5 ms·

I had Pfizer and it still doesn't trouble me that much, I will catch Covid19 anyway, I'm just less likely to end up with a serious case of it or die. Why peopl

I had Pfizer and it still doesn't trouble me that much, I will catch Covid19 anyway, I'm just less likely to end up with a serious case of it or die. Why people would just immediately attack the vaccine and not discuss the fact that hundreds of millions, eventually billions of will be exposed to way higher levels of spike protein through actual infection is beyond me. I agree that it's not ideal, but what was the alternatives? Let it go wild, destroy the economy, let hospitals collapse?

Andys 5y ago
Why is there a false dichotomy that it's the vaccine or nothing? Why can't there just be a better vaccine. What incentive do pharma companies even have to make a better vaccine, rather than one that is just "good enough" to be shipped as a product to a ready, desperate market.
- NamTaf 5y ago
  Let's put it into context: the current batch of covid vaccines are spectacularly effective and compare favourably to vaccines we have for other diseases that are the result of decades of research. It really is hard to overstate how shockingly effecttive these covid vaccines are for being 'gen1' ones. They were genuinely a shock to the scientific community when their efficacy results were first announced, especially considering that other attempts at coronavirus vaccines had been relatively ineffective. For example, Varicella is 85% effective against any infecttion and approx 100% against severe infection. [1]. Polio is about 90% with 2 doses. [2] Influenza vaccines sit at about 40-60%. [3] Of course, it's also important to point out that they are improving them. Work is already underway to produce vaccines targetting the Delta strain more directly, in an effort to resolve some of the effectiveness loss that gen1 vaccines have against it. Indeed, this is one of the major advantages of mRNA vaccines - the iteration time from new design to new drug is a matter of weeks, so overall iteration for boosters is similarly shortened. This is extremely attractive for use against influenza and coronavirus which mutate fairly rapidly. The incentive for pharma groups to do this is twofold: 1) the US/UK and other similarly vaccinated populations will want boosters and will pay for them, and 2) that the vaccine status outside of the US/UK is radically different, with most countries barely scraping 10-20% of their population vaccinated. There's still a lot of people needing vaccines. [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/varicella/hcp-effective-duration.htm https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/varicella/hcp-effective... [2]: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/effectiveness-duration-protection.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/effectiveness-dur... [3]: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm
  - Andys 5y ago
    Thankyou for replying, but I feel you are reinforcing the dichotomy I described: you are saying because it is effective in one dimension (eg. reducing deaths), we should live with any inadequacies. There is certainly an incentive to make a mostly safe and effective vaccine, but what incentive is there to make the best one possible? Especially when they are given complete indemnity for their decisions, and walking through preopened gates of government approvals. I feel there is a big moral hazard here that we just hand-wave away.
    - phonon 5y ago
      "The mRNA Vaccines Are Extraordinary, but Novavax Is Even Better" https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/06/novavax-now-best-covid-19-vaccine/619276/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/06/novavax-n...
- bamboozled 5y ago
  Because it is what we have now? A better vaccine is currently not a reality, it doesn't exist, it's not readily available. Why the false dichotomy that only big pharma can do research and produce something?
bsaul 5y ago
Do you have any information as to what number of spike proteins will be generated by the vaccine on a healthy young individual, compared to an asymptomatic infection ? I was under the impression that mrna vaccines relied on the fact that spike was the harmless key. As such wouldn't it make sense if the doses were designed to be quite high ? Another question ( in case any specialist read this) : wouldn't it be possible that the S protein alone, being smaller than the whole virus, and being generated from unusual locations, is able to reach cells that would usually be protected in case of a regular airborne infection ?
- bamboozled 5y ago
  Let's say they're high in both cases, which infection is potentially more harmful ?
- the-rc 5y ago
  The mRNA vaccines don't multiply. From the moment they enter the body, their total volume can and does go down, but not up. Compare that to the virus, which clones itself and tries to evade immune defenses. Even contrasting the two vaccines is not straightforward: Moderna uses 3x the amount of mRNA as Pfizer, but then their storage requirements are also less stringent. Regarding location, it's more of an issue in the opposite direction: the fact that it is delivered through intramuscular injection gives a slower and poorer immune response in the mucosa, the first line of defense, compared to hypothetical, equivalent vaccines administered orally or nasally. Currently you have to rely on antibodies getting to the mucosa through your blood. We know that the virus can reach the brain, the GI system, etc., so there doesn't seem to be "total" protection. Of course, across different people and different immune responses, there's going to be a variable amount of viral proteins hitting throughout one's body.

