6 ms·

That is not the question I asked. Furthermore the degree of which the current vaccines work against variants is dependent of the variant itself, please consult

That is not the question I asked. Furthermore the degree of which the current vaccines work against variants is dependent of the variant itself, please consult the OA. (Also dependent on time, but that's a separate conversation .) I am asking specifically if there is any hard evidence of vaccine effectiveness to back statements made by biopharma corporations about variant-specific vaccines, for example: "We have built a process that within 95 days from the day that we identify a variant as a variant of concern, we will be able to have a vaccine tailor-made against this variant," [Pfizer CEO] Bourla said. https://www.insider.com/pfizer-ceo-vaccine-resistant-coronavius-variant-likely-2021-8 https://www.insider.com/pfizer-ceo-vaccine-resistant-coronav...

belltaco 5y ago
They ran studeies/trials on variant vaccines they deveolped and found that it wasn't better enough than the original vaccine/booster to go to the large effort of rolling out a different vaccine all over again. Atleast for Delta and the UK variant.
dboreham 5y ago
They said they built a process. That's a different assertion than that any such vaccine will be effective. To know that would require a time machine. That said these people made a lifetimes work of being as sure as they can that such a thing will be effective. I don't think we have better information or hard evidence from other sources.
- angelzen 5y ago
  I fully agree. To prove long term vaccine effectiveness (original, boosters, variants, sequence thereof) we indeed need a time machine. In other words, we are running a species level grand experiment with unknown outcomes. That biopharma corps are planning to routinely launch new immune stimulants without any long term effectiveness data gives me pause.
  - pixl97 5y ago
    We are always running grand experiments in virology, evolution never stops. We know the outcome of evolution, that is novel viruses pop up and kill massive numbers of people. My take of your entire thread is we let these natural processes kill millions because we fear a significantly smaller long term risk.
  - moistly 5y ago
    We are all taking part in a grand experiment whether we like it or not, because the SARS-CoV-2 virus definitely has a broad range of known short-term outcomes, many bad, and unknown long-term outcomes, likely also bad. All choices are a bet on the future. 77% is betting with loaded dice. Seems to me that one doesn’t pause when being attacked by a bear, a big cat, or even a wasp. And unless you’re anaphylactic, the latter can’t fudge you up as bad as a virus. Don’t pause too long, leopards are on the prowl.
blackbear_ 5y ago
> the degree of which the current vaccines work against variants is dependent of the variant itself Yes, we all know that. Follow the scientific literature and you will find updated vaccine assessments soon after a concerning variant is noticed. > "We have built a process that within 95 days from the day that we identify a variant as a variant of concern, we will be able to have a vaccine tailor-made against this variant," [Pfizer CEO] Bourla said. That's likely closely guarded IP, so I don't think there is hard evidence for that statement. But the phase I clinical trials for Moderna's [1] and Pfizer's [2] started respectively in February and April 2020, just a few months after covid became a problem. This is IMHO reasonable evidence that 95 days is a plausible lead time. [1] https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04283461 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04283461 [2] https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT04368728 https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT04368728
- angelzen 5y ago
  I find it strange to believe that 95 days are sufficient to assess the lifelong effects of an immunity system intervention. "Original Antigenic Sin: How First Exposure Shapes Lifelong Anti–Influenza Virus Immune Responses" https://www.jimmunol.org/content/202/2/335 https://www.jimmunol.org/content/202/2/335
  - blackbear_ 5y ago
    You are misunderstanding the CEO's statement. It says that 95 days are sufficient to make the vaccine, it does not mention testing. You cannot assess the lifelong effects of almost anything in just three months.
    - angelzen 5y ago
      Thanks for the correction. I find it strange to believe that 12 months are sufficient to assess the lifelong effects of an immunity system intervention.
      - blackbear_ 5y ago

belltaco 5y ago

They ran studeies/trials on variant vaccines they deveolped and found that it wasn't better enough than the original vaccine/booster to go to the large effort of rolling out a different vaccine all over again. Atleast for Delta and the UK variant.

dboreham 5y ago

They said they built a process. That's a different assertion than that any such vaccine will be effective. To know that would require a time machine. That said these people made a lifetimes work of being as sure as they can that such a thing will be effective. I don't think we have better information or hard evidence from other sources.

angelzen 5y ago
I fully agree. To prove long term vaccine effectiveness (original, boosters, variants, sequence thereof) we indeed need a time machine. In other words, we are running a species level grand experiment with unknown outcomes. That biopharma corps are planning to routinely launch new immune stimulants without any long term effectiveness data gives me pause.
- pixl97 5y ago
  We are always running grand experiments in virology, evolution never stops. We know the outcome of evolution, that is novel viruses pop up and kill massive numbers of people. My take of your entire thread is we let these natural processes kill millions because we fear a significantly smaller long term risk.
- moistly 5y ago
  We are all taking part in a grand experiment whether we like it or not, because the SARS-CoV-2 virus definitely has a broad range of known short-term outcomes, many bad, and unknown long-term outcomes, likely also bad. All choices are a bet on the future. 77% is betting with loaded dice. Seems to me that one doesn’t pause when being attacked by a bear, a big cat, or even a wasp. And unless you’re anaphylactic, the latter can’t fudge you up as bad as a virus. Don’t pause too long, leopards are on the prowl.

blackbear_ 5y ago

> the degree of which the current vaccines work against variants is dependent of the variant itself Yes, we all know that. Follow the scientific literature and you will find updated vaccine assessments soon after a concerning variant is noticed. > "We have built a process that within 95 days from the day that we identify a variant as a variant of concern, we will be able to have a vaccine tailor-made against this variant," [Pfizer CEO] Bourla said. That's likely closely guarded IP, so I don't think there is hard evidence for that statement. But the phase I clinical trials for Moderna's [1] and Pfizer's [2] started respectively in February and April 2020, just a few months after covid became a problem. This is IMHO reasonable evidence that 95 days is a plausible lead time. [1] https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04283461 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04283461 [2] https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT04368728 https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT04368728

angelzen 5y ago
I find it strange to believe that 95 days are sufficient to assess the lifelong effects of an immunity system intervention. "Original Antigenic Sin: How First Exposure Shapes Lifelong Anti–Influenza Virus Immune Responses" https://www.jimmunol.org/content/202/2/335 https://www.jimmunol.org/content/202/2/335
- blackbear_ 5y ago
  You are misunderstanding the CEO's statement. It says that 95 days are sufficient to make the vaccine, it does not mention testing. You cannot assess the lifelong effects of almost anything in just three months.
  - angelzen 5y ago
    Thanks for the correction. I find it strange to believe that 12 months are sufficient to assess the lifelong effects of an immunity system intervention.
    - blackbear_ 5y ago