5 ms·

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

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
    Uncertainty is a fact of life and decision making under uncertainty an important skill to be successful. And in case it is not clear, in this thread I am not advocating neither for or against vaccines, so we can end it here unless you have something of substance to add.
  - alex_c 5y ago
    Do you mean in terms of protection, or side effects? In terms of long term protection, I don't think we really know yet. In terms of long term side effects - do we know of any past vaccines with notable side effects that only became known after 12+ months? Genuine question.
    - angelzen 5y ago
      In term of protection. For starters, if vaccine effectiveness were holding, there would be no need for boosters. A picture from a recent preprint of 600k veterans over 6 months shows troubling VE against infection curves. J&J VE against infection is gone. Pfizer curve is just 2 months behind, at 53% and dropping. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/10/14/2021.10.13.21264966/F1.large.jpg https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/10/14/202... https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.13.21264966v1.full-text https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.13.21264966v... Fortunately VE against severe infection holds much better at 77% Pfizer for June-Sept 2021 time period. The clinical trials claimed 94%, so there is a drop there. Nobody knows what will be the VE against sever infection a year from now, and we appear to have decided to preemptively boost so we might never know. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7037e2-H.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7037e2-H.pdf https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta... ----- Alas, none of this takes in account future virus variants and their interaction with OAS. OAS means that building an immune response against the virus today will prove ineffective for a virus variant 10 years down the line. The worst known scenario was encountered with dengue fever. An excerpt from a 2011 paper summarizing the dengue situation: "Original antigenic sin has the advantage that a response can be rapidly mobilized from memory. However, the downside is that in some cases, such as dengue, the response is dominated by inferior-quality antibody. In influenza, original antigenic sin has been shown to reduce the effectiveness of vaccination (13, 34, 51). In dengue, the effect of original antigenic sin has considerable bearing on vaccine strategies. Once a response has been established, it is unlikely that repeat boosting will be able to change its scope, meaning that balanced responses against the four virus serotypes will need to be established with the first vaccine dose." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3014204 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3014204
      - belltaco 5y ago
        >Fortunately VE against severe infection holds much better at 77% Pfizer for June-Sept 2021 time period. The clinical trials claimed 94%, so there is a drop there. The clinical trials were run against the original version, while the data you presented seems to be overlapping with the spread of Delta, yet you never mention Delta in your comment.
didibus 5y ago
That's interesting, though the article concludes with: > Despite the persistent connotation of “sin” as a negative attribute, it is clear that OAS-like responses are neither inherently “good” nor “bad.” The desirability of OAS responses is instead context dependent It doesn't really seem from that article like we have the means to predict what OAS will be most beneficial in the future, so I think everyone are just flipping a coin here. Either you get OAS from some random vaccine available at some point in time, or you get it from randomly catching some random virus at some point in time.

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
  Uncertainty is a fact of life and decision making under uncertainty an important skill to be successful. And in case it is not clear, in this thread I am not advocating neither for or against vaccines, so we can end it here unless you have something of substance to add.
- alex_c 5y ago
  Do you mean in terms of protection, or side effects? In terms of long term protection, I don't think we really know yet. In terms of long term side effects - do we know of any past vaccines with notable side effects that only became known after 12+ months? Genuine question.
  - angelzen 5y ago
    In term of protection. For starters, if vaccine effectiveness were holding, there would be no need for boosters. A picture from a recent preprint of 600k veterans over 6 months shows troubling VE against infection curves. J&J VE against infection is gone. Pfizer curve is just 2 months behind, at 53% and dropping. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/10/14/2021.10.13.21264966/F1.large.jpg https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/10/14/202... https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.13.21264966v1.full-text https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.13.21264966v... Fortunately VE against severe infection holds much better at 77% Pfizer for June-Sept 2021 time period. The clinical trials claimed 94%, so there is a drop there. Nobody knows what will be the VE against sever infection a year from now, and we appear to have decided to preemptively boost so we might never know. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7037e2-H.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7037e2-H.pdf https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta... ----- Alas, none of this takes in account future virus variants and their interaction with OAS. OAS means that building an immune response against the virus today will prove ineffective for a virus variant 10 years down the line. The worst known scenario was encountered with dengue fever. An excerpt from a 2011 paper summarizing the dengue situation: "Original antigenic sin has the advantage that a response can be rapidly mobilized from memory. However, the downside is that in some cases, such as dengue, the response is dominated by inferior-quality antibody. In influenza, original antigenic sin has been shown to reduce the effectiveness of vaccination (13, 34, 51). In dengue, the effect of original antigenic sin has considerable bearing on vaccine strategies. Once a response has been established, it is unlikely that repeat boosting will be able to change its scope, meaning that balanced responses against the four virus serotypes will need to be established with the first vaccine dose." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3014204 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3014204
    - belltaco 5y ago
      >Fortunately VE against severe infection holds much better at 77% Pfizer for June-Sept 2021 time period. The clinical trials claimed 94%, so there is a drop there. The clinical trials were run against the original version, while the data you presented seems to be overlapping with the spread of Delta, yet you never mention Delta in your comment.

didibus 5y ago

That's interesting, though the article concludes with: > Despite the persistent connotation of “sin” as a negative attribute, it is clear that OAS-like responses are neither inherently “good” nor “bad.” The desirability of OAS responses is instead context dependent It doesn't really seem from that article like we have the means to predict what OAS will be most beneficial in the future, so I think everyone are just flipping a coin here. Either you get OAS from some random vaccine available at some point in time, or you get it from randomly catching some random virus at some point in time.