4 ms·

We’ll still probably need periodic booster shots to deal with variants as they crop up. Still, very encouraging news if it holds up in practice.

yazaddaruvala 5y ago
We'll "need" to take periodic boosters to improve Moderna and Pfizer's profit margins. That said, given its safe, I'm happy to do it to help fund / drive investment into the mRNA supply chain.
- anonfornoreason 5y ago
  I would caution you to reconsider "given it's safe" as a statement. I think the proper statement might be closer to "the benefits can outweigh the risks, depending on the disease being treated". There are growing bodies of evidence that spike proteins travel throughout your body, don't stay isolated at the injection site, and can cause severe reactions in some people (see incidents of heart inflammation, etc). I was skeptical myself until I got the first shot and am currently on day 5 of chest pain and shortness of breath. I have a family friend (30's, semi-professional athlete) who just had a massive heart attack 5 days after vaccination, with an otherwise healthy cardio system. Lots of anecdata, can't make good policy with it, but we are still flying by the seat of our pants and don't know the overall landscape. For what it's worth I'm optimistic, especially around customized cancer treatments, I am just cautiously pessimistic about the overall safety of causing your body to build a ton of spike proteins and have them float around. In other words, for "minor" illnesses like flu, it might not be a net benefit.
  - haswell 5y ago
    > There are growing bodies of evidence that spike proteins travel throughout your body, don't stay isolated at the injection site, and can cause severe reactions in some people Will you share citation(s) for the evidence you mention? I'm aware of the heart inflammation concerns, but as of yet, I have not seen this described as "the spike protein traveling throughout your body". > In other words, for "minor" illnesses like flu, it might not be a net benefit. The spike proteins exist only to provide immunity to this specific coronavirus. What are you suggesting re: illnesses like flu?
    - anonfornoreason 5y ago
      As mentioned previously, we are in the early days of fully understanding the science behind these vaccines. There are many reasonable speculations that the mechanism of the CDC acknowledged cases of myocarditis and pericarditis from both the vaccine and the virus itself, are caused by spike proteins. The only way the vaccine can cause that is if those proteins aren't limited to the injection site. It's actually extraordinarily difficult to find reasonable discussions on this topic, since it seems people want to suppress any conversation that puts a potentially negative light on covid vaccinations, which pushes any reasonable discussion into the cesspool of conspiracy theorist dialogue. Here's a couple links: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.21.423721v1.full https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.21.423721v1.... https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-95587/v1_stamped.pdf https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-95587/v1_stamped.... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8162819/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8162819/ Not hard to search and find reasonable studies in early stages. Once again, I have to give a disclaimer to avoid the brigade: I am optimistic about these vaccines for many things, but I would not be surprised if in 5 years we have a body of knowledge that refutes the "overall really safe" label. Still a super valuable medical tool, I mean no one would take chemo drugs if they didn't have cancer, but people take them because it's overall better than not taking them if you have a treatable version of cancer!
  - ocdtrekkie 5y ago
    For a lot of people, influenza is deadly, and so not at all "minor". Outside of pandemic, we should move slowly and cautiously, but yeah, if we can perfect this out to a better way to fight the flu, that'd save a lot of lives.
- xxpor 5y ago
  I'm sorry, but you have no idea how vaccine economics work. Why do you think that researcher had so many problems at Pfizer getting funding to work on mRNA? Drug companies want to invent things like Viagra or Harvoni, not vaccines that are given to everyone a few times.
  - delecti 5y ago
    Hundreds of millions (or billions) of people getting annumal booster shots seems like a pretty good source of recurring revenue.
  - mizzack 5y ago
    Pfizer's CEO literally called the vaccine a "durable revenue stream" and talked about boosters through 2024 in the last earnings call.
  - yazaddaruvala 5y ago
    > not vaccines that are given to everyone a few times I agree, and therefore Pfizer and Moderna have an incentive to claim annual boosters are needed. To get recurring revenue. I'm not sure why you feel we disagree. I was just also saying, "I'm happy to get a useless booster, as long as its safe" because the extra volume of mRNA production should drive down long term manufacturing costs.
cdolan 5y ago
Source/Sauce?
- chaostheory 5y ago
  I don't know why the original comment is being downvoted. It is not a conspiracy theory to assume that we need booster shots. Is it not like our situation with the flu? https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/15/pfizer-ceo-says-third-covid-vaccine-dose-likely-needed-within-12-months.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/15/pfizer-ceo-says-third-covid-... https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/22/covid-booster-shots-coronavirus-variants-see-calls-for-third-shots.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/22/covid-booster-shots-coronavi... The news of this new study just came out today. Give the guy a break.
  - standardUser 5y ago
    There is simply no evidence we will need booster shots.
    - chaostheory 5y ago
      It's hard to determine that as a laymen when you have the CEO of Pfizer (who is likely being advised by Pfizer's own researchers) saying, "A likely scenario is that there will be likely a need for a third dose, somewhere between six and 12 months and then from there, there will be an annual revaccination, but all of that needs to be confirmed. And again, the variants will play a key role"
  - M4v3R 5y ago
    > Is it not like our situation with the flu? No, as other commenters pointed out coronaviruses are different from the flu viruses in that they cannot mutate as easily as flu does. Hence it is possible that booster shots will not be required.
    - chaostheory 5y ago
      That also doesn't mean that that there's no longer a decent chance of immune escape. Before this research came out, it was a reasonable position to think that we needed boosters. It is NOT a conspiracy theory. If you read any of the articles I've cited one of them has the CEO of Pfizer stating that we will likely need a yearly booster shot.
chrononaut 5y ago
Could someone elaborate why this particular comment is being downvoted? Or I guess in other words, is there something unique about the mRNA vaccines that make it unnecessary to require "booster shots" (if "booster shots" equate to yearly shots we are used to with the flu variants)? (I legitimately don't know and I am curious. I see the article does reference protection against a variant during a study, but it's unclear to me if that means all future variants as well.)
- chaosite 5y ago
  There's no basis to believe at this point that we'll need "booster shots" of any kind with COVID vaccination, and in fact the opposite seems to be the case, so this comment is being downvoted for spreading misinformation (amusingly, this specific comment will probably be disliked by both vaccination proponents and disease proponents :) The reason we won't need yearly vaccinations as with the flu shots isn't a property of the mRNA vaccine, it's a property of COVID-19. The watered-down explanation is that this particular sort of virus simply doesn't mutate as much as the flu virus because it has a mechanism that prevents it. We do see variants, but they're actually quite similar so the same vaccine still works (thankfully). It's also why we're talking about COVID "variants" and flu "strains". In this context, a different "strain" usually signifies different surface proteins, i.e., you need a different vaccine for it. I don't believe that we've seen a second COVID strain yet.
  - aix1 5y ago
    How do I reconcile this with the existence of, say, Moderna booster? https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/moderna-announces-positive-initial-booster-data-against-sars-cov https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-d... (Genuine question.)
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - thehappypm 5y ago
      Of course the manufacturers would love for there to be a need for a booster for every man, woman, and child on Earth!
gjs278 5y ago
I will not be participating in a system that intentionally gets me sick 1-2 days out of the year to avoid an illness that barely did anything to me in the first place. people who are going to have a bad reaction to covid can get them if they need them. I don’t.
standardUser 5y ago
There is no evidence yet that boosters will be needed for either protection from variants or from diminishing immunity over time.

