enabled thermal sensor to track the location and temperature of each vaccine shipment. Once thawed, the vaccine vial can be stored for up to 5 days at refrigerated (2 - 8oC) conditions. I read somewhere they already have 20 million doses ready to shipped once they get the approval. Wonder what is the capacity of each of these specially designed shippers and how the logistics of the eventual vaccination are going to be handled? But this is surely an interesting problem to solve and I look forward to how they tackle it.
- nojito 6y ago
  In the US, they already have pre-purchased millions of dosages that are ready to go within 24 hours of FDA approval. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/operation-warp-speed-covid-19-vaccine-delivery-fda-60-minutes-2020-11-08/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/operation-warp-speed-covid-19-v... It's quite remarkable in terms of logistics.
- icegreentea2 6y ago
  Here are some larger on-market -80 class medical shippers: https://www.thermosafe.com/files/Product_Sheets/DurablesforHealthcare.pdf https://www.thermosafe.com/files/Product_Sheets/DurablesforH... Guessing by eye, you can fit at least several hundred, up to low thousands of doses in each shipper. The inner volumes on these are pretty large, but a good chunk of it will be taken up by dry-ice.
  - Kliment 6y ago
    You don't have to guess, this is published information. They have trays of 1000 doses, and up to 5 trays fit in a shipping box with the dry ice.
- tuna-piano 6y ago
  I'm curious if anyone knows why Pfizer's mRNA vaccine still needs this while Moderna's mRNA vaccine does not? Has Pfizer just not gone through the proper temperature testing or did they go through that testing and it showed that their vaccine needs to be stored so cold?
DSingularity 6y ago
Does this feel rushed to anyone? Why don’t they stagger the release? Why jump from initial trials involving thousands to widespread distribution involving millions?
- scrollaway 6y ago
  Is your question whether the research and release of a vaccine nearly the entire world has been tirelessly either working on or waiting for "feels rushed"? I mean, what did you expect?
  - DSingularity 6y ago
    I don’t know what I expected. I just feel that the timeline is unprecedented.
- tssva 6y ago
  Because there is an ongoing global pandemic killing people and economies.
- ummonk 6y ago
  Because delaying it would entail thousands of extra deaths.
- Kye 6y ago
  My understanding is they got a huge boost from a sudden flood of funding for mRNA research and the partially done testing for vaccines for related diseases that went away with containment measures.
- nojito 6y ago
  You can't rush Stage III of vaccine trials. 95% with a p of < .0001 is unheard of in Vaccines. This is an amazing feat for science.
  - that_guy_iain 6y ago
    Sorry, but what does p stand for?
Irene 6y ago
Pfizer selected New Mexico, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Texas for their pilot delivery program "due to the states' immunization infrastructures, urban and rural variations, size and population diversity". First batches of vaccine will probably go to frontline medical workers first, followed by frail old people. a paper in Medrxiv favored "older first" model based on evolutionary game theory and mobility data, for largest decrease in mortality rates.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- smrk007 6y ago
  Can I get a link to the Medarxiv paper? Would be an interesting read.
  - PandawanFr 6y ago
    I am guessing this is the one: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.14.20175257v2 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.14.20175257v...
    - joaomacp 6y ago
      From reading the abstract, that study comes to the interesting finding that with a highly effective vaccine, it is better to vaccinate the YOUNG first, to reduce the spread.
      - vondur 6y ago
        I guess that makes sense. The young seem to be the primary spreaders of the disease. Stop them, and then it slows the whole chain of infections. I can also see why they'd want to vaccinate the most vulnerable, if the young aren't really affected by the disease, it makes sense to skip them first. Conundrum I suppose.
      - pen2l 6y ago
        What about... workers in the cafeteria who handle our food, cashiers at supermarkets and waiters who bring food over to you. I'm shocked most of the papers I'm reading don't mention these folks who are at the very intersection of our daily lives!
tuna-piano 6y ago
-Great great news. Can't wait to get the needle in the arm ASAP. -Seems extremely effective at limiting covid disease. -Very curious as to how long will the vaccine immunity will last? -Seems with the second dose for 18-55 year olds, perhaps 75% will feel fatigue, 50% have chills and 20% will have a fever.[1] This hasn't been widely shared yet and I'm a bit concerned how the public will react. -Safety: Given the huge trial size, we can be pretty confident that there aren't any significant negative short term effects. But yet the phase three trials will follow the participants for two years. Presumably, this is to find out about longer term safety+efficacy... but yet of course we will be vaccinating most of the world prior to the end of those two years. How are we confident that these vaccines don't cause any long term safety concerns? Other vaccines have been pulled from the market for safety reasons - what happened in those cases that we're sure won't happen in this case? I think given the fact that "anti-vaxxers" exist makes some people take the complete opposite position to distance themselves from the conspiracy theorists- "anything a doctor injects in your arm is safe". Of course the truth is that injecting stuff in people's arms is not always safe - which is why we have trials. Were these trials long enough to know with a high level of confidence if there are any long term effects of the vaccines? [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33053279/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33053279/
- nojito 6y ago
  >Other vaccines have been pulled from the market for safety reasons This isn't true at all. There has been 2 voluntary recalls due to manufacturing issues which not led to any health problems.
  - tuna-piano 6y ago
    I don't believe that's an accurate statement. Problems have been rare, but not unheard of. A list here for the US (most of the listed vaccines on the page were later found not concerning): https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.... -The results of the investigations showed that RotaShield vaccine caused intussusception in some healthy infants younger than 12 months of age who normally would be at low risk for this condition... the manufacturer voluntarily withdrew RotaShield from the market in October 1999. -...that people who received the 1976 swine influenza vaccine had an increased risk for developing GBS . -And the very recent Dengue vaccine made by Sanofi, which was given to 700k people. "Sanofi had found evidence that the vaccine increases the risk of hospitalization and cytoplasmic leakage syndrome in children who had no prior exposure to dengue, regardless of age."[1][2] [1]https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/05/03/719037789/botched-vaccine-launch-has-deadly-repercussions https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/05/03/7190377... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dengvaxia_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dengvaxia_controversy
richardARPANET 6y ago
Well done President Trump!
- tzs 6y ago
  Wrong vaccine. This one was developed in Germany with no money from "Warp Speed". There was a Warp Speed commitment to by 100m doses after it is approved which you might argue is some encouragement, but Japan did the same thing with 120m doses, and the EU did it for 300m and provided upfront money for R&D. The US did also do the upfront money + commitment to purchase after approval for some vaccines, such as the Moderna one, so if you want to thank the US that is the one to do it for.
  - richardARPANET 6y ago
    All on President Trump's watch. Very inspiring stuff!
superfx 6y ago
Anyone know why China is not on the list of countries in which Pfizer is seeking regulatory approval?
- baybal2 6y ago
  Because China already has a "national" vaccine, and they see no chance getting through Chinese bureaucracy for such a politicised deal?
  - grezql 6y ago
    "yes you can sell here, we only need to know the ingredients and know-how of this vaccine to approve its safety"
    - bzb6 6y ago
      Isn’t it like that in the rest of the world?
      - frockington1 6y ago
        Yes, but without blatant copyright and patent infringement
      - dicomdan 6y ago
        Not really, China is notorious for IP infringements.
        entropea 6y ago
        Imagine the world helping to develop a vaccine to help all of society being open source and made up capitalist fantasy free.
