4 ms·
Yes, the delivery system definitely has that drawback. However, the lipid nanoparticles as a delivery system have problems of their own, which I laid out in a s
by ralusek 3y ago
Yes, the delivery system definitely has that drawback. However, the lipid nanoparticles as a delivery system have problems of their own, which I laid out in a sibling comment to your own.
But my question is more related to the pop-science perception of mRNA vs viral vector. mRNA were presented as new technology, but on media publication after media publication, the viral vectors were presented as the "old"/"traditional" way of doing things. 9/10 people have that understanding of the mRNA vs vv vaccines. The truth is that both are radical departures from existing technologies and they're both genetic platforms very similar in nature, and both completely novel being deployed at this scale.
- marcosdumay 3y agoOn the popular press I can imagine three reasons. One is that the mRNA vaccines were brand new, while VV was old enough that most people have already taken a few shots using it. The media has a very non-linear response to novelty. Another one is that the most profit-seeking laboratories were working with it. And they are the ones with closest relation to the media. Finally, it may be some reflection of the experts hype. People were very rationally hyped due to the lack of restrictions, easiness to ramp-up new vaccines, and the bare beauty of the idea. It's possible that journalists perceived that, even if they couldn't understand or explain the reasons.
- inferiorhuman 3y agoNeither mRNA nor viral vector vaccines were new. mRNA had a vastly better safety and efficacy profile. AstraZeneca had the clots, the Russians had the issue with replication (and use Ad5), and the Chinese exclusively used a virus that nearly half of all Americans are immune to. And IIRC the mRNA vaccines were still more effective against the variants.