20 ms·

We could have universal Covid vaccines soon

114 points by alihm 4y ago

throaway7899 4y ago
How does this match with this information: "CDC: Nearly 60% of Americans have natural COVID-19 antibodies from prior infection" https://seekingalpha.com/news/3827106-nearly-60-of-americans-have-natural-covid-19-antibodies-from-past-infection https://seekingalpha.com/news/3827106-nearly-60-of-americans...
danans 4y ago
I'm surprised there is no mention of the pan-coronavirus vaccine the US Army has been working on, which is also a "nanoparticle" vaccine: https://www.army.mil/article/252890/preclinical_studies_support_armys_pan_coronavirus_vaccine_development_strategy https://www.army.mil/article/252890/preclinical_studies_supp... Seems like an odd omission for someone so (literally) invested in the space.
- dv_dt 4y ago
  Also no mention of the Cuba-China pan-Corona vaccine. https://countercurrents.org/2022/06/cuba-and-china-file-patent-for-jointly-produced-pan-corona-vaccine-for-covid-19-and-related-viruses/ https://countercurrents.org/2022/06/cuba-and-china-file-pate...
- veeti 4y ago
  Have there been any news about this one after December?
edmcnulty101 4y ago
- mattnewton 4y ago
  Why wouldn’t having Covid several times confer the same immunity as you having Covid once?
  - edmcnulty101 4y ago
  - SoftTalker 4y ago
    People's immune systems are not all the same. Some people hardly ever get sick. Some people seem to hardly ever be well. And everything in between.
    - mattnewton 4y ago
      Right, of course. I guess I mean for a given individual (who can’t change their immune system), the poster seemed to imply that the choice to be vaccinated was neutral or negative.
      - edmcnulty101 4y ago
        For a person with a healthy immune system the choice to be vaccinated is neutral or negative. This includes non-immunocompromised people under the age of 65.
  - Doyce 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - edmcnulty101 4y ago
      This is all false information and needs to be flagged. Just one study from Hopkins addressing your first point. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/covid-natural-immunity-what-you-need-to-know#:~:text=Johns%20Hopkins%20has%20conducted%20a,those%20who%20only%20got%20immunized https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseas....
      - Doyce 4y ago
- tempestn 4y ago
  There are studies comparing the protection offered by vaccination vs natural infection, so there's no need to draw conclusions from a single anecdote. Obviously when you're just looking at a single case the results will be dominated by behaviour and luck around exposure, not the degree of immunity.
  - edmcnulty101 4y ago
    Not extensive studies.
    - phy6 4y ago
      I would have added some data points to your original comment, but then mods deleted your comment while I typed. Seems they've got to suppress single anecdotes so no one has the bravery to add a second.
    - Jedd 4y ago
      Certainly they are more extensive than your sample set of 1.
      - edmcnulty101 4y ago
        I don't think so. There's very few and all of them are inconclusive so the science isn't clear on the matter.
  - ekianjo 4y ago
    > , so there's no need to draw conclusions from a single anecdote In the meantime we are still waiting for the raw data to be made public about Pfizer's vaccine trials. Strange that we can inject billions on people on Earth yet nobody apart from a selected few were allowed to see that.
    - Doyce 4y ago
      Didn't the FDA release like 60k pages of those documents a couple months ago? I know Pfizer didn't want that, but people are forgetting before COVID mRNA medicine was a holy grail. So much so a lot of groups didn't pursue it since they saw it as a pipe dream. COVID's greatest gift was causing massive influxes of research dollars into them and most likely fast tracking these new drugs 15 years. mRna will literally be part of the new wave of medicine starting that will cure cancer. And it's odd to you that Pfizer doesn't want to post all their research data online? With the FDA or CDC they can be assured of data containment. And let's be honest....an mRNA vaccine has some fats, sugars, and salts in it. The magic is in the programming to work with your body and it's immune system. I've heard some insane personalized interpretations of basic organic chemistry on the vaccine topic before (please know not saying you, referencing past discussions with others) about how vaccines loaded with poisons and caused all kinds of issues. And with an mRNA vaccine's ingredient list reading like an organic snack know what all those people said instead? An mRNA vaccine will alter your DNA because youtube told them so. These are also the people that said they understood Particle Physics better then myself or any source I cited, because I was too full of myself to acknowledge that when I said non-ionizing radiation I was ignoring the radiation part...which is how 5G was the true cause of COVID19. Then they told me I was a poster boy for what education does to someone....because I lacked the common sense to recognize the dangers of the radiation part in non-ionizing radiation. Never mind he was arguing with me surrounded by technology saturating him with that very same harmless radiation. I told those examples to make a point...releasing all of that data won't change the first person's mind. They'll simply shift their position or do like they did with the whole autism debate and say they're right and anything saying differently is obviously part of a larger conspiracy of people who don't care about patient health. Over 20,000 people are hospitalized and 3,000 dead every year from aspirin due to anaphylaxis or bleeds. That's not really reported because anyone who expects every single human on the planet to have zero negative reaction to a drug every time is setting unrealistic expectations as a cheap way to try to prove their right. We've had roughly (last time I checked several months ago) a couple of dozen verified deaths relating to the vaccine since roll out and all those had genetic conditions that caused it. Point is, every scrap of that data can hit the net tonight and the only thing that would change is we'd wake up to the new laughable "they are using it to track you" or "It's going to force gender change in men!" rumors tomorrow. Meaning, 99% of the people who'd (skim) read that data are the kind of people who'd tell me I was a moron because I wasn't getting that non-ionizing radiation is still radiation and is nuking us all.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
rtlfe 4y ago
> In the US, roughly as many vaccinated people in the US die from COVID every day as there are total deaths across the country in motor vehicle accidents. It's truly shocking that we're not doing more to reduce car dependency.
- lifeplusplus 4y ago
  or to make working public transportation a norm across the country and interstate travel
  - saltminer 4y ago
    These are not mutually exclusive, reducing car dependency requires massive investment in public transit.
    - lifeplusplus 4y ago
