4 ms·

To further your point: "Moderna’s mRNA-1273, which reported a 94.5 percent efficacy rate on November 16, had been designed by January 13 [2020]. This was just

To further your point: "Moderna’s mRNA-1273, which reported a 94.5 percent efficacy rate on November 16, had been designed by January 13 [2020]. This was just two days after the genetic sequence had been made public in an act of scientific and humanitarian generosity that resulted in China’s Yong-Zhen Zhang’s being temporarily forced out of his lab. In Massachusetts, the Moderna vaccine design took all of one weekend. It was completed before China had even acknowledged that the disease could be transmitted from human to human, more than a week before the first confirmed coronavirus case in the United States. By the time the first American death was announced a month later, the vaccine had already been manufactured and shipped to the National Institutes of Health for the beginning of its Phase I clinical trial." https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/12/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-design.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/12/moderna-covid-19-vac... It's almost impossible to imagine the devastation that could have been averted if the vaccine was released in March 2020.

tialaramex 6y ago
Or, as several countries did, you could actually pursue elimination and "avert the devastation" without miraculously creating millions of doses of untested vaccine, injecting them into your population and then crossing your fingers that nothing goes wrong.
onychomys 6y ago
That's only because we know in hindsight that it works, though. Phase 1 and 2 trials are important, even though they take time, because there's no guarantee that a vaccine candidate will be safe and effective. See, for example, a couple of Merck candidates that ended up failing [0]. If the Moderna one had been released in March 2020 and injected in millions of people and then they all got sick anyway, it would have been a disaster. [0] https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/merck-discontinues-two-covid-19-vaccine-candidates-n1255503 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/merck-discontinue...
- dehrmann 6y ago
  I agree with the importance of safety testing, but I suspect we could have had vaccines 3 months earlier with challenge trials. March was obviously not realistic, and we "had" the vaccine in the same way you have a winning bet in roulette before the wheel stops spinning. Or that Schrodinger still had a living cat.
- qwerty1234599 6y ago
  Imagine if they started challenge trials for the moderna vaccine late January 2020, when China went to lockdown. Trillions of dollars saved. Oh well.
- dcolkitt 6y ago
  > If the Moderna one had been released in March 2020 and injected in millions of people and then they all got sick anyway, it would have been a disaster. Why would that be a disaster? If a bunch of people get injected with a placebo, it's at worse neutral. Arguably it's better, because we'll collect data faster and move on to better vaccines.
  - AuryGlenz 6y ago
    Vaccines can have negative side effects, some of which take a while to show up. Can you imagine how much trust would be lost in vaccines if there were some serious side effects that started showing up months later? It would be a disaster that would ultimately kill way more people than the coronavirus.
    - selimthegrim 6y ago
      The Australian vaccine candidate in trials was giving HIV false positives. Imagine that but at scale
  - runako 6y ago
    > If a bunch of people get injected with a placebo, it's at worse neutral. If they think they got a functional vaccine and change their behavior as a result, a placebo has the potential to do untold harm all by itself. Further, it erodes loss of confidence so that when a working vaccine is discovered, it's even harder to get people to take it. The FDA has faults, but when you look at people's objections it boils down to erring on the side of being too safe. How much trust would a regulator have if it erred on the side of being too unsafe?
fallingknife 6y ago
My point is that they should have allowed a human challenge study for faster results, like they are now. Not that they should have released an untested vaccine.
bluGill 6y ago
> It's almost impossible to imagine the devastation that could have been averted if the vaccine was released in March 2020. No, it is easy: statistically zero. We spent all of last year working and figuring out how to make the vaccine while covid spread. Maybe if Oxford/AZ vaccine was approved this way we could make a difference. My understanding is it takes 3 months to make the vaccine (grow the cultures), but might be confused - in any case we have the ability to have vaccinate the world by about now with that one which means that only future devastation is lost. Note that the South Africa variant would still have evolved and would be spreading uncontrollably for a few more months since the AZ vaccine doesn't stop that one (the science is not clear here so I'm taking the worst case to make a point), so it isn't even clear if anything would be saved.

tialaramex 6y ago

Or, as several countries did, you could actually pursue elimination and "avert the devastation" without miraculously creating millions of doses of untested vaccine, injecting them into your population and then crossing your fingers that nothing goes wrong.

onychomys 6y ago

That's only because we know in hindsight that it works, though. Phase 1 and 2 trials are important, even though they take time, because there's no guarantee that a vaccine candidate will be safe and effective. See, for example, a couple of Merck candidates that ended up failing [0]. If the Moderna one had been released in March 2020 and injected in millions of people and then they all got sick anyway, it would have been a disaster. [0] https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/merck-discontinues-two-covid-19-vaccine-candidates-n1255503 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/merck-discontinue...

dehrmann 6y ago
I agree with the importance of safety testing, but I suspect we could have had vaccines 3 months earlier with challenge trials. March was obviously not realistic, and we "had" the vaccine in the same way you have a winning bet in roulette before the wheel stops spinning. Or that Schrodinger still had a living cat.
qwerty1234599 6y ago
Imagine if they started challenge trials for the moderna vaccine late January 2020, when China went to lockdown. Trillions of dollars saved. Oh well.
dcolkitt 6y ago
> If the Moderna one had been released in March 2020 and injected in millions of people and then they all got sick anyway, it would have been a disaster. Why would that be a disaster? If a bunch of people get injected with a placebo, it's at worse neutral. Arguably it's better, because we'll collect data faster and move on to better vaccines.
- AuryGlenz 6y ago
  Vaccines can have negative side effects, some of which take a while to show up. Can you imagine how much trust would be lost in vaccines if there were some serious side effects that started showing up months later? It would be a disaster that would ultimately kill way more people than the coronavirus.
  - selimthegrim 6y ago
    The Australian vaccine candidate in trials was giving HIV false positives. Imagine that but at scale
- runako 6y ago
  > If a bunch of people get injected with a placebo, it's at worse neutral. If they think they got a functional vaccine and change their behavior as a result, a placebo has the potential to do untold harm all by itself. Further, it erodes loss of confidence so that when a working vaccine is discovered, it's even harder to get people to take it. The FDA has faults, but when you look at people's objections it boils down to erring on the side of being too safe. How much trust would a regulator have if it erred on the side of being too unsafe?

fallingknife 6y ago

My point is that they should have allowed a human challenge study for faster results, like they are now. Not that they should have released an untested vaccine.

bluGill 6y ago

> It's almost impossible to imagine the devastation that could have been averted if the vaccine was released in March 2020. No, it is easy: statistically zero. We spent all of last year working and figuring out how to make the vaccine while covid spread. Maybe if Oxford/AZ vaccine was approved this way we could make a difference. My understanding is it takes 3 months to make the vaccine (grow the cultures), but might be confused - in any case we have the ability to have vaccinate the world by about now with that one which means that only future devastation is lost. Note that the South Africa variant would still have evolved and would be spreading uncontrollably for a few more months since the AZ vaccine doesn't stop that one (the science is not clear here so I'm taking the worst case to make a point), so it isn't even clear if anything would be saved.