8 ms·

The Novavax Vaccine, Finally

28 points by starkd 4y ago

propter_hoc 4y ago
This is minor and off-topic, but since it's not the first time I've seen this error: > Wherefore art thou, Novavax? Well, finally before an FDA advisory committee meeting for their coronavirus vaccine, that’s where they art. "Wherefore" means "why," not "where." In Romeo and Juliet, the question "Wherefore art thou Romeo" is actually Juliet asking why her beau has to have the Montague name, when her family is sworn against his. Not like, "Where are you, I can't see you." Anyway, great article aside from that.
- jimmygrapes 4y ago
  I like to consider myself a pretty well learned person when it comes to English and etymology, but you got me here. I had no idea! Thank you!
  - AdamJacobMuller 4y ago
    I know this well only because I enjoy using wherefore correctly, and having others "correct" me so I can explain it.
  - codemonkey-zeta 4y ago
    This is a classic pedantic English correction, the type which snarky English teachers like to harp on. It's in the same ballpark as the folks who badger the "incorrect" use of "literally" (even though the definition literally includes "figuratively" now).
    - version_five 4y ago
      I disagree, because wherefore is basically an archaic word that people use to conjure up images of Shakespearean English. It's usage hasn't really evolved in common language, it has stopped and gets used for an olde timey feel. Contrast this with "begs the question" which is still used and, at least 15 years ago, still had pedants up in arms when it's usage didn't match the original meaning
      - jfengel 4y ago
        It's too bad that "begs the question" has changed to match a phrase we already had, "raises the question". But since actual question-begging is just met by "you didn't answer my question", it's not too big a loss.
        dragonwriter 4y ago
        > It's too bad that "begs the question" has changed to match a phrase we already had, "raises the question" It hasn't changed, it has expanded to include an transitive form which is a rationalization and folk-etymology of the intransitive form (whose obsolete use of every word except “the” makes it otherwise stand out in modern English.) The mediocre-translation-from-Latin-to-obsoletr-English intransitive form makes sense when viewed as (though obviously this isn't the real etymology) a variation of the more transitive form where the omitted object is “the question of the justification of the original claim”. “Purists” objecting to the newer form which is structurally distinct and thus impossible to confuse with the older form, creating no ambiguity of meaning, are just showing a lack of understanding of the structure of English.
    - Cpoll 4y ago
      So what do I do when I literally mean literally?
      - starkd 4y ago
        Try really.
      - jjeaff 4y ago
        Actually. But I think context still rules the day when using literally. But I don't think literally is actually used incorrectly all that much. It's commonly used as hyperbole. "I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse" is hyperbole. "I'm so hungry I could literally eat a horse" is just a more extreme hyperbole. Most cases where I see literally used in the more modern sense, it is rarely used in an ambiguous way. "I literally just died" will never mean that you just passed away and are now announcing it to everyone.
    - starkd 4y ago
      If there were no snarky English teachers and pedantics to point this stuff out, think of all the knowledge that would be lost. The English language has a rich history and expansive vocabulary.
      - codemonkey-zeta 4y ago
        Pedants ;)
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      Dictionary definitions of “literally” that list “figuratively” do a poor job of capturing the figurative use of “literally”, which is an intensifier for when the sentence without the modifier would (in the speakers mind) already be implicitly figurative; it does not denote that the comparison is figurative, it intensifies the already figurative xomparison.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  Makes me wonder if the authors were really unaware that wherefore = why or if they deliberately used it in the wrong sense to get us to talk about the article.
- karencarits 4y ago
  "Wherefore" is quite close to "hvorfor" which is "why" in Norwegian/Danish (and hvor = where)
AdamJacobMuller 4y ago
> It’s believed that there are a good number of people who would prefer to take something like the Novavax vaccine over the less-established techniques like mRNA and adenoviruses. I worry that all of the pro-vaccine propaganda and the attacks and dehumanization of people who chose not to get the vaccine (or people who merely questioned it) has resulted in people who won't listen to this at all and won't change their mind. The shaming of people who didn't want the vaccine just pushed people further from wanting the vaccine (and in many cases any vaccine) instead of trying to embrace them and make them feel comfortable taking it.
- uberwindung 4y ago
  “pro-vaccine propaganda” Wtf does that even mean ?
  - jfengel 4y ago
    False equivalences are a staple of right wing discourse. Anything that contradicts antivax propaganda must be an equal and opposite propaganda. The idea that there might actually be a right and wrong answer, and that they are once again in the wrong, isn't permitted. Science is merely an opinion and anything you say must be propaganda. And just to predict the inevitable false equivalence: no, not everything the fringe left says is correct. But denying any science that doesn't fit the ideology is a mainstream position for the right, made into official party platform and repeated by politicians at the highest levels. There is no equivalent on the left.
  - blub 4y ago
    In Europe pushing Coronavirus vaccines as a magic solution while downplaying potential (and later real) side-effects, defaming critics of one specific vaccine as anti-vaccine in general and cultivating an all-around attitude of suspicion and distrust towards those that criticized the measures enacted by the government. The latter is particularly insidious as can be seen also in the HN comments associating Coronavirus vaccine criticism with right-wing politics - which by the way is a normal and necessary part of the political spectrum.
- 4y ago
sonicggg 4y ago
The FDA moved mountains to get these first vaccines rushed out of the door. And while they are better than nothing, it has not met the high expectations that were set. People fully boosted are still developing symptoms, some even developing long covid. But the worst is that any newer vaccines or even therapies are not getting the same type of priority anymore. There are a lot of really interesting products on the pipeline, moving at a really slow pace, like Novavax.
- starkd 4y ago
  And it's still based on the original strain. So,it's questionable how good it is on the new variants.
- credit_guy 4y ago
  > The FDA moved mountains to get these first vaccines rushed out of the door. Did we follow the same pandemic? It looked to me like they were slow as snails. The whole idea of Operation Warpspeed was that the manufacturers will work hard to make the vaccines and run the tests, and they'll share all the data with the FDA and the FDA will evaluate as the data came, and when the manufacturers were sending the final results, the FDA will be able to review everything quickly and make the decision ASAP. Instead, they decided in the middle of the testing that there are not enough minorities in the tested population, and they need to add a few thousand more participants (and about 2 months to the timeline). Then, after the submissions happened, it took them more than a month each time to give their EUA. Where "E" stands for "emergency". That's at a time when between 1000 and 3000 people were dying daily of Covid in the US. It's quite likely that tens of thousands of people died because of how inefficient the FDA was.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago
    And also suspicious, that if they had stuck to the original plan, these vaccines would have come out in October, before the 2020 election, instead of just after the election, like they did.
    - jjeaff 4y ago
jl2718 4y ago
Comparison among vaccines: https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674%2822%2900653-5.pdf https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674%2822%2900653-5.pdf

