4 ms·

When the vaccines were first being developed, the oft parroted narrative at the time was that by targeting the spike protein, the virus will have to mutate and

When the vaccines were first being developed, the oft parroted narrative at the time was that by targeting the spike protein, the virus will have to mutate and lose it's ability to infect new cells. It was a totally unproven theory, and a weak one IMO, but curiously enough, we had several major manufacturers all attempt the same thing. J&J, AZ, Moderna, Pfizer all released products that instructed your body to produce the spike protein. Sinovac and Sputnik V used different approaches. It's interesting that in all this time, nobody has stepped up and declared which vaccine is best. Clearly, if any of them worked or still worked, we'd know which one was most efficacious by now.

IceMetalPunk 4y ago
> It was a totally unproven theory, and a weak one IMO... It's not weak at all. The structure of that spike protein is extremely important in the virus's ability to "trick" host cells into letting it inside. Target the spike, and you'll always have a valid target unless that spike changes, which would likely interfere with the virus's ability to infect cells. Pretty strong logic to me. > J&J, AZ, Moderna, Pfizer all released products that instructed your body to produce the spike protein. Close, but no. J&J is a traditional vaccine, not an mRNA one. It doesn't instruct your body to produce the spike protein, it's just an inactivated form of COVID itself that triggers an immune response. The others you're correct about. > It's interesting that in all this time, nobody has stepped up and declared which vaccine is best. Clearly, if any of them worked or still worked, we'd know which one was most efficacious by now. J&J is 66.3% effective, AstraZeneca is 72% effective, and Moderna & Pfizer are around the same 95% effectiveness (all of these numbers are first-dose efficacy; boosters increase them all). So... that data is available, I'm not sure why you think it's not.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- AndrewUnmuted 4y ago
- linuxftw 4y ago
  > Close, but no. J&J is a traditional vaccine, not an mRNA one. That's incorrect; I didn't claim it was an mRNA vaccine. It's a viral vector instead of nano-lipid mRNA. Both the viral vector and mRNA vaccines are different technologies to deliver instructions to have your own cells produce the spike protein. A traditional vaccine would be an attenuated or inactive pathogen. J&J is not this. > J&J is 66.3% effective, AstraZeneca is 72% effective, and Moderna & Pfizer are around the same 95% effectiveness Surely after all this time, there would be a clear winner between Modern and Pfizer, right? There's no reason to believe both products would be equally efficacious and safe over such a time period.
  - Tagbert 4y ago
    > Surely after all this time, there would be a clear winner between Modern and Pfizer, right? There's no reason to believe both products would be equally efficacious and safe over such a time period. Moderna and Pfizer both use the same techniques to create an mRNA vaccine that targets the same spike protein. Why would you expect significant difference between them? What you would expect and what the data shows is that any difference between their effectiveness is smaller than the margin of error in evaluating their effectiveness. You’re looking for a problem where there does not appear to be one.
    - linuxftw 4y ago
      From [1]: > Compared with those who received the Moderna vaccine, recipients of the Pfizer vaccine had a 27% higher risk of documented SARS-CoV-2 infection and a 70% higher risk of COVID-19 hospitalization when Alpha was the predominant variant. Seems far from identical in a study of almost 450k patients. Seems like they're not nearly identical. This is to say nothing about safety. Dosing, manufacturing, ingredients are probably all different. [1]: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/moderna-vaccine-slightly-more-effective-than-pfizer-vaccine/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/moderna-vac...
      - IceMetalPunk 4y ago
        Huh. So the statistics about efficacy do exist, and you are able to find them after all! Weird that you said there's no evidence of such things. You sure showed us.

IceMetalPunk 4y ago

> It was a totally unproven theory, and a weak one IMO... It's not weak at all. The structure of that spike protein is extremely important in the virus's ability to "trick" host cells into letting it inside. Target the spike, and you'll always have a valid target unless that spike changes, which would likely interfere with the virus's ability to infect cells. Pretty strong logic to me. > J&J, AZ, Moderna, Pfizer all released products that instructed your body to produce the spike protein. Close, but no. J&J is a traditional vaccine, not an mRNA one. It doesn't instruct your body to produce the spike protein, it's just an inactivated form of COVID itself that triggers an immune response. The others you're correct about. > It's interesting that in all this time, nobody has stepped up and declared which vaccine is best. Clearly, if any of them worked or still worked, we'd know which one was most efficacious by now. J&J is 66.3% effective, AstraZeneca is 72% effective, and Moderna & Pfizer are around the same 95% effectiveness (all of these numbers are first-dose efficacy; boosters increase them all). So... that data is available, I'm not sure why you think it's not.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
AndrewUnmuted 4y ago
linuxftw 4y ago
> Close, but no. J&J is a traditional vaccine, not an mRNA one. That's incorrect; I didn't claim it was an mRNA vaccine. It's a viral vector instead of nano-lipid mRNA. Both the viral vector and mRNA vaccines are different technologies to deliver instructions to have your own cells produce the spike protein. A traditional vaccine would be an attenuated or inactive pathogen. J&J is not this. > J&J is 66.3% effective, AstraZeneca is 72% effective, and Moderna & Pfizer are around the same 95% effectiveness Surely after all this time, there would be a clear winner between Modern and Pfizer, right? There's no reason to believe both products would be equally efficacious and safe over such a time period.
- Tagbert 4y ago
  > Surely after all this time, there would be a clear winner between Modern and Pfizer, right? There's no reason to believe both products would be equally efficacious and safe over such a time period. Moderna and Pfizer both use the same techniques to create an mRNA vaccine that targets the same spike protein. Why would you expect significant difference between them? What you would expect and what the data shows is that any difference between their effectiveness is smaller than the margin of error in evaluating their effectiveness. You’re looking for a problem where there does not appear to be one.
  - linuxftw 4y ago
    From [1]: > Compared with those who received the Moderna vaccine, recipients of the Pfizer vaccine had a 27% higher risk of documented SARS-CoV-2 infection and a 70% higher risk of COVID-19 hospitalization when Alpha was the predominant variant. Seems far from identical in a study of almost 450k patients. Seems like they're not nearly identical. This is to say nothing about safety. Dosing, manufacturing, ingredients are probably all different. [1]: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/moderna-vaccine-slightly-more-effective-than-pfizer-vaccine/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/moderna-vac...
    - IceMetalPunk 4y ago
      Huh. So the statistics about efficacy do exist, and you are able to find them after all! Weird that you said there's no evidence of such things. You sure showed us.