4 ms·

Not stupid at all. Yes this is the main theory as to why moderna wanes less than pfizer. https://www.businessinsider.com/pfizer-lower-dose-moderna-covid-19-vac

by bryan0 5y ago

Not stupid at all. Yes this is the main theory as to why moderna wanes less than pfizer. https://www.businessinsider.com/pfizer-lower-dose-moderna-covid-19-vaccine-fewer-side-effects-2021-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/pfizer-lower-dose-moderna-co...

Gibbon1 5y ago
Other theory is Moderna has 4 weeks between doses vs 3 for Pfizer.
- version_five 5y ago
  This is interesting. In canada we had a longer waiting time between the shots because of lack of supply. People who got it earliest (older, etc) generally had a 12 week waiting time I think though it may have been shortened as we got more supply. I got my first (pfizer) as soon as I was eligible, and could get my second 8 weeks later. I think people that got their first shot later could wait a much shorter time, i.e. the recommended 3/4 weeks. It would be interesting to see if its possible to disentangle the effects of the way they were rolled out in different countries to see how much of a difference timing makes.
- 1cvmask 5y ago
  And that Pfizer was supposedly given to older people (weaker immune system) versus the others. Would be good to have adjusted studies.
  - bryan0 5y ago
    This is interesting. Do you have a source for this?
    - dboreham 5y ago
      Not a source but around here Pfizer was available first so the most at risk people got it.
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  This shouldn’t be downvoted, they are finding that waiting between the two doses longer does help.
  - tux3 5y ago
    There are broader points to be made about the voting system on HN, and the efficiency with which we're sorting information. It bothers me how little conscious time we spend improving the mechanisms of the places we discuss in. If the sorting system were a little better at avoiding good comments being downvoted, when they are pointing out something not immediately obvious and agreeable, that would elevate the efficiency of discourse. That seems more valuable than the time that has been spent on it would seem to indicate.
    - alanbernstein 5y ago
      I think that's what they're all trying to do. The problem isn't the sorting system, it's the fact that a "good comment" can't be an objective thing in every possible context.
      - tux3 5y ago
        I feel like the error we have is in ranking down things that are uncertain. If it's a certainty, people will vote for it quite a lot more than if it isn't. That is a mistake. I want to look at factual posts that are new to me, but also non-obvious posts. We burry non obvious posts more easily than we should, today, I think. The current system on HN is not too bad, but it could do a slightly more subtler job of promoting ideas that take a little bit more effort before they seem obviously true, in retrospect. We're too quick to hide the subtle and the uncertain.
    - systemvoltage 5y ago
      Downvoting on HN is poorly implemented. It creates an unstable initial condition for a new comment. Downvote from initial 1->0 cascades into a snowball effect for ganering downvotes from other users who are pursuaded by the gray text. Similarly, if is upvoted from 1->2, then you have a strongly positive comment that will most likely stay positive. Delaying the visual indicator of gray text for 1 hour would solve this problem. As it stands, it rewards pathological downvoters who continue to degrade healthy discussion on this site.
- kristofferR 5y ago
  Sources: https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1875 https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1875 "It found that, after the second vaccine dose, neutralising antibody concentrations were higher after an interval of 6-14 weeks than after the 3-4 week regimen that was initially recommended. When looking at the delta variant, researchers also noted that, though there were good levels of antibodies after the shorter dosing interval, levels were 2.3-fold higher with the longer dosing interval." http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Info-Site/Documents/COVID-19_vaccine/Public_health_statement_deferred_second_dose.pdf http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Info-Site/Documents/COVID-19_vacc... This isn't really "new" knowledge, double vaccine shots for other illnesses are usually spaced months apart because it usually boosts immune response and vaccine longevity. I feel quite fortunate that I got Moderna, spaced 7 weeks apart, here in Norway.
  - Gibbon1 5y ago
    My comment comes from chatter I've seen from actual infectious disease specialist and my friend who's has a masters in public health. My friend was assuring people that getting the second dose 'late' wasn't going to be a problem. Other chatter I've seen is that which part of the immune system does the heavy lifting varies depending on the infectious agent. With Covid it's the CD4 T lymphocytes that appear to what's important. Antibodies by themselves aren't that effective. (Notable antibody based therapy has been a bust with Covid19)
- kingofpandora 5y ago
  Depends where you get it. Here, it was 40 days between Moderna shots.
- apexalpha 5y ago
  My Pfizer had 5 weeks between the shots. I wonder how that affects protection.