    - FooBarWidget 6y ago
      The requirement of forming joint ventures has been dropped since 2014. The 'forced tech transfer' rhetoric has been out of date since the first day of the trade war.
speeder 6y ago
I am not from USA, but I did see the final Biden-Trump debate and saw the media falling all over themselves to say that Trump was lying about the vaccine, the expert opinion was that news about vaccine would show only in december, approvals would be requested only in early 2021 and distribution would be even later. I wonder if the media will say sorry for getting that wrong.
- baxter001 6y ago
  A retraction for being one week out with their predictions and not expecting a new vaccine to get exceptional early distribution authorization?
  - king_panic 6y ago
    First two words are right. Rest is a misrepresentation of OP
- that_guy_iain 6y ago
  Why would the media say sorry because experts said something else? Why would the media be held accountable for what others say? Their job is to report what is happening and reporting what the experts say, seems to be exactly what they should be doing. When the experts are wrong they report that but they shouldn't be expected to be apologetic about it.
- lm28469 6y ago
  > Trump was lying about the vaccine ... I wonder if the media will say sorry for getting that wrong. If you lie on a prediction that turns out to be true it still is a lie. He also said covid would not be an issue in the US, and that covid would go away in the summer, and that we'll have a cure in "a few weeks" every week since March. You can't just throw random ideas out and see what ends up being true to say "eh, told you I was not lying"
- bamboozled 6y ago
  No one owes Trump an apology for anything. He needs to concede and move on, end of story.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
hypersundays 6y ago
I wonder how long it'll be before third world countries get the vaccine
- refurb 6y ago
  WHO has a fund specifically for vaccines for developing countries, I can't find the latest total, but it's in the hundreds of millions.
  - wonderwonder 6y ago
    A good portion of the WHO is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation. Imagine contributing billions towards world health and then somehow you are painted as the villain by insane people like Q, Russian propaganda and anti-Vaxx organizations.
amelius 6y ago
Did they publish the mRNA code?
- fairity 6y ago
  Isn’t it pretty easy to sequence anyways? Assuming you can get a hold of a vaccine sample.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    Probably, but why bother. If you have the ability to do that, you also have the Covid DNA sequence, and probably the ability to make your own mRNA vaccine. The only thing your vaccine would be lacking is the safety trials which you probably also have the ability to run, and you have already started them (if you haven't why not, and why would you care to start now). There is the possibility that you have the ability to manufacture mRNA in your factory but didn't have the idea to start making your own vaccine until late enough that it wasn't worth trying to make your own. In this case you may want to talk to Pfizer about licensing their (but you have probably been in those talks for months and are just waiting for the right time to publicly announce the deal with production already started)
  - jotsxbkotsv 6y ago
    I’ll do it this weekend and build my own vaccine
  - tinus_hn 6y ago
    If it’s patented the sequence would need to be public.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
tomohawk 6y ago
Thanks to Operation Warp Speed, the first 100m doses are paid for in the US, and at no cost. https://www.hhs.gov/coronavirus/explaining-operation-warp-speed/index.html https://www.hhs.gov/coronavirus/explaining-operation-warp-sp...
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  No direct consumer-facing cost. > HHS announced up to $1.95 billion in funds to Pfizer for the large-scale manufacturing and nationwide distribution of 100 million doses of their vaccine candidate. It's a sensible use of taxpayer funds, for sure, but Pfizer isn't doing it as a charitable work.
  - potatoman22 6y ago
    People gotta get paid
- elicash 6y ago
  Yeah, this is one of those places where Congress (providing funding) and the administration (providing leadership) and the private sector (doing the actual work) were able to work together. I wish there were more examples of this type of thing. One area an effort like this is badly needed is for at-home rapid testing.
  - tantalor 6y ago
    A lot of the "actual work" includes distribution, which the govt is handling through military.
    - elicash 6y ago
      Yours isn't an accurate picture of how the vaccine will be distributed. State and local governments are involved, health agencies in the federal government is involved. But private companies play the main role here, too: https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/08/14/trump-administration-collaborates-mckesson-covid-19-vaccine-distribution.html https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/08/14/trump-administrati... As I understand it, the role of the military is mostly in planning logistics: Army Gen. Gustave F. Perna (who is the four-star general who is COO of Operation Warp Speed): “There will not be this vision that some have that there will be Army trucks driving through the streets delivering vaccines. The commercial industry knows how to do it.” https://www.freightwaves.com/news/dod-planning-every-logistical-detail-of-covid-vaccine-distribution https://www.freightwaves.com/news/dod-planning-every-logisti... So yeah, I think my summary -- that administration is playing a "leadership" role -- is quite right here, too. I think a better point would be to praise the work done by NIAID and others. Obviously I wasn't diminishing the role of these fantastic scientists, or the role of people like Dr. Fauci, only highlighting that this vaccine was developed in the private sector (with roles played at every level of government).
m1117 6y ago
I'd go and get it ASAP, so I resume my life. Anti-vaxxers can isolate themselves forever :)
- throwaway3699 6y ago
  I'm not anti vaxx. But I totally understand after institution after institution failed us all, that people will be skeptical about a miracle vaccine developed in mere months. I have faith in the scientists, but anyone can see the incentives are dodgy here.
  - singemonkey 6y ago
    Please cite the lengthy list of institutions that have failed us all.
    - jackfrodo 6y ago
      Uhh, points at 2020 The CDC advising people to not buy masks in February because "they don't work" comes to mind. The US Gov in general completely letting businesses and individuals plunge into bankruptcy. I think a lot of people have been awakened to the fact that "the system" is pretty ambivalent to their personal well-being.
      - stu2b50 6y ago
        How about the German well-known biotech company that actually developed the vaccine that Pfizer is distributing?
      - klmadfejno 6y ago
        Government is incompetent therefore private pharma company vaccines aren't safe. Got it.
        jackfrodo 6y ago
        I know you're being facetious but unironically yes.
tjpnz 6y ago
How would one explain to a Facebook addict why they should get the vaccine and that it's not a Bill Gates/NWO conspiracy to sterilise them?
- supercanuck 6y ago
  I had this same thought experiment, let’s assume this vaccine were 95% effective and the government sent a tablet to everyone in the mail. What would the outcome be? I posed this question to Soccer Dads and immediately was told they wouldn’t risk the long term effects of a vaccine. Same dads that wouldn’t wear a mask and don’t fear the unknown long term effects of COVID
  - kgin 6y ago
    There is something there about the different standards people use to judge the virus vs the vaccine. The vaccine could have “unknown long term effects”. But the virus “only has an x%” death rate”. No concern about unknown long term effects.
- joaomacp 6y ago
  Don't try to convince them forcefully, or else you will strengthen their belief in brainwashing. Explain rationally why YOU believe the vaccine works, and the evidence as to why you are convinced, and accept if they don't change their beliefs. From experience, sometimes people are very refusing when arguing in person, but over time they think it over and might change their mind.
- tboyd47 6y ago
  You have to convince them that the pros of getting it outweigh the cons, like convincing anyone of anything.
- mikece 6y ago
  I would start by convincing them to get off of Facebook... the massive improvements to mental health one would see from that step alone would be amazing. In a way, I kinda hope the Section 230 debate does cause FB and Twitter to go dark for a few weeks... we could actually start talking to real humans without a computer in the middle!
02020202 6y ago