28 points by starkd 4y ago

This is minor and off-topic, but since it's not the first time I've seen this error: > Wherefore art thou, Novavax? Well, finally before an FDA advisory committee meeting for their coronavirus vaccine, that’s where they art. "Wherefore" means "why," not "where." In Romeo and Juliet, the question "Wherefore art thou Romeo" is actually Juliet asking why her beau has to have the Montague name, when her family is sworn against his. Not like, "Where are you, I can't see you." Anyway, great article aside from that.

jimmygrapes 4y ago
I like to consider myself a pretty well learned person when it comes to English and etymology, but you got me here. I had no idea! Thank you!
- AdamJacobMuller 4y ago
  I know this well only because I enjoy using wherefore correctly, and having others "correct" me so I can explain it.
- codemonkey-zeta 4y ago
  This is a classic pedantic English correction, the type which snarky English teachers like to harp on. It's in the same ballpark as the folks who badger the "incorrect" use of "literally" (even though the definition literally includes "figuratively" now).
  - version_five 4y ago
    I disagree, because wherefore is basically an archaic word that people use to conjure up images of Shakespearean English. It's usage hasn't really evolved in common language, it has stopped and gets used for an olde timey feel. Contrast this with "begs the question" which is still used and, at least 15 years ago, still had pedants up in arms when it's usage didn't match the original meaning
    - jfengel 4y ago
      It's too bad that "begs the question" has changed to match a phrase we already had, "raises the question". But since actual question-begging is just met by "you didn't answer my question", it's not too big a loss.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > It's too bad that "begs the question" has changed to match a phrase we already had, "raises the question" It hasn't changed, it has expanded to include an transitive form which is a rationalization and folk-etymology of the intransitive form (whose obsolete use of every word except “the” makes it otherwise stand out in modern English.) The mediocre-translation-from-Latin-to-obsoletr-English intransitive form makes sense when viewed as (though obviously this isn't the real etymology) a variation of the more transitive form where the omitted object is “the question of the justification of the original claim”. “Purists” objecting to the newer form which is structurally distinct and thus impossible to confuse with the older form, creating no ambiguity of meaning, are just showing a lack of understanding of the structure of English.
  - Cpoll 4y ago
    So what do I do when I literally mean literally?
    - starkd 4y ago
      Try really.
    - jjeaff 4y ago
      Actually. But I think context still rules the day when using literally. But I don't think literally is actually used incorrectly all that much. It's commonly used as hyperbole. "I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse" is hyperbole. "I'm so hungry I could literally eat a horse" is just a more extreme hyperbole. Most cases where I see literally used in the more modern sense, it is rarely used in an ambiguous way. "I literally just died" will never mean that you just passed away and are now announcing it to everyone.
  - starkd 4y ago
    If there were no snarky English teachers and pedantics to point this stuff out, think of all the knowledge that would be lost. The English language has a rich history and expansive vocabulary.
    - codemonkey-zeta 4y ago
      Pedants ;)
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    Dictionary definitions of “literally” that list “figuratively” do a poor job of capturing the figurative use of “literally”, which is an intensifier for when the sentence without the modifier would (in the speakers mind) already be implicitly figurative; it does not denote that the comparison is figurative, it intensifies the already figurative xomparison.
yellowapple 4y ago
Makes me wonder if the authors were really unaware that wherefore = why or if they deliberately used it in the wrong sense to get us to talk about the article.
karencarits 4y ago
"Wherefore" is quite close to "hvorfor" which is "why" in Norwegian/Danish (and hvor = where)