      That's my point, if you had better transportation system it'd reduce car dependency, but you can't create economically viable public transportation system for suburbs, which were designed to maximize roads. Not be pessimistic, but it'd take efforts along the line of fighting a new world war to fix this. People who live in suburbs suffer with a form of stockholm syndrome and really thing they are living the best life. Yet they end up spending most of their lives isolated and in traffic. Cities should be designed that things you need daily/weekly/monthly are close to you. Let's see what do I need, or have needed in last two weeks: Pharmacy, medical specialists, grocery stores, hardware store, barber shop, food shops, accountant, library, park... and I've walked to all of them. For each one of these I'd have to make potentially a separate trip in a car, if I was living in suburbs.
      - saltminer 4y ago
        I'm well aware of that (and have written at length about that on this site in the past). Your comment just seemed like it was saying "you can either reduce car dependency OR have good public transit, not both," which was probably a misreading on my part.
aphantasiac 4y ago
phkahler 4y ago
We could just approve Corbevax in the US. It's a more traditional vaccine and includes more of the virus than spike proteins. It's also unpatented and cheap. The cynic in me says there is huge interest in having an annual Covid vaccine like the flu one. They'll just change spike proteins every year in a never ending game of cat and mouse. With mRNA that game is easy and profitable.
- autokad 4y ago
  I hope not, because I don't think we will be given a choice on whether we want to take it or not, and the last booster I had in December wrecked me. Within 20 minutes I was yawning non stop, one yawn after till the point I was gasping for air. eventually my whole body was in pain for about 3 days, my resting heart rate was over 100 (60-65 is normal for me) and my oxygen levels was down to 90. 6 weeks later I caught omicron anyways. Long story short, I don't want to go through that every 6 months.
  - KennyBlanken 4y ago
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - robocat 4y ago
      > a vaccine can't make you yawn uncontrollably Please don’t rudely deny someone else’s experience. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - KennyBlanken 4y ago
        Please do not use tone arguments to dismiss someone responding to dangerous vaccine misinformation, especially when I was not "rude." This entire thread is crawling with anti-vaccination rhetoric and misinformation.
openfuture 4y ago
Lol nobody touching this discussion with a however-long-you-can-think-of pole. At least not anymore. My contribution: I think we have been destroying trust systematically for so long that people are losing their sanity. Finally it is time to rethink our foundations and stop coercing. Currently there are various things that take trust for granted and they will need to become a great deal more persuasive if they want to retain their status moving forward (examples include: governments, currrencies, science, etc. - basically central coordination built on a foundation of coercion, science was the last bastion but the "education system" has become a certification system).
- jameshart 4y ago
  What, with respect to vaccines, specifically, would you say has undermined trust? Was there some massive scandalous plague of side effects caused by a carelessly approved vaccine that I missed?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - robhunter 4y ago
    No, it's probably that the public was lead to believe the vaccines eliminated or materially & permanently reduced transmission of the virus.
    - Terretta 4y ago
      The pre-media-mangled epidemiology messaging early was never COVID zero, it was flatten curve and slow the spread, while messaging on vax was never bulletproof but reduction in personal outcome risk and lower prevalence. Politicized media and partisan pundits (both pro and online commenters) reduced nuance of vax research showing both R and outcomes effects to ‘it doesn’t work’ or ‘it makes you impervious’, both of which resulted in people ignoring other simple measures either from lack of faith or too much faith. From there, inevitable discussions like these threads.
    - 4y ago
robhunter 4y ago
I'm not sure the public - at least in North America - has much of an appetite for any more Covid vaccines. In the US: - Only about 2% of kids under 5 have had a 1st dose since they were introduced nearly a month ago - Only 30% of the 5-11 year old population has had 2 doses - < 50% of people w/2 doses went on to get a booster So much damage has been done to public trust - "You will not get Covid if you get the vaccine; the vaccine eliminates the spread of the disease; the vaccine is more effective than natural immunity; healthy 18 year old males need a booster to go to school" - that I think it will be a real uphill climb to get more buy-in, even if the actual underlying product is more effective.
- MrMan 4y ago
  this is complete bullshit - getting vaccinated isnt a matter of public trust, stop with this ridiculous propaganda to politicize medicine.
  - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 4y ago
    The parent was speaking about the public's trust in institutions. I share the belief that the medical establishment's refusal to speak with nuance about covid and the vaccines did more harm than good. By laying everything out plainly, I believe more people would have gotten vaccinated. They're used to trying to distill unbelievably complex issues down to an actionable, one-sentence recommendation for everyone. For most things that's fine, but during a global pandemic people want to know a bit more.
- metadat 4y ago
  Your extrapolations from the cited metrics make no sense. People are less interested in the currently available vaccines because they don't protect against the current dominant strain (BA.5).
  - robhunter 4y ago
    Boosters have been available for nearly a year; vaccines for 5-11's for ~6 months. I think the booster rate is a reasonable sign that trust in "the science" has been lost - why do you think such a large % of people who initially "followed the science" (and got 2 doses) chose not to "follow the science" and get a booster? (Again, keeping in mind boosters have been widely available since late 2021)
aaaaaaaaaaab 4y ago
- sterlind 4y ago
  things were bad before. now most people have antibodies, and now covid isn't causing much pneumonia, but don't you remember how bad it was? healthy middle-aged people were dying, hospitals were overloaded, people were on ventilators and getting lung transplants. case fatality rate was 2%. it's better now, but the virus was horrible in 2020.
olivermarks 4y ago
- etchalon 4y ago
  VERS report should be treated as anecdotal, not as data.
  - olivermarks 4y ago
  - nonethewiser 4y ago
    Not mutually exclusive. These are reports of adverse side effects. Data can be reported by individuals.
    - Markoff 4y ago
      no they can't, for instance in Czechia your have to report it to your doctor, who can then report it to VAERS and it's up to him whether it's gonna be reported