I'll take my chances...
hikerclimb 6y ago
I don’t think this works since the ceo of company sold of his stock.
lfuller 6y ago
One question I have about mRNA vaccines that I haven't been able to find the answer to through my own searching: how is the mRNA delivered to the cell? All the articles I read say that the mRNA is "taken up by the cell", but what is the mechanism? Do cells naturally just absorb free-floating mRNA? Or is a modified virus used to inject the mRNA?
- known 6y ago
  In both the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines the RNA is encapsulated in “lipid nanoparticles”. These microscopic droplets of oily liquid — about 0.1 micron in diameter — enclose and protect the fragile genetic instructions as they are manufactured, transported and finally injected into people. https://archive.is/6dxTg https://archive.is/6dxTg
  - dfsegoat 6y ago
    So it's naked mRNA wrapped in oil, basically?
    - known 6y ago
      “The lipid nanoparticles have some adjuvant activity, providing a little inflammation with the vaccination that helps the immune system to make antibodies and T-cells that target the Sars-Cov-2 virus,”
      - floatingatoll 6y ago
        Itchy oil, then.
- dfsegoat 6y ago
  It appears there are a few different approaches, described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_vaccine#Delivery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_vaccine#Delivery Viral vectors were the ones I was familiar with. I am not sure which one the Pfizer vax uses, however.
- 6y ago
DuracellBunny 6y ago
How convenient, now that the election is over, 2 weeks later theres a vaccine!!! Go figure!
hikerclimber 6y ago
i hope that the virus mutates so that no masks work and it only happens in the U.S.
meibo 6y ago
Slightly off topic, but it's crazy how polarized this topic is - even on HN. Try scrolling through this thread with dead comments on. Many of them are probably trolls, still, it's weird to me.
- TillE 6y ago
  I expected the coronavirus truther weirdos, they're a staple on right-libertarian-leaning HN. I confess I really did not expect the anti-vaxxers.
- ghaff 6y ago
  TBH, it's concerning. Not that HN is immune from strongly-held polarizing opinions. But, it's pretty obvious that for a lot of people, you're either in camp "Get it as soon as available, no questions asked" or you're an anti-vaxxer. (Personally, I'll get it as soon as I can.) But this has all the signs of getting very ugly once a vaccine becomes available. I certainly don't expect the military to hold people down and vaccinate them by force. But I do expect a lot of severe restrictions in some places on people who don't want to get vaccinated right-off that will put them in a tough position.
  - bradlys 6y ago
    The people I know who are waiting on getting the vaccine are fine with having the same lockdown type precautions. (Wearing masks, not seeing people as frequently, less travel, working remotely, etc.) The people I know who are cautious with getting the vaccine are below 50. So, they’ll have to wait a while anyway. Most of us are not like... wait years for effects to emerge. More like 6-12 months after initial rollout. I’m one of those people. I’m fine with still being remote and wearing a mask when in stores or whatever. I’m not going to go to any dances anytime soon even if I had the shot anyway. Effectiveness isn’t 100% after all. (Is there an easy way to tell if you’re immune after without any risk? That’d be nice...)
BiteCode_dev 6y ago
Do we know how long does the vaccine holds? Is that like polio and lasts for years, or like the flu and you need a new dose each year?
- Exmoor 6y ago
  I'm in a rush, so hopefully someone can dig up some actual links to scientific papers, but current immunity from naturally infected people has stayed strong and shows no sign of weakening. The immune response from the vaccination has at least as strong, so in all likelihood we're looking at very long response.
  - chaostheory 6y ago
    Doesn't immunity only last several months though?
    - anoncake 6y ago
      No, it stays strong and shows no sign of weakening.
      - chaostheory 6y ago
        According to several studies, that's not true. "Two new studies demonstrate how severity of disease is predictive of longer-lasting antibody production and detail how immunity wanes over time but may exist for up to 7 months." https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/10/studies-show-long-term-covid-19-immune-response https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/10/studies-... https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/duration-isolation.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/duration-isola... There's also evidence of re-infection https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30783-0/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
        anoncake 6y ago
        You (or rather the writer of that news piece) apparently confused antibodies and immunity. Not only are antibodies not the only mechanism of the adaptive immune system, T cells are harder to test for but equally important. Also it's normal that the body doesn't keep them around indefinitely after an exception. It creates memory cells and quickly recreates antibodies and T cells when needed. There is evidence that reinfection does occasionally happen, but none that it happens frequently enough to worry about. The paper you've linked mentions four cases.
known 6y ago
I'm really concerned about long term implications of mRNA vaccines; Hope they won't turn humans into zombies;
fairity 6y ago
I get the sense that a lot of HN users are down-voting any comment that calls into question this vaccine's safety. I think this will end up having the opposite effect than intended. There's truth that there's a remote chance this vaccine has long-term side effects. From my reading, I would estimate that risk to be 0.0001% - 0.01%. If your goal is to promote vaccination, it's better to actively engage in the conversation by explaining how the benefits far outweigh the risks. Silencing dissenting opinions will only serve to reinforce those beliefs.
- youareostriches 6y ago
  How does non-expert speculation contribute to the discourse? Certainly, we need to hear from all perspectives, but the opinions need to be informed and come with appropriate education.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
hikerclimb 6y ago
I hope this doesn’t work and millions of people in us die
chenpengcheng 6y ago
can you add emergency use to the title!
gentleman11 6y ago
I have a friend who is very anxious about how quickly these vaccines were developed. What can I tell them to reassure them that it is safe?
- ahulak 6y ago
  Something that resonated with me... Which do you think is more likely to have a significant negative effect on your health? These vaccines or COVID? We have plenty of reason to believe these vaccines will be effective with minimal adverse effects (including the relatively small study of 40k individuals). Conversely, we have definitive proof that in the best case COVID can be asymptomatic and/or a nasty, but survivable, virus. At its worst, it kills you or leaves you with long-lasting health issues that we don't yet fully understand. Personally, I'll take my chances with the vaccine. My biggest fear isn't adverse reactions, but rather lack of efficacy.
- ganoushoreilly 6y ago
  But that's just it, we anecdotally know they're safe. There are tests we've run and the results are promising, but the true large scale inoculations haven't happened. All things point to these as being safe, but until it's more widely dispersed I don't think you can assert it as having the same safety as most modern inoculations. Cautious optimism isn't a bad thing, nor is hesitance to taking the vaccine. Its not really your place to convince them it is safe, that's for them to decide with the facts on hand. Provide them info on the tests, share whatever you have, but it's ok to not trust the speed at which these vaccines were made.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago
  This NYT article clicked with me: https://outline.com/bVnccw https://outline.com/bVnccw If our best and brightest doctors are opting to get the vaccines for themselves, I feel safe doing the same - it's probably the most clear and obvious signal we're going to get.
  - spapas82 6y ago
    This is a game of probability of which risk is greater: covid or vaccine? So, a doctor that has a great chance to get covid it's worth to use the vaccine even if it has risks. For me that I have low probability to get covid (I try to be very careful) it's not worth to have the vaccine risks.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
Now we (average folks) only have to wait 6 months (minimum). So don't hold your breath. This is kinda good news though.
- tinus_hn 6y ago
  There’s plenty of fear montering going around so many people don’t actually want to be vaccinated. Your turn may come sooner than expected.