AdamJacobMuller 4y ago

> It’s believed that there are a good number of people who would prefer to take something like the Novavax vaccine over the less-established techniques like mRNA and adenoviruses. I worry that all of the pro-vaccine propaganda and the attacks and dehumanization of people who chose not to get the vaccine (or people who merely questioned it) has resulted in people who won't listen to this at all and won't change their mind. The shaming of people who didn't want the vaccine just pushed people further from wanting the vaccine (and in many cases any vaccine) instead of trying to embrace them and make them feel comfortable taking it.

uberwindung 4y ago
“pro-vaccine propaganda” Wtf does that even mean ?
- jfengel 4y ago
  False equivalences are a staple of right wing discourse. Anything that contradicts antivax propaganda must be an equal and opposite propaganda. The idea that there might actually be a right and wrong answer, and that they are once again in the wrong, isn't permitted. Science is merely an opinion and anything you say must be propaganda. And just to predict the inevitable false equivalence: no, not everything the fringe left says is correct. But denying any science that doesn't fit the ideology is a mainstream position for the right, made into official party platform and repeated by politicians at the highest levels. There is no equivalent on the left.
- blub 4y ago
  In Europe pushing Coronavirus vaccines as a magic solution while downplaying potential (and later real) side-effects, defaming critics of one specific vaccine as anti-vaccine in general and cultivating an all-around attitude of suspicion and distrust towards those that criticized the measures enacted by the government. The latter is particularly insidious as can be seen also in the HN comments associating Coronavirus vaccine criticism with right-wing politics - which by the way is a normal and necessary part of the political spectrum.
4y ago

sonicggg 4y ago

The FDA moved mountains to get these first vaccines rushed out of the door. And while they are better than nothing, it has not met the high expectations that were set. People fully boosted are still developing symptoms, some even developing long covid. But the worst is that any newer vaccines or even therapies are not getting the same type of priority anymore. There are a lot of really interesting products on the pipeline, moving at a really slow pace, like Novavax.

starkd 4y ago
And it's still based on the original strain. So,it's questionable how good it is on the new variants.
credit_guy 4y ago
> The FDA moved mountains to get these first vaccines rushed out of the door. Did we follow the same pandemic? It looked to me like they were slow as snails. The whole idea of Operation Warpspeed was that the manufacturers will work hard to make the vaccines and run the tests, and they'll share all the data with the FDA and the FDA will evaluate as the data came, and when the manufacturers were sending the final results, the FDA will be able to review everything quickly and make the decision ASAP. Instead, they decided in the middle of the testing that there are not enough minorities in the tested population, and they need to add a few thousand more participants (and about 2 months to the timeline). Then, after the submissions happened, it took them more than a month each time to give their EUA. Where "E" stands for "emergency". That's at a time when between 1000 and 3000 people were dying daily of Covid in the US. It's quite likely that tens of thousands of people died because of how inefficient the FDA was.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago
  And also suspicious, that if they had stuck to the original plan, these vaccines would have come out in October, before the 2020 election, instead of just after the election, like they did.
  - jjeaff 4y ago

jl2718 4y ago

Comparison among vaccines: https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674%2822%2900653-5.pdf https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674%2822%2900653-5.pdf