- sterlind 4y ago
  VAERS is raw data - anything and everything that happens a couple days after getting the shot. it's dimensionless without knowing background prevalence of disorders, as well as incidence per 100k doses. I'm not totally sure about your article, either. for instance, they quote someone saying Bell's palsy is one of the top three side effects from mRNA vaccines, but this Lancet article [1] shows that risk of Bell's palsy is only increased by the Chinese CoronaVac vaccine, not Pfizer. anyway, hopefully this universal coronavirus vaccine works. I just want to be protected - I don't care what you do. 1. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00467-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
divbzero 4y ago
> The urgency that prevailed in 2020 has evaporated. I know parents of young children who are extremely disappointed that it took less than a year to trial and approve the first COVID-19 vaccine for adults, and then a full year and a half to trial and approve the first COVID-19 vaccine for children under 5.
- ars 4y ago
  That's because it basically doesn't work for children. It's nothing to do with the speed of the trial, the vaccine just doesn't work in children. Even the approved one that exists today barely does anything. There were a ton of attempts before that that simply straight out didn't work.
  - puffoflogic 4y ago
    What does this have to do with anything? The CDC said we need to take the vaccine. That's all you need to know. If you need to take it then obviously kids need to take it too.
    - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago
    - internet_user 4y ago
      Why did UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) refuse to recommend universal vaccination to 12-15s on risk benefit basis? How did these internationally renowned vaccinologists and immunologists suddenly become antivaxxers overnight? Professor Andrew Pollard, Chair (University of Oxford) Professor Lim Wei Shen, Chair COVID-19 immunisation (Nottingham University Hospitals) Professor Anthony Harnden, Deputy Chair (University of Oxford) Dr Kevin Brown (Public Health England) Dr Rebecca Cordery (Public Health England) Dr Maggie Wearmouth (East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust) Professor Matt Keeling (University of Warwick) Alison Lawrence (lay member) Professor Robert Read (Southampton General Hospital) Professor Anthony Scott (London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine) Professor Adam Finn (University of Bristol) Dr Fiona van der Klis (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Netherlands) Professor Maarten Postma (University of Groningen) Professor Simon Kroll (Imperial College London) Dr Martin Williams (University Hospitals Bristol) Professor Jeremy Brown (University College London Hospitals) https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/joint-committee-on-vaccination-and-immunisation https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/joint-committee-on-vacc... https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2180 https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2180
osigurdson 4y ago
>> the current 7-day average is 380 deaths per day Stop counting simple deaths. Instead count years of life lost vs average life expectancy.
- jameshart 4y ago
  Ah yes, Hippocrates' famous oath that to this day inspires all medical practitioners: "It's too bad, but I guess he would've died soon anyway."
  - osigurdson 4y ago
    For individual patients, sure, but when dealing with populations a more rigorous statistical analysis is needed.
    - jameshart 4y ago
      Okay. And what specific number of quality adjusted life years would a vaccination program need to promise to save across the globe before you personally are willing to take it?
      - peteradio 4y ago
        > quality adjusted life years Do you feel comfortable acknowledging that this metric in isolation could result in trading years across age demographics? To what degree does it matter if we take 1 year of life from a child and give it to a middle aged person, doing exactly that would be fairly neutral according to QALY.
        jameshart 4y ago
        Not sure what kind of vaccines you’ve been taking, but realistically that trade off is not currently on the table, is it?
        rrrrrrrrrrrryan 4y ago
ars 4y ago
This is the wrong discussion - what's needed is a vaccine that actually lasts for more than 6 months before immunity fades. I remember reading very early in COVID how experts said finding a vaccine would be very difficult because we've never been able to generate long lasting immunity to corona viruses. And they were hoping COVID would be different. Turns out - it's not different.
- divbzero 4y ago
  > This is the wrong discussion - what's needed is a vaccine that actually lasts for more than 6 months before immunity fades. I think your idea is what OP is discussing with “universal COVID vaccines” — generating broad immunity that new variants can’t escape so quickly.
  - ars 4y ago
    The loss of immunity is not due to variants. The immune system itself simply starts forgetting.
    - divbzero 4y ago
      What part of the immune system are you referring to? My understanding is that the initial set of antibodies wane over time but will be produced again if memory B cells encounter the same antigen. Similarly, T cells specific for an antigen will amplify in number if re-exposed to that antigen.
      - Vecr 4y ago
        The serial interval of the virus is so fast that there's no way the T-cells and B-cells can keep up. Some sort of nasal vaccine could reduce infection for a few months but as far as I can tell it's impossible to make a long lasting (years) coronavirus vaccine that can prevent infection. Serial interval is too fast, antibodies wane too fast, your immune system is too slow. I could see a gene therapy/retrovirus thing that hijacks some cells permanently to produce antigens (or make it smarter and somewhat regulating like an HIV infection, if HIV is forever this could be too) so it's like getting vaccinated every minute of every hour of every day, forever. Alternatively, you could produce genetically engineered B-cells in the lab and inject them into people ('s bone marrow?) to constantly produce a very high dose cocktail of broadly neutralizing antibodies. Completely infeasible, too expensive, won't scale. Might work. None of these ideas would be approved for the general public in at least 25 years.
LooseMarmoset 4y ago