225 points by KoftaBob 6y ago

gvv 6y ago

Well just like I don't immediately update to the latest OS I think I'll wait for the beta testing to happen :)

solarhoma 6y ago
Do you think private companies will require vaccination to return to work? *Here is an article I found on the subject. Essentially stating in general employers could require vaccination. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/08/26/coronavirus-vaccine-mandates-covid-19/3346210001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/08/26/coronavirus-...
- strombofulous 6y ago
  I hope so. I would be upset if I got the vaccine and people who didn't have it were allowed to work near me, but I would just keep WFH. I would be outraged if I were forced to work with them
  - unnouinceput 6y ago
    Why would you be upset for? It's their life, not yours. Once you get vaccinated, ideally, you get immune to the virus. You neither can develop the disease nor spread it. It's the same as saying you don't want to work with people who didn't got vaccinated by any other number of vaccines (let you search wiki for full list as exercise) and I'm pretty sure it already happened.
    - macintux 6y ago
      * the vaccine is not 100% effective * we don’t yet know whether the vaccine prevents transmission. You can probably be a carrier and spreader even if vaccinated Those two facts alone mean we’re going to be wearing masks for quite some time, things won’t go back to normal for a while, and people are justified in being upset with others who refuse to protect everyone around them.
      - unnouinceput 6y ago
        You really missed my point. Read again my above comment.
      - bamboozled 6y ago
        If we don’t even know a basic facts about the vaccine (whether people vaccinated can still transmit, how long it lasts), isn’t it natural for people too feel concerned about what else we don’t know ? Seems to be a few unknowns still ?
        floatingatoll 6y ago
        It’s natural for people to want perfect certainty before making health care decisions. That’s why public health policy exists: because there is never perfect certainty in vaccination, and yet we’ll be required to all the same.
    - vharuck 6y ago
      >It's their life, not yours It's a lot of people's lives, not just theirs. Like with most vaccines, there'll be a fraction of the population who cannot safely get vaccinated. We need to think of this from a public health perspective: more unvaccinated people in spreading-prone situations means more risk to others (including those beyond the immediate situation) and more burden on health systems.
      - unnouinceput 6y ago
        Dude, read my point again. I was asking why would he get upset if is his colleagues decide not to vaccinate. Not anything else.
        just-juan-post 6y ago
        isn't in insane how over the last few months people just assume their fellow man is a murderer for BREATHING? this virus is causing more insanity than health effects.
    - bluGill 6y ago
      Because it is only 95% effective. If everyone around me is also vaccinated it is likely that even if my vaccine doesn't work I'm still protected. This is what herd immunity is about. Note that we don't know if vaccinated people can spread covid or not. It seems unlikely, but if it turns out being vaccinated means you become a non-symptomatic super spreader I reserve the right to change my stance based on that information.
      - anonuser123456 6y ago
        The 95% effective is not a cliff function. The 5% that ‘get it’ have mild symptoms. We won’t know how effective it at preventing serious disease until millions have been inoculated, but it will likely be 99%+ effective with that outcome.
        bluGill 6y ago
        We know that in one of the trials one of the serious cases was in the intervention group. We will of course need a lot more data to figure out what the real reduction in rate of serious events is.
    - prh8 6y ago
      > It's their life, not yours This attitude is why the pandemic rages on with such intensity in so many places
    - strombofulous 6y ago
      Because I don't want to be around people with a disease that's serious enough to shut down our society, if I am only 95% resistant to it
      - fuzxi 6y ago
        The 95% effective figure refers to the percentage of people who develop full immunity, not how resistant an individual is. A more accurate way of phrasing that would be "[...] if I only have a 95% chance of immunity". I don't mean to split hairs; the distinction is important.
- kube-system 6y ago
  I think it will depend on the political climate of the particular workspace.
- ghaff 6y ago
  I fully expect that once it is widely available (major caveat), many workplaces and schools will require it absent medical exceptions. Certainly, most schools require vaccinations today and I don't expect there will be a lot of sympathy for those that want to hold off.
  - peteradio 6y ago
    Most schools require vaccines which have been in circulation for a long long time and presumably whose long term risks are well understood. I think it would be pretty stupid to force mass vaccinate such a rushed vaccine, don't you think?
    - massysett 6y ago
      A lot less stupid than continuing with "distance learning".
      - peteradio 6y ago
        You and I have very different definitions of stupid. Requiring an entire country to go whole hog on something with zero real understanding of long term effects is my definition of stupid. When is that ever the wise thing to do?
        floatingatoll 6y ago
        It was the wise thing to do for the polio vaccine.
        peteradio 6y ago
        The risk profile for all the age groups is wildly different. I don't think its a bad idea for people > age X to get this vaccine, one because they have a much higher risk of serious harm from corona _AND_ perhaps less risk of long term affects. But for someone who has very low risk of serious harm from corona, perhaps it makes sense to wait a little bit?
mindcrime 6y ago
Same. I'm not an anti-vaxxer or anything like that. But I think "don't use version 1.0" advice applies here just like it does for software. Especially given the possibility that things have been "hurried" in the name of expediency in terms of getting the vaccine(s) developed, tested, and approved. The good news, in a sort of perverse sense, is that some delay to see what happens with "early adopters" is kinda inevitable anyway, due to the distribution logistics. Unless you're a health care provider, first responder, or in a high risk group, you'll probably have to wait a while to get access to the vaccine even if you want to take "version 1.0".
- nojito 6y ago
  You would be foolish not to get vaccinated given what we know about COVID. The idea that this vaccine is a "beta" version is absolute nonsensical propaganda.
  - eplanit 6y ago
    We now know that Covid is not nearly as deadly as was first perceived, and that a relatively narrow band of the population is vulnerable to its worst effects. It's foolish to act as though this is worse than it is.
    - StillBored 6y ago
      We now know that Covid is not nearly as deadly as was first perceived That seems to depend on where you live. The 250k deaths from 11M infections number in the US is putting it within the original estimates. If you assume the actual case count is 2x or 3x the tested positive number, then its still roughly 1%, which will result in a lot of early deaths. If your over 50 then you should be taking it very seriously. If the vaccine numbers are right, it could literally save over a million peoples lives just in the US.
    - smaddox 6y ago
      1917 people died from COVID-19 yesterday in the US, alone. That's a 9/11 of deaths every 36 hours. It might not be as deadly as was first feared, but it is deadly.
refurb 6y ago
As someone who has some experience with clinical trials and drug approvals, I'd be quite comfortable taking the vaccine. A clinical trial size of 40,000 (20,000 receiving the vaccine) is way larger than a lot of other drugs that people are comfortable taking. Is there zero risk of serious side effects? Of course not, there never is. But the trial gives enough data to say the risk is worth the benefit. Edit: The FDA has already hinted that their initial approval (EUA) may be restricted to certain populations where the risk-benefit is justified. In other words, they may not approve it for healthy, young adults where the risk of serious Covid complications is low. That "full" approval could come later after additional clinical experience is gained.
- xiphias2 6y ago
  It also depends on the known safety profile. With AstraZeneca some people already have to take pain medications after taking the vaccine...I wouldn't be comfortable putting using that vaccine without much wider testing. Fortunately I don't need to though, because soon we'll probably have 2 great vaccines to choose from.
  - refurb 6y ago
    Taking OTC pain relief medicines after a vaccine is not that unusual, either for pain or fever. Ask any parent who has gone through a vaccine series with their kid. And I can remember getting my tetanus booster in secondary school and when I rolled over in my sleep waking up because my shoulder was so swollen and painful. I'm not dismissing the fact that the vaccines might cause serious side effects. In fact, it's expected that some very small percentage will. But for the vast majority of patients, the Pfizer vaccine has a similar safety profile to other approved vaccines.
    - xiphias2 6y ago
      I was talking about AstraZeneca that would be the first vaccine using a modified adenovirus. It looks to have somewhat more side effects than the Pfitzer vaccine.
  - 6y ago
sekai 6y ago
Few key facts: • In the entire history of vaccines, only one has been recalled because the vaccine itself caused long term side effects (a rotavirus vaccine that had rare complications and no deaths for those under 1yr). If you can't find any papers about it, that's why. It's like finding a paper on death by lava lamp explosions. It's happened (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-dec-01-na-briefs1.5-story.html#:%7E:text=A%20man%20who%20placed%20a,said%20police%20spokesman%20Paul%20Petersen https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-dec-01-na-brief....), but not enough to study it. • Much of the speed was gained by relaxing enrollment rules, which are for study participant safety. The majority of normal study participants join in the last year or two anyways. • These studies were larger than usual to make up for the decreased time. 30,000 people is a lot, and plenty to check for rare side effects. • Then compare the odds that there's a common reaction that didn't show up in 30,000 participants against the ~5-10% chance of serious health complications from COVID. It's a no-brainer. You can read the list of recalled vaccines and why they were recalled straight from the FDA (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history....).