yazaddaruvala 5y ago

We'll "need" to take periodic boosters to improve Moderna and Pfizer's profit margins. That said, given its safe, I'm happy to do it to help fund / drive investment into the mRNA supply chain.

anonfornoreason 5y ago
I would caution you to reconsider "given it's safe" as a statement. I think the proper statement might be closer to "the benefits can outweigh the risks, depending on the disease being treated". There are growing bodies of evidence that spike proteins travel throughout your body, don't stay isolated at the injection site, and can cause severe reactions in some people (see incidents of heart inflammation, etc). I was skeptical myself until I got the first shot and am currently on day 5 of chest pain and shortness of breath. I have a family friend (30's, semi-professional athlete) who just had a massive heart attack 5 days after vaccination, with an otherwise healthy cardio system. Lots of anecdata, can't make good policy with it, but we are still flying by the seat of our pants and don't know the overall landscape. For what it's worth I'm optimistic, especially around customized cancer treatments, I am just cautiously pessimistic about the overall safety of causing your body to build a ton of spike proteins and have them float around. In other words, for "minor" illnesses like flu, it might not be a net benefit.
- haswell 5y ago
  > There are growing bodies of evidence that spike proteins travel throughout your body, don't stay isolated at the injection site, and can cause severe reactions in some people Will you share citation(s) for the evidence you mention? I'm aware of the heart inflammation concerns, but as of yet, I have not seen this described as "the spike protein traveling throughout your body". > In other words, for "minor" illnesses like flu, it might not be a net benefit. The spike proteins exist only to provide immunity to this specific coronavirus. What are you suggesting re: illnesses like flu?
  - anonfornoreason 5y ago
    As mentioned previously, we are in the early days of fully understanding the science behind these vaccines. There are many reasonable speculations that the mechanism of the CDC acknowledged cases of myocarditis and pericarditis from both the vaccine and the virus itself, are caused by spike proteins. The only way the vaccine can cause that is if those proteins aren't limited to the injection site. It's actually extraordinarily difficult to find reasonable discussions on this topic, since it seems people want to suppress any conversation that puts a potentially negative light on covid vaccinations, which pushes any reasonable discussion into the cesspool of conspiracy theorist dialogue. Here's a couple links: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.21.423721v1.full https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.21.423721v1.... https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-95587/v1_stamped.pdf https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-95587/v1_stamped.... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8162819/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8162819/ Not hard to search and find reasonable studies in early stages. Once again, I have to give a disclaimer to avoid the brigade: I am optimistic about these vaccines for many things, but I would not be surprised if in 5 years we have a body of knowledge that refutes the "overall really safe" label. Still a super valuable medical tool, I mean no one would take chemo drugs if they didn't have cancer, but people take them because it's overall better than not taking them if you have a treatable version of cancer!
- ocdtrekkie 5y ago
  For a lot of people, influenza is deadly, and so not at all "minor". Outside of pandemic, we should move slowly and cautiously, but yeah, if we can perfect this out to a better way to fight the flu, that'd save a lot of lives.
xxpor 5y ago
I'm sorry, but you have no idea how vaccine economics work. Why do you think that researcher had so many problems at Pfizer getting funding to work on mRNA? Drug companies want to invent things like Viagra or Harvoni, not vaccines that are given to everyone a few times.
- delecti 5y ago
  Hundreds of millions (or billions) of people getting annumal booster shots seems like a pretty good source of recurring revenue.
- mizzack 5y ago
  Pfizer's CEO literally called the vaccine a "durable revenue stream" and talked about boosters through 2024 in the last earnings call.
- yazaddaruvala 5y ago
  > not vaccines that are given to everyone a few times I agree, and therefore Pfizer and Moderna have an incentive to claim annual boosters are needed. To get recurring revenue. I'm not sure why you feel we disagree. I was just also saying, "I'm happy to get a useless booster, as long as its safe" because the extra volume of mRNA production should drive down long term manufacturing costs.

