4 ms·

I really don't know a single thing about vaccines or biology really. That being said, I am curious - are there are trade offs to be made with this mRNA techniqu

I really don't know a single thing about vaccines or biology really. That being said, I am curious - are there are trade offs to be made with this mRNA technique? It sounds like mostly upsides, but perhaps there are considerations for this approach over a traditional one?

nyokodo 6y ago
The major trade off is requiring low temperatures to transport and store. Pfizer currently requires -70C and Moderna -20C, whereas other vaccines only require fridge temperatures or even room temperature! The vaccines like the viral vector and mRNA vaccines that target specific viral proteins also may miss out on antibodies for other viral proteins that a live attenuated or deactivated vaccine may produce.
- pseudoramble 6y ago
  Thanks! If you don't mind, when you say: > ...may miss out on antibodies for other viral proteins... Do you mean to say that a more traditional one which uses the deactivated virus can help find proteins related to the virus but not specifically targeted, or do you mean that a traditional one could target other proteins that could apply to _other_ viruses?
  - roughly 6y ago
    Not the OP, but - if I'm reading this right, the mRNA vaccine contains the code for one specific (or a small subset of) viral protein, which is what the immune system is induced to target. In a traditional vaccine, the immune system is exposed to the entire viral protein coat, and therefore may learn to target multiple different proteins from the same virus, not just the spike protein. I suspect OP's suggestion is that it's possible providing the entire virus may provide additional or more robust immunities against the same virus that we don't get from the more targetted mRNA vaccine. I'd be getting very outside my lane to speculate on whether inducing immunity against multiple proteins would potentially apply to other viruses also carrying those same proteins - I don't know how specific or how contextual the immune system's response is in this case.
- tzs 6y ago
  Another big difference is cost. Pfizer's looks like it is going to be $20 per dose in the US. Moderna's is going to be $15 per dose in the US and more after the initial 100 million dose deal with the government is over. Moderna has said they expect it to be $32-37 retail. The leading conventional vaccine, the one from AstrZeneca, will be under $4 per dose in the US for the 300 million doses they have agreed to supply to the government, and they have said that they will "in perpetuity" supply it at cost to low and middle income countries. That will probably make it or another conventional vaccine be the one that makes the biggest difference globally for this pandemic.
  - nyokodo 6y ago
    Cost is a significant difference but I’d be interested to understand why the costs vary so much. For instance, if the cost difference is mainly because of the cost of cold storage and transport then it’s really only the one “trade off” but it is probably more complicated. Also, the Oxford/Astra Zeneca vaccine isn’t a conventional vaccine but a viral vector vaccine which also has never been approved for use in humans. It acts similarly to the mRNA vaccines but uses a hollowed out adenovirus sheath as the transport mechanism of the RNA into the cell.
    - mchusma 6y ago
      Cost for now is because the tech is new. Long term manufacturing cost benefits mRNA, because essentially you use the same "hardware" for each vaccine just different "software". They can comparatively much more easily produce something like RSV vaccines or anything else with the same core assembly line.

nyokodo 6y ago

The major trade off is requiring low temperatures to transport and store. Pfizer currently requires -70C and Moderna -20C, whereas other vaccines only require fridge temperatures or even room temperature! The vaccines like the viral vector and mRNA vaccines that target specific viral proteins also may miss out on antibodies for other viral proteins that a live attenuated or deactivated vaccine may produce.

pseudoramble 6y ago
Thanks! If you don't mind, when you say: > ...may miss out on antibodies for other viral proteins... Do you mean to say that a more traditional one which uses the deactivated virus can help find proteins related to the virus but not specifically targeted, or do you mean that a traditional one could target other proteins that could apply to _other_ viruses?
- roughly 6y ago
  Not the OP, but - if I'm reading this right, the mRNA vaccine contains the code for one specific (or a small subset of) viral protein, which is what the immune system is induced to target. In a traditional vaccine, the immune system is exposed to the entire viral protein coat, and therefore may learn to target multiple different proteins from the same virus, not just the spike protein. I suspect OP's suggestion is that it's possible providing the entire virus may provide additional or more robust immunities against the same virus that we don't get from the more targetted mRNA vaccine. I'd be getting very outside my lane to speculate on whether inducing immunity against multiple proteins would potentially apply to other viruses also carrying those same proteins - I don't know how specific or how contextual the immune system's response is in this case.
tzs 6y ago
Another big difference is cost. Pfizer's looks like it is going to be $20 per dose in the US. Moderna's is going to be $15 per dose in the US and more after the initial 100 million dose deal with the government is over. Moderna has said they expect it to be $32-37 retail. The leading conventional vaccine, the one from AstrZeneca, will be under $4 per dose in the US for the 300 million doses they have agreed to supply to the government, and they have said that they will "in perpetuity" supply it at cost to low and middle income countries. That will probably make it or another conventional vaccine be the one that makes the biggest difference globally for this pandemic.
- nyokodo 6y ago
  Cost is a significant difference but I’d be interested to understand why the costs vary so much. For instance, if the cost difference is mainly because of the cost of cold storage and transport then it’s really only the one “trade off” but it is probably more complicated. Also, the Oxford/Astra Zeneca vaccine isn’t a conventional vaccine but a viral vector vaccine which also has never been approved for use in humans. It acts similarly to the mRNA vaccines but uses a hollowed out adenovirus sheath as the transport mechanism of the RNA into the cell.
  - mchusma 6y ago
    Cost for now is because the tech is new. Long term manufacturing cost benefits mRNA, because essentially you use the same "hardware" for each vaccine just different "software". They can comparatively much more easily produce something like RSV vaccines or anything else with the same core assembly line.