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > These studies were larger than usual to make up for the decreased time Larger studies don't make up for decreased time in either identifying long term effectiveness or identifying delayed effects.
  - coldcode 6y ago
    If you want to wait a lifetime to see if there are any issues you have that choice. But vaccines, even mRNA ones, are unlikely to have any long term effects worse than the disease itself.
    - ahulak 6y ago
      This sums it up quite nicely. What is worse? The vaccine or covid?
- aphextron 6y ago
thinkingemote 6y ago
Its likely, that, like the flu jab, those most at risk will get it first. The vast majority of diligent users here will not be beta testers. Depending on how it works that is. It might be more effective to jab those most likely to transmit the disease first. (E.g. medical workers, children before Christmas meeting the family) or it might be better to jab those most at risk first.
- 737maxtw 6y ago
  My understanding of at least the Pfizer vaccine was that it primarily lowered the risk of developing COVID from a COV-19 infection. Also if I read it properly that means you could/would wond up in the asymptomatic spreader category. IF all of that is true (and if i misunderstood, please correct me!) It would make the most sense to give it to higher risk individuals first.
  - enragedcacti 6y ago
    Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but the latest I had heard was that _pre-symptomatic_ spread was the issue rather than asysmptomatic. As in, if you got covid but never developed symptoms, you likely never had enough viral load to transmit the virus. If you later showed symptoms then you likely had a high viral load between contraction and showing symptoms and were likely to transmit the virus. So if this stops the symptoms, it may also stop the viral load from reaching transmitable levels.
    - _jesseb 6y ago
      Yeah, that's my understanding as well. There's a period of time between when you initially get it and when you start showing symptoms (4-5 days is the number I've heard) where you are contagious but most likely don't know it. That's why Covid is particularly nasty, because it spreads before it shows symptoms.
  - timerol 6y ago
    This is another specific scientific communication, of the type that are widely misunderstood. Remember "no evidence that masks reduce transmission" and "no evidence that immunity from COVID will last"? Both were true statements at the time, and widely misunderstood. "No evidence" of X does not mean that X is at all likely to happen, based on our current understanding of disease. Because of the test design, the test itself only measured people who got COVID. But based on current scientific consensus around disease, that means there is a very high likelihood that it also prevents asymptomatic transmission, as the immune system will generally fight off infection. One test being narrowly worded (as is correct scientific practice) does not overthrow our entire understanding of disease.
bluGill 6y ago
Too late for that - the beta testers have already found it good. A phase 3 trial is beta test.
- jdndbfbf 6y ago
  I'll let you test it for me and find out what the long term effects are.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    I'll take my chances. My sister-in-law is dead. A brother-in-law is still unsure if we can talk across a room without fainting (6 months ago he was running several miles a day). This is just in my tiny circle of close family. Thousands in a much larger sample of had the vaccine with no side effects anywhere near that bad.
    - _Microft 6y ago
      If it cheers you up: I'll get myself vaccinated as soon as possible. Not just for myself but also because "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" as Mr. Spock would say.
    - jdndbfbf 6y ago
      n=1 is irrelevant I don't care about one persons experiences.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - hobby-coder-guy 6y ago
        Why are you a dickhead?
      - fractionalhare 6y ago
        > I don't care about one persons experiences. You're not wrong about anecdata. But there's a less callous way to respond to someone who just explained that two of their relatives are dead or seriously ill...
mariojv 6y ago
This comment and another got me looking into mRNA more. It seems like an mRNA vaccine is more akin to food you consume that produces a desired effect, rather than something permanently sticking around in your body. It doesn't permanently modify your genetics. mRNA is usually produced by DNA and is temporarily used by cells to create proteins. In this case, the mRNA is used to create proteins with a similar structure to the coronavirus. These proteins produce the desired immune response but do not harm you. Like other proteins, they don't stick around permanently, just the immune response does. Additionally, the mRNA itself only lasts several minutes to days. [0] It's a relatively simple biological process that's well understood. This gives me a lot of confidence in its safety profile. Unlike a regular vaccine, you also don't have to create the protein directly, which leads to fewer errors during production from my understanding. You're producing a simpler, more basic compound, and can be more certain about the quality of individual doses. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messenger_RNA#Degradation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messenger_RNA#Degradation
- aphextron 6y ago
  > It seems like an mRNA vaccine is more akin to food you consume that produces a desired effect, rather than something permanently sticking around in your body. It doesn't permanently modify your genetics. This is a really good analogy. It's important to note that this stuff literally has to be stored at cryogenic temperatures just so it won't completely degrade before being injected. Once inside your body, it's completely gone within hours.
  - brewdad 6y ago
    Is there a way to package the vaccine that would "prove" proper handling all through the chain of custody? Sort of the biological equivalent of the shock tags moving companies put on boxes containing fragile items. Given how sensitive to temperature this vaccine is, I would like some reassurance that no one mishandled it along the way.
    - mariojv 6y ago
      It's not proof to you, but Pfizer is shipping the vaccine in boxes that monitor temperature and location and transmit it to them so they can watch it. I trust that they wouldn't allow risky doses to be used. The risk to them of something bad happening and the public losing trust in the vaccine is too great.
anonuser123456 6y ago
On a risk basis, it’s clearly better to get the shot than COVID. But you aren’t wrong in you belief the vaccine may have unknown side effects. The trails were not powered to find the 1 in 10000 side effects that pop up. We won’t know those for months. Not that you’ll be able to get the vaccine for months anyway, unless you work in healthcare.
mhandley 6y ago
Well, unless you're over 75, you probably won't be offered it for quite a long time. For that age group, the chances of dying of covid are far higher than the risks from the vaccine, to the degree of precision we know from the phase 3 trial. By the time they've been vaccinated, we'll have a lot more data, and those error bounds will be quantified so you can make a better informed decision.
credit_guy 6y ago
Don't worry to much, you will not be able to get your hands on a vaccine for quite a while even if you wanted it. By the time this will be available for regular people like you and me, millions of frontline healthcare workers and emergency personnel will have gotten it.
george43m 6y ago
The real ques is: What % of the population are willing to be the "early adopters"? I wonder how things will develop in countries where that % is less than 5.
chadash 6y ago
I think differently than you. I figure that 20,000 people have had this and haven't had serious complications. So probably a better than 1/20k change that if I get this I'll be okay. And I'll have a much better idea of this by the time I get it since I'm unlikely to get the first round of vaccines anyway since I'm not in an elevated risk group. Meanwhile, out of a 23,359,180 males in my age group (25-34) in the US, 1,144--or 1 in 20,418--have died [0]. And obviously, the death rate is significantly higher than 1 in 20,418, because not every 25-34 year old has had COVID. If I get the vaccine and I can go back to living my life normally, that alone is worth the low risk to me. And sure, there's the (remote) possibility that the vaccine has some long-term side effects, but I have to weigh that against the (in my mind higher) possibility of COVID having some long term side effect. Given that I can't practically isolate myself completely for the next 8 months, I'm getting this vaccine as soon as possible. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm
Exmoor 6y ago
To continue this analogy, this is more along the lines of a patch to fix a remote code execution bug that is being actively exploited in the wild at an increasing rate. Your alternative is to only connect to the network very infrequently, using a draconian firewall which doesn't completely protect you and hope for the best. The security patch has been tested on tens of thousands instances for several months, the source code peer reviewed by literally the best experts in the world, and you'll most likely have to wait until its been installed on several million other endpoints before you get a chance at distribution?
- faeyanpiraat 6y ago
  The difference is that it is not yet fully understood how humans work. If you patch a machine and leave it alone, it will stay like that. Humans age, already have or will get other kinds of diseases, have wildly varied genes, etc.. Drugs could have side effects not manifesting immediately, v2 of the same drug might have less of those side effects.
tinus_hn 6y ago
That’s fine, as long as you don’t expect other people to limit their lives in lockdowns because of your choices.
tomjen3 6y ago
There is a known zero day in the current version that is being actively exploited in the wild. If your system is sufficiently air gabbed waiting is probably fine, but otherwise would you risk it?