Full disclosure: I have not gotten a COVID vaccine; I am quite unlikely to get a COVID vaccine. If you want to get a COVID vaccine, please feel free to do so, though I would urge informed consent. Good vaccines are difficult to make, but there's no doubt that a well-tested and approved vaccine saves lives. We don't have polio or smallpox today, thanks to vaccines. I made the decision not to get the COVID vaccine. I have had COVID twice, confirmed with positive testing. I self-quarantined both times. I was quite tired and slept a lot during both infections. I am definitely on the list of those with co-morbidities. I don't have "long COVID", but my partner definitely does. I don't discount COVID, it's a serious flu, and various flu infections kill a lot of people every year. ** In the early 90's, in the run-up to the first Gulf war, military personnel were widely asked to volunteer for an experimental vaccine. We were told this was an anti-anthrax vaccine, necessary because it was believed (or so we were told) that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of anthrax-based biological weaponry. Those who were deployed weren't given the option, but those who did not deploy were asked to volunteer. I did not volunteer. Some weeks after the call for volunteers went out, my Navy section non-commissioned officer (LPO) told me that I was required to volunteer. I disagreed, saying that was an order not voluntary. I was then told that I was ordered to volunteer, and that I'd be court-martialed if I did not volunteer. Now this is shitty, but when you sign up for the military, you sign up for stuff like this whether you like it or not. I don't know if I could have successfully fought this, but it seemed like a bad idea, so I agreed that I would "volunteer". I was then ordered to sign a paper stating that I had "volunteered" for the shot of my own free will. I refused this initially, but I got called out again by my leadership and threatened with court-martial if I refused an order to sign the paper. I was a scared 19-year-old, and didn't know if I had legal grounds or not, so in the end, I agreed to sign. I wish I had never signed that paper. I wish I'd had the courage to tell my leadership to take me to court-martial. After I got the shot, I got sick. Constantly. I got sick again and again, taking weeks to get better between each bout. Fever, chills, headache, it was like a flu that went on for months. It was so bad at one point that my chief petty officer sent me to bed for a week, even when Navy medical refused me any treatment beyond Ibuprofen. This condition affected me on-and-off for well over a year. Many years later, I read about "Gulf War Syndrome." I read of government claims of exposure to chemical agents while deployed - except that I never deployed to Iraq, and neither did thousands of others with symptoms. I truly believe that Gulf War Syndrome was caused by a chemical agent our own government deployed, in the form of a vaccine that I "volunteered" for, and thus have no recourse against my own government. When I see my own government telling me that I "have" to get another experimental vaccine, a vaccine that cannot prevent transmission or infection from COVID, a vaccine that no one can be held liable for problems, and that same government threatening me with loss of public access, threatening me with "vaccine passes", pushing companies to exclude me from the job market unless I comply, I have this to say: GO F** YOURSELVES I won't ever "volunteer" again. EDIT: I would also like to state that other than this one blot on the record, I greatly enjoyed my time in the military. I got to visit places I'm unlikely to see ever again, was given enormous responsibility, and had a job I truly enjoyed (most of the time). I met great people, and felt good about my contributions.
lamontcg 4y ago
We can't vaccinate our way out of this virus. Even without the issues of compliance, eradication is likely impossible with a respiratory virus like this. Even if you have a pan coronavirus nasal vaccine the NAbs will wane and people will get infected again. It doesn't matter if we use more mRNAs than just spike for more targets or anything else. It'll mutate, NAbs will wane, people won't get vaccinated and the virus will persist. People are looking for a silver bullet which will confer the naive ideal of "perfect immunity" against this virus which just doesn't exist. The vaccines we have though are great, particularly against severe disease and death. But it won't get much better than this. The disease burden is currently high compared to common colds because the virus is still novel and our immune system responses aren't 100% fully formed and tested. Once everyone has been exposed to the antigen a half dozen times and the virus is forced to mutate off of its naive optimum then the disease burden will drop even further. Then we just have another human common cold coronavirus. Nobody is freaking out over HCoV-NL63, HCoV-229E or HCoV-OC43.
- landemva 4y ago
  > We can't vaccinate our way out of this virus... because it transmits between humans and cats and deer.
- soramimo 4y ago
  > Once everyone has been exposed to the antigen a half dozen times and the virus is forced to mutate off of its naive optimum then the disease burden will drop even further. Then we just have another human common cold coronavirus. This is presented as a fact/certainty, however, I'd like to caution that it is still unclear whether multiple reinfections will add up to lasting damage (unlike the common cold), see e.g. [1]. That said, I agree with you that it'll be hard to eradicate this virus given how quickly it mutates (I'm just not as certain of the consequences). [1] https://erictopol.substack.com/p/a-reinfection-red-flag https://erictopol.substack.com/p/a-reinfection-red-flag
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    That study has all kinds of confounding variables. We don't see other respiratory viruses behaving that way, and its more likely that this one won't either. Topol isn't a very good source either, he's speaking outside of his area of expertise (he's a cardiologist, not an immunologist/virologist/epidemiologist)
Markoff 4y ago
"vaccines" real vaccines stop you from getting infected, spreading the disease or having symptoms, what's again efficacy of these vaccines at least against asymptomatic COVID? since we abandoned the idea that vaccines slow spread in any way... Why would you get vaxxed if you are healthy person and your vaccination doesn't help anyone but you? For the record in 11M Czechia 40K people died WITH COVID (that includes car accident victims, terminally ill patients it anyone enlisted in hospital who had to get tested) in more than 2 years, less than 1% of them were under 44. [1] [1] https://onemocneni-aktualne.mzcr.cz/covid-19/prehledy-khs https://onemocneni-aktualne.mzcr.cz/covid-19/prehledy-khs
archlight 4y ago
well we already have this protein based vaccine Novavax 2373 with cross immune response based on prototype developed 2.5 years ago. because it not only has full representation of spike protein (unlike mRNA taking shortcut to represent S protein) but also cleavage site which is omicron BA5 immune escape from. However big pharma politics slowed down the approval, purpose delaying US P3 trial, introducing CMC requirement 1 month before formally submitting the application. Novavax 2373 has shown superb efficacy results since Jan 2021 UK trial and follow up study showed long term protection (titers half life 9months compared to mRNA 3months). no myocarditis risk. still FDA only approved it now half year after submission blaming the company's manufacture issue while it has been distributing hundred of millions of doses worldwide mRNA is not vaccine. it is only genetic therapy
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