cdolan 5y ago

Source/Sauce?

chaostheory 5y ago
I don't know why the original comment is being downvoted. It is not a conspiracy theory to assume that we need booster shots. Is it not like our situation with the flu? https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/15/pfizer-ceo-says-third-covid-vaccine-dose-likely-needed-within-12-months.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/15/pfizer-ceo-says-third-covid-... https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/22/covid-booster-shots-coronavirus-variants-see-calls-for-third-shots.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/22/covid-booster-shots-coronavi... The news of this new study just came out today. Give the guy a break.
- standardUser 5y ago
  There is simply no evidence we will need booster shots.
  - chaostheory 5y ago
    It's hard to determine that as a laymen when you have the CEO of Pfizer (who is likely being advised by Pfizer's own researchers) saying, "A likely scenario is that there will be likely a need for a third dose, somewhere between six and 12 months and then from there, there will be an annual revaccination, but all of that needs to be confirmed. And again, the variants will play a key role"
- M4v3R 5y ago
  > Is it not like our situation with the flu? No, as other commenters pointed out coronaviruses are different from the flu viruses in that they cannot mutate as easily as flu does. Hence it is possible that booster shots will not be required.
  - chaostheory 5y ago
    That also doesn't mean that that there's no longer a decent chance of immune escape. Before this research came out, it was a reasonable position to think that we needed boosters. It is NOT a conspiracy theory. If you read any of the articles I've cited one of them has the CEO of Pfizer stating that we will likely need a yearly booster shot.

chrononaut 5y ago

Could someone elaborate why this particular comment is being downvoted? Or I guess in other words, is there something unique about the mRNA vaccines that make it unnecessary to require "booster shots" (if "booster shots" equate to yearly shots we are used to with the flu variants)? (I legitimately don't know and I am curious. I see the article does reference protection against a variant during a study, but it's unclear to me if that means all future variants as well.)

chaosite 5y ago
There's no basis to believe at this point that we'll need "booster shots" of any kind with COVID vaccination, and in fact the opposite seems to be the case, so this comment is being downvoted for spreading misinformation (amusingly, this specific comment will probably be disliked by both vaccination proponents and disease proponents :) The reason we won't need yearly vaccinations as with the flu shots isn't a property of the mRNA vaccine, it's a property of COVID-19. The watered-down explanation is that this particular sort of virus simply doesn't mutate as much as the flu virus because it has a mechanism that prevents it. We do see variants, but they're actually quite similar so the same vaccine still works (thankfully). It's also why we're talking about COVID "variants" and flu "strains". In this context, a different "strain" usually signifies different surface proteins, i.e., you need a different vaccine for it. I don't believe that we've seen a second COVID strain yet.
- aix1 5y ago
  How do I reconcile this with the existence of, say, Moderna booster? https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/moderna-announces-positive-initial-booster-data-against-sars-cov https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-d... (Genuine question.)
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - thehappypm 5y ago
    Of course the manufacturers would love for there to be a need for a booster for every man, woman, and child on Earth!

gjs278 5y ago

I will not be participating in a system that intentionally gets me sick 1-2 days out of the year to avoid an illness that barely did anything to me in the first place. people who are going to have a bad reaction to covid can get them if they need them. I don’t.

standardUser 5y ago

There is no evidence yet that boosters will be needed for either protection from variants or from diminishing immunity over time.