technoplato 6y ago

Isn’t this exactly how “I Am Legend” starts; just about to the T?

Xenoamorphous 6y ago
Not sure about the book as I haven’t read it, but in the movie they modify the measles virus to fight cancer.
splaytreemap 6y ago
We shouldn't be using fiction to inform anything about our actions in real life.

Neil44 6y ago

This will save lives. However I imagine most people will end up getting the Oxford vaccine, that doesn't have the storage requirements or need a second dose and is a fraction of the cost.

lmilcin 6y ago
Well, I wouldn't be so happy. Think about it. Out of million people only small percentage would become infected with covid and of that, only small percentage would die. On the other hand, vaccine must be distributed to everybody. Alternatively to people who, by occupation, have to contact many other people, daily. We don't know yet if there are complications from the vaccine. It is not possible to judge long term effects of anything based on very short exposure. The value of vaccine is in preventing future infections, but for a given person now it is not yet know if the vaccine is actually a good deal or not. Only time will tell. Looking at this selfishly and from PoV of game theory, the best decision is to let vaccinate everybody else but don't take vaccine yourself. Obviously, not everybody can make same decision.
- aviraldg 6y ago
  Is there an example of a vaccine in history that produced no initial side effects but only very long term side effects (ie. several years later)?
  - tuna-piano 6y ago
    I haven't seen that, but I'd be careful to draw the meaningfulness of that metric, as there has also never been an mRNA vaccine deployed until this year. That said, the large size of these studies should be extremely comforting to people.
    - bamboozled 6y ago
      What I don’t find comforting is the fact that companies have not had approval (or even applied) for approval for a mRNA based vaccine until now. Even though they’ve had many years to do so. I know nothing about vaccines or medicine really, but I just find it hard to believe that it’s just luck that we’re all going to be taking one in under a year when there hasn’t been much push for approval before this ? Hopefully we’re not going to be pressured to be inoculated with something, anything that works, because of desperation and because managing the situation in an adult way was too hard for most world leaders. As others have said, if you’re not in a high risk group, maybe some skepticism is warranted?

justforfunhere 6y ago

>> The company has developed specially designed, temperature-controlled shippers for the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate, which can maintain recommended storage conditions (-70°C ±10°C) up to 15 days. Each shipper contains a GPS-enabled thermal sensor to track the location and temperature of each vaccine shipment. Once thawed, the vaccine vial can be stored for up to 5 days at refrigerated (2 - 8oC) conditions. I read somewhere they already have 20 million doses ready to shipped once they get the approval. Wonder what is the capacity of each of these specially designed shippers and how the logistics of the eventual vaccination are going to be handled? But this is surely an interesting problem to solve and I look forward to how they tackle it.

nojito 6y ago
In the US, they already have pre-purchased millions of dosages that are ready to go within 24 hours of FDA approval. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/operation-warp-speed-covid-19-vaccine-delivery-fda-60-minutes-2020-11-08/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/operation-warp-speed-covid-19-v... It's quite remarkable in terms of logistics.
icegreentea2 6y ago
Here are some larger on-market -80 class medical shippers: https://www.thermosafe.com/files/Product_Sheets/DurablesforHealthcare.pdf https://www.thermosafe.com/files/Product_Sheets/DurablesforH... Guessing by eye, you can fit at least several hundred, up to low thousands of doses in each shipper. The inner volumes on these are pretty large, but a good chunk of it will be taken up by dry-ice.
- Kliment 6y ago
  You don't have to guess, this is published information. They have trays of 1000 doses, and up to 5 trays fit in a shipping box with the dry ice.
tuna-piano 6y ago
I'm curious if anyone knows why Pfizer's mRNA vaccine still needs this while Moderna's mRNA vaccine does not? Has Pfizer just not gone through the proper temperature testing or did they go through that testing and it showed that their vaccine needs to be stored so cold?

DSingularity 6y ago

Does this feel rushed to anyone? Why don’t they stagger the release? Why jump from initial trials involving thousands to widespread distribution involving millions?

scrollaway 6y ago
Is your question whether the research and release of a vaccine nearly the entire world has been tirelessly either working on or waiting for "feels rushed"? I mean, what did you expect?
- DSingularity 6y ago
  I don’t know what I expected. I just feel that the timeline is unprecedented.
tssva 6y ago
Because there is an ongoing global pandemic killing people and economies.
ummonk 6y ago
Because delaying it would entail thousands of extra deaths.
Kye 6y ago
My understanding is they got a huge boost from a sudden flood of funding for mRNA research and the partially done testing for vaccines for related diseases that went away with containment measures.
nojito 6y ago
You can't rush Stage III of vaccine trials. 95% with a p of < .0001 is unheard of in Vaccines. This is an amazing feat for science.
- that_guy_iain 6y ago
  Sorry, but what does p stand for?

Irene 6y ago

Pfizer selected New Mexico, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Texas for their pilot delivery program "due to the states' immunization infrastructures, urban and rural variations, size and population diversity". First batches of vaccine will probably go to frontline medical workers first, followed by frail old people. a paper in Medrxiv favored "older first" model based on evolutionary game theory and mobility data, for largest decrease in mortality rates.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
smrk007 6y ago
Can I get a link to the Medarxiv paper? Would be an interesting read.
- PandawanFr 6y ago
  I am guessing this is the one: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.14.20175257v2 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.14.20175257v...
  - joaomacp 6y ago
    From reading the abstract, that study comes to the interesting finding that with a highly effective vaccine, it is better to vaccinate the YOUNG first, to reduce the spread.
    - vondur 6y ago
      I guess that makes sense. The young seem to be the primary spreaders of the disease. Stop them, and then it slows the whole chain of infections. I can also see why they'd want to vaccinate the most vulnerable, if the young aren't really affected by the disease, it makes sense to skip them first. Conundrum I suppose.
    - pen2l 6y ago
      What about... workers in the cafeteria who handle our food, cashiers at supermarkets and waiters who bring food over to you. I'm shocked most of the papers I'm reading don't mention these folks who are at the very intersection of our daily lives!

tuna-piano 6y ago

-Great great news. Can't wait to get the needle in the arm ASAP. -Seems extremely effective at limiting covid disease. -Very curious as to how long will the vaccine immunity will last? -Seems with the second dose for 18-55 year olds, perhaps 75% will feel fatigue, 50% have chills and 20% will have a fever.[1] This hasn't been widely shared yet and I'm a bit concerned how the public will react. -Safety: Given the huge trial size, we can be pretty confident that there aren't any significant negative short term effects. But yet the phase three trials will follow the participants for two years. Presumably, this is to find out about longer term safety+efficacy... but yet of course we will be vaccinating most of the world prior to the end of those two years. How are we confident that these vaccines don't cause any long term safety concerns? Other vaccines have been pulled from the market for safety reasons - what happened in those cases that we're sure won't happen in this case? I think given the fact that "anti-vaxxers" exist makes some people take the complete opposite position to distance themselves from the conspiracy theorists- "anything a doctor injects in your arm is safe". Of course the truth is that injecting stuff in people's arms is not always safe - which is why we have trials. Were these trials long enough to know with a high level of confidence if there are any long term effects of the vaccines? [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33053279/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33053279/

nojito 6y ago
>Other vaccines have been pulled from the market for safety reasons This isn't true at all. There has been 2 voluntary recalls due to manufacturing issues which not led to any health problems.
- tuna-piano 6y ago
  I don't believe that's an accurate statement. Problems have been rare, but not unheard of. A list here for the US (most of the listed vaccines on the page were later found not concerning): https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.... -The results of the investigations showed that RotaShield vaccine caused intussusception in some healthy infants younger than 12 months of age who normally would be at low risk for this condition... the manufacturer voluntarily withdrew RotaShield from the market in October 1999. -...that people who received the 1976 swine influenza vaccine had an increased risk for developing GBS . -And the very recent Dengue vaccine made by Sanofi, which was given to 700k people. "Sanofi had found evidence that the vaccine increases the risk of hospitalization and cytoplasmic leakage syndrome in children who had no prior exposure to dengue, regardless of age."[1][2] [1]https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/05/03/719037789/botched-vaccine-launch-has-deadly-repercussions https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/05/03/7190377... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dengvaxia_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dengvaxia_controversy

richardARPANET 6y ago

Well done President Trump!