114 points by alihm 4y ago

How does this match with this information: "CDC: Nearly 60% of Americans have natural COVID-19 antibodies from prior infection" https://seekingalpha.com/news/3827106-nearly-60-of-americans-have-natural-covid-19-antibodies-from-past-infection https://seekingalpha.com/news/3827106-nearly-60-of-americans...

danans 4y ago

I'm surprised there is no mention of the pan-coronavirus vaccine the US Army has been working on, which is also a "nanoparticle" vaccine: https://www.army.mil/article/252890/preclinical_studies_support_armys_pan_coronavirus_vaccine_development_strategy https://www.army.mil/article/252890/preclinical_studies_supp... Seems like an odd omission for someone so (literally) invested in the space.

dv_dt 4y ago
Also no mention of the Cuba-China pan-Corona vaccine. https://countercurrents.org/2022/06/cuba-and-china-file-patent-for-jointly-produced-pan-corona-vaccine-for-covid-19-and-related-viruses/ https://countercurrents.org/2022/06/cuba-and-china-file-pate...
veeti 4y ago
Have there been any news about this one after December?

edmcnulty101 4y ago

mattnewton 4y ago
Why wouldn’t having Covid several times confer the same immunity as you having Covid once?
- edmcnulty101 4y ago
- SoftTalker 4y ago
  People's immune systems are not all the same. Some people hardly ever get sick. Some people seem to hardly ever be well. And everything in between.
  - mattnewton 4y ago
    Right, of course. I guess I mean for a given individual (who can’t change their immune system), the poster seemed to imply that the choice to be vaccinated was neutral or negative.
    - edmcnulty101 4y ago
      For a person with a healthy immune system the choice to be vaccinated is neutral or negative. This includes non-immunocompromised people under the age of 65.
- Doyce 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - edmcnulty101 4y ago
    This is all false information and needs to be flagged. Just one study from Hopkins addressing your first point. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/covid-natural-immunity-what-you-need-to-know#:~:text=Johns%20Hopkins%20has%20conducted%20a,those%20who%20only%20got%20immunized https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseas....
    - Doyce 4y ago
tempestn 4y ago
There are studies comparing the protection offered by vaccination vs natural infection, so there's no need to draw conclusions from a single anecdote. Obviously when you're just looking at a single case the results will be dominated by behaviour and luck around exposure, not the degree of immunity.
- edmcnulty101 4y ago
  Not extensive studies.
  - phy6 4y ago
    I would have added some data points to your original comment, but then mods deleted your comment while I typed. Seems they've got to suppress single anecdotes so no one has the bravery to add a second.
  - Jedd 4y ago
    Certainly they are more extensive than your sample set of 1.
    - edmcnulty101 4y ago
      I don't think so. There's very few and all of them are inconclusive so the science isn't clear on the matter.
- ekianjo 4y ago
  > , so there's no need to draw conclusions from a single anecdote In the meantime we are still waiting for the raw data to be made public about Pfizer's vaccine trials. Strange that we can inject billions on people on Earth yet nobody apart from a selected few were allowed to see that.
  - Doyce 4y ago
    Didn't the FDA release like 60k pages of those documents a couple months ago? I know Pfizer didn't want that, but people are forgetting before COVID mRNA medicine was a holy grail. So much so a lot of groups didn't pursue it since they saw it as a pipe dream. COVID's greatest gift was causing massive influxes of research dollars into them and most likely fast tracking these new drugs 15 years. mRna will literally be part of the new wave of medicine starting that will cure cancer. And it's odd to you that Pfizer doesn't want to post all their research data online? With the FDA or CDC they can be assured of data containment. And let's be honest....an mRNA vaccine has some fats, sugars, and salts in it. The magic is in the programming to work with your body and it's immune system. I've heard some insane personalized interpretations of basic organic chemistry on the vaccine topic before (please know not saying you, referencing past discussions with others) about how vaccines loaded with poisons and caused all kinds of issues. And with an mRNA vaccine's ingredient list reading like an organic snack know what all those people said instead? An mRNA vaccine will alter your DNA because youtube told them so. These are also the people that said they understood Particle Physics better then myself or any source I cited, because I was too full of myself to acknowledge that when I said non-ionizing radiation I was ignoring the radiation part...which is how 5G was the true cause of COVID19. Then they told me I was a poster boy for what education does to someone....because I lacked the common sense to recognize the dangers of the radiation part in non-ionizing radiation. Never mind he was arguing with me surrounded by technology saturating him with that very same harmless radiation. I told those examples to make a point...releasing all of that data won't change the first person's mind. They'll simply shift their position or do like they did with the whole autism debate and say they're right and anything saying differently is obviously part of a larger conspiracy of people who don't care about patient health. Over 20,000 people are hospitalized and 3,000 dead every year from aspirin due to anaphylaxis or bleeds. That's not really reported because anyone who expects every single human on the planet to have zero negative reaction to a drug every time is setting unrealistic expectations as a cheap way to try to prove their right. We've had roughly (last time I checked several months ago) a couple of dozen verified deaths relating to the vaccine since roll out and all those had genetic conditions that caused it. Point is, every scrap of that data can hit the net tonight and the only thing that would change is we'd wake up to the new laughable "they are using it to track you" or "It's going to force gender change in men!" rumors tomorrow. Meaning, 99% of the people who'd (skim) read that data are the kind of people who'd tell me I was a moron because I wasn't getting that non-ionizing radiation is still radiation and is nuking us all.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

rtlfe 4y ago

> In the US, roughly as many vaccinated people in the US die from COVID every day as there are total deaths across the country in motor vehicle accidents. It's truly shocking that we're not doing more to reduce car dependency.