by bryan0 5y ago

Gibbon1 5y ago

Other theory is Moderna has 4 weeks between doses vs 3 for Pfizer.

version_five 5y ago
This is interesting. In canada we had a longer waiting time between the shots because of lack of supply. People who got it earliest (older, etc) generally had a 12 week waiting time I think though it may have been shortened as we got more supply. I got my first (pfizer) as soon as I was eligible, and could get my second 8 weeks later. I think people that got their first shot later could wait a much shorter time, i.e. the recommended 3/4 weeks. It would be interesting to see if its possible to disentangle the effects of the way they were rolled out in different countries to see how much of a difference timing makes.
1cvmask 5y ago
And that Pfizer was supposedly given to older people (weaker immune system) versus the others. Would be good to have adjusted studies.
- bryan0 5y ago
  This is interesting. Do you have a source for this?
  - dboreham 5y ago
    Not a source but around here Pfizer was available first so the most at risk people got it.
mensetmanusman 5y ago
This shouldn’t be downvoted, they are finding that waiting between the two doses longer does help.
- tux3 5y ago
  There are broader points to be made about the voting system on HN, and the efficiency with which we're sorting information. It bothers me how little conscious time we spend improving the mechanisms of the places we discuss in. If the sorting system were a little better at avoiding good comments being downvoted, when they are pointing out something not immediately obvious and agreeable, that would elevate the efficiency of discourse. That seems more valuable than the time that has been spent on it would seem to indicate.
  - alanbernstein 5y ago
    I think that's what they're all trying to do. The problem isn't the sorting system, it's the fact that a "good comment" can't be an objective thing in every possible context.
    - tux3 5y ago
      I feel like the error we have is in ranking down things that are uncertain. If it's a certainty, people will vote for it quite a lot more than if it isn't. That is a mistake. I want to look at factual posts that are new to me, but also non-obvious posts. We burry non obvious posts more easily than we should, today, I think. The current system on HN is not too bad, but it could do a slightly more subtler job of promoting ideas that take a little bit more effort before they seem obviously true, in retrospect. We're too quick to hide the subtle and the uncertain.
  - systemvoltage 5y ago
    Downvoting on HN is poorly implemented. It creates an unstable initial condition for a new comment. Downvote from initial 1->0 cascades into a snowball effect for ganering downvotes from other users who are pursuaded by the gray text. Similarly, if is upvoted from 1->2, then you have a strongly positive comment that will most likely stay positive. Delaying the visual indicator of gray text for 1 hour would solve this problem. As it stands, it rewards pathological downvoters who continue to degrade healthy discussion on this site.
kristofferR 5y ago
Sources: https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1875 https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1875 "It found that, after the second vaccine dose, neutralising antibody concentrations were higher after an interval of 6-14 weeks than after the 3-4 week regimen that was initially recommended. When looking at the delta variant, researchers also noted that, though there were good levels of antibodies after the shorter dosing interval, levels were 2.3-fold higher with the longer dosing interval." http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Info-Site/Documents/COVID-19_vaccine/Public_health_statement_deferred_second_dose.pdf http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Info-Site/Documents/COVID-19_vacc... This isn't really "new" knowledge, double vaccine shots for other illnesses are usually spaced months apart because it usually boosts immune response and vaccine longevity. I feel quite fortunate that I got Moderna, spaced 7 weeks apart, here in Norway.
- Gibbon1 5y ago
  My comment comes from chatter I've seen from actual infectious disease specialist and my friend who's has a masters in public health. My friend was assuring people that getting the second dose 'late' wasn't going to be a problem. Other chatter I've seen is that which part of the immune system does the heavy lifting varies depending on the infectious agent. With Covid it's the CD4 T lymphocytes that appear to what's important. Antibodies by themselves aren't that effective. (Notable antibody based therapy has been a bust with Covid19)
kingofpandora 5y ago
Depends where you get it. Here, it was 40 days between Moderna shots.
apexalpha 5y ago
My Pfizer had 5 weeks between the shots. I wonder how that affects protection.