tzs 6y ago
Wrong vaccine. This one was developed in Germany with no money from "Warp Speed". There was a Warp Speed commitment to by 100m doses after it is approved which you might argue is some encouragement, but Japan did the same thing with 120m doses, and the EU did it for 300m and provided upfront money for R&D. The US did also do the upfront money + commitment to purchase after approval for some vaccines, such as the Moderna one, so if you want to thank the US that is the one to do it for.
- richardARPANET 6y ago
  All on President Trump's watch. Very inspiring stuff!

superfx 6y ago

Anyone know why China is not on the list of countries in which Pfizer is seeking regulatory approval?

baybal2 6y ago
Because China already has a "national" vaccine, and they see no chance getting through Chinese bureaucracy for such a politicised deal?
- grezql 6y ago
  "yes you can sell here, we only need to know the ingredients and know-how of this vaccine to approve its safety"
  - bzb6 6y ago
    Isn’t it like that in the rest of the world?
    - frockington1 6y ago
      Yes, but without blatant copyright and patent infringement
    - dicomdan 6y ago
      Not really, China is notorious for IP infringements.
      - entropea 6y ago
        Imagine the world helping to develop a vaccine to help all of society being open source and made up capitalist fantasy free.
  - FooBarWidget 6y ago
    The requirement of forming joint ventures has been dropped since 2014. The 'forced tech transfer' rhetoric has been out of date since the first day of the trade war.

speeder 6y ago

I am not from USA, but I did see the final Biden-Trump debate and saw the media falling all over themselves to say that Trump was lying about the vaccine, the expert opinion was that news about vaccine would show only in december, approvals would be requested only in early 2021 and distribution would be even later. I wonder if the media will say sorry for getting that wrong.

baxter001 6y ago
A retraction for being one week out with their predictions and not expecting a new vaccine to get exceptional early distribution authorization?
- king_panic 6y ago
  First two words are right. Rest is a misrepresentation of OP
that_guy_iain 6y ago
Why would the media say sorry because experts said something else? Why would the media be held accountable for what others say? Their job is to report what is happening and reporting what the experts say, seems to be exactly what they should be doing. When the experts are wrong they report that but they shouldn't be expected to be apologetic about it.
lm28469 6y ago
> Trump was lying about the vaccine ... I wonder if the media will say sorry for getting that wrong. If you lie on a prediction that turns out to be true it still is a lie. He also said covid would not be an issue in the US, and that covid would go away in the summer, and that we'll have a cure in "a few weeks" every week since March. You can't just throw random ideas out and see what ends up being true to say "eh, told you I was not lying"
bamboozled 6y ago
No one owes Trump an apology for anything. He needs to concede and move on, end of story.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

hypersundays 6y ago

I wonder how long it'll be before third world countries get the vaccine

refurb 6y ago
WHO has a fund specifically for vaccines for developing countries, I can't find the latest total, but it's in the hundreds of millions.
- wonderwonder 6y ago
  A good portion of the WHO is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation. Imagine contributing billions towards world health and then somehow you are painted as the villain by insane people like Q, Russian propaganda and anti-Vaxx organizations.

amelius 6y ago

Did they publish the mRNA code?

fairity 6y ago
Isn’t it pretty easy to sequence anyways? Assuming you can get a hold of a vaccine sample.
- bluGill 6y ago
  Probably, but why bother. If you have the ability to do that, you also have the Covid DNA sequence, and probably the ability to make your own mRNA vaccine. The only thing your vaccine would be lacking is the safety trials which you probably also have the ability to run, and you have already started them (if you haven't why not, and why would you care to start now). There is the possibility that you have the ability to manufacture mRNA in your factory but didn't have the idea to start making your own vaccine until late enough that it wasn't worth trying to make your own. In this case you may want to talk to Pfizer about licensing their (but you have probably been in those talks for months and are just waiting for the right time to publicly announce the deal with production already started)
- jotsxbkotsv 6y ago
  I’ll do it this weekend and build my own vaccine
- tinus_hn 6y ago
  If it’s patented the sequence would need to be public.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

tomohawk 6y ago

Thanks to Operation Warp Speed, the first 100m doses are paid for in the US, and at no cost. https://www.hhs.gov/coronavirus/explaining-operation-warp-speed/index.html https://www.hhs.gov/coronavirus/explaining-operation-warp-sp...

ceejayoz 6y ago
No direct consumer-facing cost. > HHS announced up to $1.95 billion in funds to Pfizer for the large-scale manufacturing and nationwide distribution of 100 million doses of their vaccine candidate. It's a sensible use of taxpayer funds, for sure, but Pfizer isn't doing it as a charitable work.
- potatoman22 6y ago
  People gotta get paid
elicash 6y ago
Yeah, this is one of those places where Congress (providing funding) and the administration (providing leadership) and the private sector (doing the actual work) were able to work together. I wish there were more examples of this type of thing. One area an effort like this is badly needed is for at-home rapid testing.
- tantalor 6y ago
  A lot of the "actual work" includes distribution, which the govt is handling through military.
  - elicash 6y ago
    Yours isn't an accurate picture of how the vaccine will be distributed. State and local governments are involved, health agencies in the federal government is involved. But private companies play the main role here, too: https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/08/14/trump-administration-collaborates-mckesson-covid-19-vaccine-distribution.html https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/08/14/trump-administrati... As I understand it, the role of the military is mostly in planning logistics: Army Gen. Gustave F. Perna (who is the four-star general who is COO of Operation Warp Speed): “There will not be this vision that some have that there will be Army trucks driving through the streets delivering vaccines. The commercial industry knows how to do it.” https://www.freightwaves.com/news/dod-planning-every-logistical-detail-of-covid-vaccine-distribution https://www.freightwaves.com/news/dod-planning-every-logisti... So yeah, I think my summary -- that administration is playing a "leadership" role -- is quite right here, too. I think a better point would be to praise the work done by NIAID and others. Obviously I wasn't diminishing the role of these fantastic scientists, or the role of people like Dr. Fauci, only highlighting that this vaccine was developed in the private sector (with roles played at every level of government).

m1117 6y ago

I'd go and get it ASAP, so I resume my life. Anti-vaxxers can isolate themselves forever :)

throwaway3699 6y ago
I'm not anti vaxx. But I totally understand after institution after institution failed us all, that people will be skeptical about a miracle vaccine developed in mere months. I have faith in the scientists, but anyone can see the incentives are dodgy here.
- singemonkey 6y ago
  Please cite the lengthy list of institutions that have failed us all.
  - jackfrodo 6y ago
    Uhh, points at 2020 The CDC advising people to not buy masks in February because "they don't work" comes to mind. The US Gov in general completely letting businesses and individuals plunge into bankruptcy. I think a lot of people have been awakened to the fact that "the system" is pretty ambivalent to their personal well-being.
    - stu2b50 6y ago
      How about the German well-known biotech company that actually developed the vaccine that Pfizer is distributing?
    - klmadfejno 6y ago
      Government is incompetent therefore private pharma company vaccines aren't safe. Got it.
      - jackfrodo 6y ago
        I know you're being facetious but unironically yes.

tjpnz 6y ago

How would one explain to a Facebook addict why they should get the vaccine and that it's not a Bill Gates/NWO conspiracy to sterilise them?

supercanuck 6y ago
I had this same thought experiment, let’s assume this vaccine were 95% effective and the government sent a tablet to everyone in the mail. What would the outcome be? I posed this question to Soccer Dads and immediately was told they wouldn’t risk the long term effects of a vaccine. Same dads that wouldn’t wear a mask and don’t fear the unknown long term effects of COVID
- kgin 6y ago
  There is something there about the different standards people use to judge the virus vs the vaccine. The vaccine could have “unknown long term effects”. But the virus “only has an x%” death rate”. No concern about unknown long term effects.
joaomacp 6y ago
Don't try to convince them forcefully, or else you will strengthen their belief in brainwashing. Explain rationally why YOU believe the vaccine works, and the evidence as to why you are convinced, and accept if they don't change their beliefs. From experience, sometimes people are very refusing when arguing in person, but over time they think it over and might change their mind.
tboyd47 6y ago
You have to convince them that the pros of getting it outweigh the cons, like convincing anyone of anything.
mikece 6y ago
I would start by convincing them to get off of Facebook... the massive improvements to mental health one would see from that step alone would be amazing. In a way, I kinda hope the Section 230 debate does cause FB and Twitter to go dark for a few weeks... we could actually start talking to real humans without a computer in the middle!