lifeplusplus 4y ago
or to make working public transportation a norm across the country and interstate travel
- saltminer 4y ago
  These are not mutually exclusive, reducing car dependency requires massive investment in public transit.
  - lifeplusplus 4y ago
    That's my point, if you had better transportation system it'd reduce car dependency, but you can't create economically viable public transportation system for suburbs, which were designed to maximize roads. Not be pessimistic, but it'd take efforts along the line of fighting a new world war to fix this. People who live in suburbs suffer with a form of stockholm syndrome and really thing they are living the best life. Yet they end up spending most of their lives isolated and in traffic. Cities should be designed that things you need daily/weekly/monthly are close to you. Let's see what do I need, or have needed in last two weeks: Pharmacy, medical specialists, grocery stores, hardware store, barber shop, food shops, accountant, library, park... and I've walked to all of them. For each one of these I'd have to make potentially a separate trip in a car, if I was living in suburbs.
    - saltminer 4y ago
      I'm well aware of that (and have written at length about that on this site in the past). Your comment just seemed like it was saying "you can either reduce car dependency OR have good public transit, not both," which was probably a misreading on my part.

aphantasiac 4y ago

phkahler 4y ago

We could just approve Corbevax in the US. It's a more traditional vaccine and includes more of the virus than spike proteins. It's also unpatented and cheap. The cynic in me says there is huge interest in having an annual Covid vaccine like the flu one. They'll just change spike proteins every year in a never ending game of cat and mouse. With mRNA that game is easy and profitable.

autokad 4y ago
I hope not, because I don't think we will be given a choice on whether we want to take it or not, and the last booster I had in December wrecked me. Within 20 minutes I was yawning non stop, one yawn after till the point I was gasping for air. eventually my whole body was in pain for about 3 days, my resting heart rate was over 100 (60-65 is normal for me) and my oxygen levels was down to 90. 6 weeks later I caught omicron anyways. Long story short, I don't want to go through that every 6 months.
- KennyBlanken 4y ago
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - robocat 4y ago
    > a vaccine can't make you yawn uncontrollably Please don’t rudely deny someone else’s experience. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - KennyBlanken 4y ago
      Please do not use tone arguments to dismiss someone responding to dangerous vaccine misinformation, especially when I was not "rude." This entire thread is crawling with anti-vaccination rhetoric and misinformation.

openfuture 4y ago

Lol nobody touching this discussion with a however-long-you-can-think-of pole. At least not anymore. My contribution: I think we have been destroying trust systematically for so long that people are losing their sanity. Finally it is time to rethink our foundations and stop coercing. Currently there are various things that take trust for granted and they will need to become a great deal more persuasive if they want to retain their status moving forward (examples include: governments, currrencies, science, etc. - basically central coordination built on a foundation of coercion, science was the last bastion but the "education system" has become a certification system).

jameshart 4y ago
What, with respect to vaccines, specifically, would you say has undermined trust? Was there some massive scandalous plague of side effects caused by a carelessly approved vaccine that I missed?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- robhunter 4y ago
  No, it's probably that the public was lead to believe the vaccines eliminated or materially & permanently reduced transmission of the virus.
  - Terretta 4y ago
    The pre-media-mangled epidemiology messaging early was never COVID zero, it was flatten curve and slow the spread, while messaging on vax was never bulletproof but reduction in personal outcome risk and lower prevalence. Politicized media and partisan pundits (both pro and online commenters) reduced nuance of vax research showing both R and outcomes effects to ‘it doesn’t work’ or ‘it makes you impervious’, both of which resulted in people ignoring other simple measures either from lack of faith or too much faith. From there, inevitable discussions like these threads.
  - 4y ago

robhunter 4y ago

I'm not sure the public - at least in North America - has much of an appetite for any more Covid vaccines. In the US: - Only about 2% of kids under 5 have had a 1st dose since they were introduced nearly a month ago - Only 30% of the 5-11 year old population has had 2 doses - < 50% of people w/2 doses went on to get a booster So much damage has been done to public trust - "You will not get Covid if you get the vaccine; the vaccine eliminates the spread of the disease; the vaccine is more effective than natural immunity; healthy 18 year old males need a booster to go to school" - that I think it will be a real uphill climb to get more buy-in, even if the actual underlying product is more effective.

MrMan 4y ago
this is complete bullshit - getting vaccinated isnt a matter of public trust, stop with this ridiculous propaganda to politicize medicine.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 4y ago
  The parent was speaking about the public's trust in institutions. I share the belief that the medical establishment's refusal to speak with nuance about covid and the vaccines did more harm than good. By laying everything out plainly, I believe more people would have gotten vaccinated. They're used to trying to distill unbelievably complex issues down to an actionable, one-sentence recommendation for everyone. For most things that's fine, but during a global pandemic people want to know a bit more.
metadat 4y ago
Your extrapolations from the cited metrics make no sense. People are less interested in the currently available vaccines because they don't protect against the current dominant strain (BA.5).
- robhunter 4y ago
  Boosters have been available for nearly a year; vaccines for 5-11's for ~6 months. I think the booster rate is a reasonable sign that trust in "the science" has been lost - why do you think such a large % of people who initially "followed the science" (and got 2 doses) chose not to "follow the science" and get a booster? (Again, keeping in mind boosters have been widely available since late 2021)

aaaaaaaaaaab 4y ago

sterlind 4y ago
things were bad before. now most people have antibodies, and now covid isn't causing much pneumonia, but don't you remember how bad it was? healthy middle-aged people were dying, hospitals were overloaded, people were on ventilators and getting lung transplants. case fatality rate was 2%. it's better now, but the virus was horrible in 2020.

