2 ms·
> The article primarily talks about the compressed timeline, not the fact its mRNA. I maintain the timeline is a one-off. I feel that you're splitting hairs he
by wcoenen 6y ago
> The article primarily talks about the compressed timeline, not the fact its mRNA. I maintain the timeline is a one-off.
I feel that you're splitting hairs here. The article mentions both in adjacent paragraphs.
And the fact that the vaccine was developed faster was also not a one-off, this is a feature of mRNA vaccines. Future vaccines can be manufactured with the same blueprint by just swapping out the mRNA sequence.
- occamsrazorwit 6y agoHow does developing a vaccine two months faster have a lasting impact on daily life? The best case argument for having a noticeable impact is COVID, and we can't even use that because we split vaccine development into multiple tracks. It's possible that we would've had a traditional vaccine around the same time if we focused more resources on it and less on a novel technique.