02020202 6y ago

I'll take my chances...

hikerclimb 6y ago

I don’t think this works since the ceo of company sold of his stock.

lfuller 6y ago

One question I have about mRNA vaccines that I haven't been able to find the answer to through my own searching: how is the mRNA delivered to the cell? All the articles I read say that the mRNA is "taken up by the cell", but what is the mechanism? Do cells naturally just absorb free-floating mRNA? Or is a modified virus used to inject the mRNA?

known 6y ago
In both the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines the RNA is encapsulated in “lipid nanoparticles”. These microscopic droplets of oily liquid — about 0.1 micron in diameter — enclose and protect the fragile genetic instructions as they are manufactured, transported and finally injected into people. https://archive.is/6dxTg https://archive.is/6dxTg
- dfsegoat 6y ago
  So it's naked mRNA wrapped in oil, basically?
  - known 6y ago
    “The lipid nanoparticles have some adjuvant activity, providing a little inflammation with the vaccination that helps the immune system to make antibodies and T-cells that target the Sars-Cov-2 virus,”
    - floatingatoll 6y ago
      Itchy oil, then.
dfsegoat 6y ago
It appears there are a few different approaches, described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_vaccine#Delivery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_vaccine#Delivery Viral vectors were the ones I was familiar with. I am not sure which one the Pfizer vax uses, however.
6y ago

DuracellBunny 6y ago

How convenient, now that the election is over, 2 weeks later theres a vaccine!!! Go figure!

hikerclimber 6y ago

i hope that the virus mutates so that no masks work and it only happens in the U.S.

meibo 6y ago

Slightly off topic, but it's crazy how polarized this topic is - even on HN. Try scrolling through this thread with dead comments on. Many of them are probably trolls, still, it's weird to me.

TillE 6y ago
I expected the coronavirus truther weirdos, they're a staple on right-libertarian-leaning HN. I confess I really did not expect the anti-vaxxers.
ghaff 6y ago
TBH, it's concerning. Not that HN is immune from strongly-held polarizing opinions. But, it's pretty obvious that for a lot of people, you're either in camp "Get it as soon as available, no questions asked" or you're an anti-vaxxer. (Personally, I'll get it as soon as I can.) But this has all the signs of getting very ugly once a vaccine becomes available. I certainly don't expect the military to hold people down and vaccinate them by force. But I do expect a lot of severe restrictions in some places on people who don't want to get vaccinated right-off that will put them in a tough position.
- bradlys 6y ago
  The people I know who are waiting on getting the vaccine are fine with having the same lockdown type precautions. (Wearing masks, not seeing people as frequently, less travel, working remotely, etc.) The people I know who are cautious with getting the vaccine are below 50. So, they’ll have to wait a while anyway. Most of us are not like... wait years for effects to emerge. More like 6-12 months after initial rollout. I’m one of those people. I’m fine with still being remote and wearing a mask when in stores or whatever. I’m not going to go to any dances anytime soon even if I had the shot anyway. Effectiveness isn’t 100% after all. (Is there an easy way to tell if you’re immune after without any risk? That’d be nice...)

BiteCode_dev 6y ago

Do we know how long does the vaccine holds? Is that like polio and lasts for years, or like the flu and you need a new dose each year?

Exmoor 6y ago
I'm in a rush, so hopefully someone can dig up some actual links to scientific papers, but current immunity from naturally infected people has stayed strong and shows no sign of weakening. The immune response from the vaccination has at least as strong, so in all likelihood we're looking at very long response.
- chaostheory 6y ago
  Doesn't immunity only last several months though?
  - anoncake 6y ago
    No, it stays strong and shows no sign of weakening.
    - chaostheory 6y ago
      According to several studies, that's not true. "Two new studies demonstrate how severity of disease is predictive of longer-lasting antibody production and detail how immunity wanes over time but may exist for up to 7 months." https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/10/studies-show-long-term-covid-19-immune-response https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/10/studies-... https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/duration-isolation.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/duration-isola... There's also evidence of re-infection https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30783-0/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
      - anoncake 6y ago
        You (or rather the writer of that news piece) apparently confused antibodies and immunity. Not only are antibodies not the only mechanism of the adaptive immune system, T cells are harder to test for but equally important. Also it's normal that the body doesn't keep them around indefinitely after an exception. It creates memory cells and quickly recreates antibodies and T cells when needed. There is evidence that reinfection does occasionally happen, but none that it happens frequently enough to worry about. The paper you've linked mentions four cases.

known 6y ago

I'm really concerned about long term implications of mRNA vaccines; Hope they won't turn humans into zombies;

fairity 6y ago

I get the sense that a lot of HN users are down-voting any comment that calls into question this vaccine's safety. I think this will end up having the opposite effect than intended. There's truth that there's a remote chance this vaccine has long-term side effects. From my reading, I would estimate that risk to be 0.0001% - 0.01%. If your goal is to promote vaccination, it's better to actively engage in the conversation by explaining how the benefits far outweigh the risks. Silencing dissenting opinions will only serve to reinforce those beliefs.

youareostriches 6y ago
How does non-expert speculation contribute to the discourse? Certainly, we need to hear from all perspectives, but the opinions need to be informed and come with appropriate education.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

hikerclimb 6y ago

I hope this doesn’t work and millions of people in us die

chenpengcheng 6y ago

can you add emergency use to the title!

gentleman11 6y ago

I have a friend who is very anxious about how quickly these vaccines were developed. What can I tell them to reassure them that it is safe?

ahulak 6y ago
Something that resonated with me... Which do you think is more likely to have a significant negative effect on your health? These vaccines or COVID? We have plenty of reason to believe these vaccines will be effective with minimal adverse effects (including the relatively small study of 40k individuals). Conversely, we have definitive proof that in the best case COVID can be asymptomatic and/or a nasty, but survivable, virus. At its worst, it kills you or leaves you with long-lasting health issues that we don't yet fully understand. Personally, I'll take my chances with the vaccine. My biggest fear isn't adverse reactions, but rather lack of efficacy.
ganoushoreilly 6y ago
But that's just it, we anecdotally know they're safe. There are tests we've run and the results are promising, but the true large scale inoculations haven't happened. All things point to these as being safe, but until it's more widely dispersed I don't think you can assert it as having the same safety as most modern inoculations. Cautious optimism isn't a bad thing, nor is hesitance to taking the vaccine. Its not really your place to convince them it is safe, that's for them to decide with the facts on hand. Provide them info on the tests, share whatever you have, but it's ok to not trust the speed at which these vaccines were made.
rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago
This NYT article clicked with me: https://outline.com/bVnccw https://outline.com/bVnccw If our best and brightest doctors are opting to get the vaccines for themselves, I feel safe doing the same - it's probably the most clear and obvious signal we're going to get.
- spapas82 6y ago
  This is a game of probability of which risk is greater: covid or vaccine? So, a doctor that has a great chance to get covid it's worth to use the vaccine even if it has risks. For me that I have low probability to get covid (I try to be very careful) it's not worth to have the vaccine risks.

stjohnswarts 6y ago

Now we (average folks) only have to wait 6 months (minimum). So don't hold your breath. This is kinda good news though.

tinus_hn 6y ago
There’s plenty of fear montering going around so many people don’t actually want to be vaccinated. Your turn may come sooner than expected.