olivermarks 4y ago

etchalon 4y ago
VERS report should be treated as anecdotal, not as data.
- olivermarks 4y ago
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  Not mutually exclusive. These are reports of adverse side effects. Data can be reported by individuals.
  - Markoff 4y ago
    no they can't, for instance in Czechia your have to report it to your doctor, who can then report it to VAERS and it's up to him whether it's gonna be reported
sterlind 4y ago
VAERS is raw data - anything and everything that happens a couple days after getting the shot. it's dimensionless without knowing background prevalence of disorders, as well as incidence per 100k doses. I'm not totally sure about your article, either. for instance, they quote someone saying Bell's palsy is one of the top three side effects from mRNA vaccines, but this Lancet article [1] shows that risk of Bell's palsy is only increased by the Chinese CoronaVac vaccine, not Pfizer. anyway, hopefully this universal coronavirus vaccine works. I just want to be protected - I don't care what you do. 1. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00467-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...

divbzero 4y ago

> The urgency that prevailed in 2020 has evaporated. I know parents of young children who are extremely disappointed that it took less than a year to trial and approve the first COVID-19 vaccine for adults, and then a full year and a half to trial and approve the first COVID-19 vaccine for children under 5.

ars 4y ago
That's because it basically doesn't work for children. It's nothing to do with the speed of the trial, the vaccine just doesn't work in children. Even the approved one that exists today barely does anything. There were a ton of attempts before that that simply straight out didn't work.
- puffoflogic 4y ago
  What does this have to do with anything? The CDC said we need to take the vaccine. That's all you need to know. If you need to take it then obviously kids need to take it too.
  - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago
  - internet_user 4y ago
    Why did UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) refuse to recommend universal vaccination to 12-15s on risk benefit basis? How did these internationally renowned vaccinologists and immunologists suddenly become antivaxxers overnight? Professor Andrew Pollard, Chair (University of Oxford) Professor Lim Wei Shen, Chair COVID-19 immunisation (Nottingham University Hospitals) Professor Anthony Harnden, Deputy Chair (University of Oxford) Dr Kevin Brown (Public Health England) Dr Rebecca Cordery (Public Health England) Dr Maggie Wearmouth (East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust) Professor Matt Keeling (University of Warwick) Alison Lawrence (lay member) Professor Robert Read (Southampton General Hospital) Professor Anthony Scott (London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine) Professor Adam Finn (University of Bristol) Dr Fiona van der Klis (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Netherlands) Professor Maarten Postma (University of Groningen) Professor Simon Kroll (Imperial College London) Dr Martin Williams (University Hospitals Bristol) Professor Jeremy Brown (University College London Hospitals) https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/joint-committee-on-vaccination-and-immunisation https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/joint-committee-on-vacc... https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2180 https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2180

osigurdson 4y ago

>> the current 7-day average is 380 deaths per day Stop counting simple deaths. Instead count years of life lost vs average life expectancy.

jameshart 4y ago
Ah yes, Hippocrates' famous oath that to this day inspires all medical practitioners: "It's too bad, but I guess he would've died soon anyway."
- osigurdson 4y ago
  For individual patients, sure, but when dealing with populations a more rigorous statistical analysis is needed.
  - jameshart 4y ago
    Okay. And what specific number of quality adjusted life years would a vaccination program need to promise to save across the globe before you personally are willing to take it?
    - peteradio 4y ago
      > quality adjusted life years Do you feel comfortable acknowledging that this metric in isolation could result in trading years across age demographics? To what degree does it matter if we take 1 year of life from a child and give it to a middle aged person, doing exactly that would be fairly neutral according to QALY.
      - jameshart 4y ago
        Not sure what kind of vaccines you’ve been taking, but realistically that trade off is not currently on the table, is it?
      - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 4y ago

ars 4y ago

This is the wrong discussion - what's needed is a vaccine that actually lasts for more than 6 months before immunity fades. I remember reading very early in COVID how experts said finding a vaccine would be very difficult because we've never been able to generate long lasting immunity to corona viruses. And they were hoping COVID would be different. Turns out - it's not different.

divbzero 4y ago
> This is the wrong discussion - what's needed is a vaccine that actually lasts for more than 6 months before immunity fades. I think your idea is what OP is discussing with “universal COVID vaccines” — generating broad immunity that new variants can’t escape so quickly.
- ars 4y ago
  The loss of immunity is not due to variants. The immune system itself simply starts forgetting.
  - divbzero 4y ago
    What part of the immune system are you referring to? My understanding is that the initial set of antibodies wane over time but will be produced again if memory B cells encounter the same antigen. Similarly, T cells specific for an antigen will amplify in number if re-exposed to that antigen.
    - Vecr 4y ago
      The serial interval of the virus is so fast that there's no way the T-cells and B-cells can keep up. Some sort of nasal vaccine could reduce infection for a few months but as far as I can tell it's impossible to make a long lasting (years) coronavirus vaccine that can prevent infection. Serial interval is too fast, antibodies wane too fast, your immune system is too slow. I could see a gene therapy/retrovirus thing that hijacks some cells permanently to produce antigens (or make it smarter and somewhat regulating like an HIV infection, if HIV is forever this could be too) so it's like getting vaccinated every minute of every hour of every day, forever. Alternatively, you could produce genetically engineered B-cells in the lab and inject them into people ('s bone marrow?) to constantly produce a very high dose cocktail of broadly neutralizing antibodies. Completely infeasible, too expensive, won't scale. Might work. None of these ideas would be approved for the general public in at least 25 years.