Andys 5y ago

Why is there a false dichotomy that it's the vaccine or nothing? Why can't there just be a better vaccine. What incentive do pharma companies even have to make a better vaccine, rather than one that is just "good enough" to be shipped as a product to a ready, desperate market.

NamTaf 5y ago
Let's put it into context: the current batch of covid vaccines are spectacularly effective and compare favourably to vaccines we have for other diseases that are the result of decades of research. It really is hard to overstate how shockingly effecttive these covid vaccines are for being 'gen1' ones. They were genuinely a shock to the scientific community when their efficacy results were first announced, especially considering that other attempts at coronavirus vaccines had been relatively ineffective. For example, Varicella is 85% effective against any infecttion and approx 100% against severe infection. [1]. Polio is about 90% with 2 doses. [2] Influenza vaccines sit at about 40-60%. [3] Of course, it's also important to point out that they are improving them. Work is already underway to produce vaccines targetting the Delta strain more directly, in an effort to resolve some of the effectiveness loss that gen1 vaccines have against it. Indeed, this is one of the major advantages of mRNA vaccines - the iteration time from new design to new drug is a matter of weeks, so overall iteration for boosters is similarly shortened. This is extremely attractive for use against influenza and coronavirus which mutate fairly rapidly. The incentive for pharma groups to do this is twofold: 1) the US/UK and other similarly vaccinated populations will want boosters and will pay for them, and 2) that the vaccine status outside of the US/UK is radically different, with most countries barely scraping 10-20% of their population vaccinated. There's still a lot of people needing vaccines. [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/varicella/hcp-effective-duration.htm https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/varicella/hcp-effective... [2]: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/effectiveness-duration-protection.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/effectiveness-dur... [3]: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/vaccineeffect.htm
- Andys 5y ago
  Thankyou for replying, but I feel you are reinforcing the dichotomy I described: you are saying because it is effective in one dimension (eg. reducing deaths), we should live with any inadequacies. There is certainly an incentive to make a mostly safe and effective vaccine, but what incentive is there to make the best one possible? Especially when they are given complete indemnity for their decisions, and walking through preopened gates of government approvals. I feel there is a big moral hazard here that we just hand-wave away.
  - phonon 5y ago
    "The mRNA Vaccines Are Extraordinary, but Novavax Is Even Better" https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/06/novavax-now-best-covid-19-vaccine/619276/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/06/novavax-n...
bamboozled 5y ago
Because it is what we have now? A better vaccine is currently not a reality, it doesn't exist, it's not readily available. Why the false dichotomy that only big pharma can do research and produce something?

bsaul 5y ago

Do you have any information as to what number of spike proteins will be generated by the vaccine on a healthy young individual, compared to an asymptomatic infection ? I was under the impression that mrna vaccines relied on the fact that spike was the harmless key. As such wouldn't it make sense if the doses were designed to be quite high ? Another question ( in case any specialist read this) : wouldn't it be possible that the S protein alone, being smaller than the whole virus, and being generated from unusual locations, is able to reach cells that would usually be protected in case of a regular airborne infection ?

bamboozled 5y ago
Let's say they're high in both cases, which infection is potentially more harmful ?
the-rc 5y ago
The mRNA vaccines don't multiply. From the moment they enter the body, their total volume can and does go down, but not up. Compare that to the virus, which clones itself and tries to evade immune defenses. Even contrasting the two vaccines is not straightforward: Moderna uses 3x the amount of mRNA as Pfizer, but then their storage requirements are also less stringent. Regarding location, it's more of an issue in the opposite direction: the fact that it is delivered through intramuscular injection gives a slower and poorer immune response in the mucosa, the first line of defense, compared to hypothetical, equivalent vaccines administered orally or nasally. Currently you have to rely on antibodies getting to the mucosa through your blood. We know that the virus can reach the brain, the GI system, etc., so there doesn't seem to be "total" protection. Of course, across different people and different immune responses, there's going to be a variable amount of viral proteins hitting throughout one's body.