LooseMarmoset 4y ago

Full disclosure: I have not gotten a COVID vaccine; I am quite unlikely to get a COVID vaccine. If you want to get a COVID vaccine, please feel free to do so, though I would urge informed consent. Good vaccines are difficult to make, but there's no doubt that a well-tested and approved vaccine saves lives. We don't have polio or smallpox today, thanks to vaccines. I made the decision not to get the COVID vaccine. I have had COVID twice, confirmed with positive testing. I self-quarantined both times. I was quite tired and slept a lot during both infections. I am definitely on the list of those with co-morbidities. I don't have "long COVID", but my partner definitely does. I don't discount COVID, it's a serious flu, and various flu infections kill a lot of people every year. ** In the early 90's, in the run-up to the first Gulf war, military personnel were widely asked to volunteer for an experimental vaccine. We were told this was an anti-anthrax vaccine, necessary because it was believed (or so we were told) that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of anthrax-based biological weaponry. Those who were deployed weren't given the option, but those who did not deploy were asked to volunteer. I did not volunteer. Some weeks after the call for volunteers went out, my Navy section non-commissioned officer (LPO) told me that I was required to volunteer. I disagreed, saying that was an order not voluntary. I was then told that I was ordered to volunteer, and that I'd be court-martialed if I did not volunteer. Now this is shitty, but when you sign up for the military, you sign up for stuff like this whether you like it or not. I don't know if I could have successfully fought this, but it seemed like a bad idea, so I agreed that I would "volunteer". I was then ordered to sign a paper stating that I had "volunteered" for the shot of my own free will. I refused this initially, but I got called out again by my leadership and threatened with court-martial if I refused an order to sign the paper. I was a scared 19-year-old, and didn't know if I had legal grounds or not, so in the end, I agreed to sign. I wish I had never signed that paper. I wish I'd had the courage to tell my leadership to take me to court-martial. After I got the shot, I got sick. Constantly. I got sick again and again, taking weeks to get better between each bout. Fever, chills, headache, it was like a flu that went on for months. It was so bad at one point that my chief petty officer sent me to bed for a week, even when Navy medical refused me any treatment beyond Ibuprofen. This condition affected me on-and-off for well over a year. Many years later, I read about "Gulf War Syndrome." I read of government claims of exposure to chemical agents while deployed - except that I never deployed to Iraq, and neither did thousands of others with symptoms. I truly believe that Gulf War Syndrome was caused by a chemical agent our own government deployed, in the form of a vaccine that I "volunteered" for, and thus have no recourse against my own government. When I see my own government telling me that I "have" to get another experimental vaccine, a vaccine that cannot prevent transmission or infection from COVID, a vaccine that no one can be held liable for problems, and that same government threatening me with loss of public access, threatening me with "vaccine passes", pushing companies to exclude me from the job market unless I comply, I have this to say: GO F** YOURSELVES I won't ever "volunteer" again. EDIT: I would also like to state that other than this one blot on the record, I greatly enjoyed my time in the military. I got to visit places I'm unlikely to see ever again, was given enormous responsibility, and had a job I truly enjoyed (most of the time). I met great people, and felt good about my contributions.

lamontcg 4y ago

We can't vaccinate our way out of this virus. Even without the issues of compliance, eradication is likely impossible with a respiratory virus like this. Even if you have a pan coronavirus nasal vaccine the NAbs will wane and people will get infected again. It doesn't matter if we use more mRNAs than just spike for more targets or anything else. It'll mutate, NAbs will wane, people won't get vaccinated and the virus will persist. People are looking for a silver bullet which will confer the naive ideal of "perfect immunity" against this virus which just doesn't exist. The vaccines we have though are great, particularly against severe disease and death. But it won't get much better than this. The disease burden is currently high compared to common colds because the virus is still novel and our immune system responses aren't 100% fully formed and tested. Once everyone has been exposed to the antigen a half dozen times and the virus is forced to mutate off of its naive optimum then the disease burden will drop even further. Then we just have another human common cold coronavirus. Nobody is freaking out over HCoV-NL63, HCoV-229E or HCoV-OC43.

landemva 4y ago
> We can't vaccinate our way out of this virus... because it transmits between humans and cats and deer.
soramimo 4y ago
> Once everyone has been exposed to the antigen a half dozen times and the virus is forced to mutate off of its naive optimum then the disease burden will drop even further. Then we just have another human common cold coronavirus. This is presented as a fact/certainty, however, I'd like to caution that it is still unclear whether multiple reinfections will add up to lasting damage (unlike the common cold), see e.g. [1]. That said, I agree with you that it'll be hard to eradicate this virus given how quickly it mutates (I'm just not as certain of the consequences). [1] https://erictopol.substack.com/p/a-reinfection-red-flag https://erictopol.substack.com/p/a-reinfection-red-flag
- lamontcg 4y ago
  That study has all kinds of confounding variables. We don't see other respiratory viruses behaving that way, and its more likely that this one won't either. Topol isn't a very good source either, he's speaking outside of his area of expertise (he's a cardiologist, not an immunologist/virologist/epidemiologist)

Markoff 4y ago

"vaccines" real vaccines stop you from getting infected, spreading the disease or having symptoms, what's again efficacy of these vaccines at least against asymptomatic COVID? since we abandoned the idea that vaccines slow spread in any way... Why would you get vaxxed if you are healthy person and your vaccination doesn't help anyone but you? For the record in 11M Czechia 40K people died WITH COVID (that includes car accident victims, terminally ill patients it anyone enlisted in hospital who had to get tested) in more than 2 years, less than 1% of them were under 44. [1] [1] https://onemocneni-aktualne.mzcr.cz/covid-19/prehledy-khs https://onemocneni-aktualne.mzcr.cz/covid-19/prehledy-khs

archlight 4y ago

well we already have this protein based vaccine Novavax 2373 with cross immune response based on prototype developed 2.5 years ago. because it not only has full representation of spike protein (unlike mRNA taking shortcut to represent S protein) but also cleavage site which is omicron BA5 immune escape from. However big pharma politics slowed down the approval, purpose delaying US P3 trial, introducing CMC requirement 1 month before formally submitting the application. Novavax 2373 has shown superb efficacy results since Jan 2021 UK trial and follow up study showed long term protection (titers half life 9months compared to mRNA 3months). no myocarditis risk. still FDA only approved it now half year after submission blaming the company's manufacture issue while it has been distributing hundred of millions of doses worldwide mRNA is not vaccine. it is only genetic therapy

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]