4 ms·

Which is so unfortunate given the potential mRNA vaccines and therapies have. They would have made fighting flu so much easier (for the context current flu vac

Which is so unfortunate given the potential mRNA vaccines and therapies have. They would have made fighting flu so much easier (for the context current flu vaccines take a lot of time to be made each season and hence not very agile towards dominant strain and sometimes miss it a lot, mRNA potentially improves this).

potato3732842 1y ago
>Which is so unfortunate given the potential mRNA vaccines and therapies have. There's what should be a glaringly obvious lesson about ends and means here but nobody will learn it.
amluto 1y ago
I would have liked to see some actual studies of whether multiple doses, over the course of years, of mRNA vaccines are a good idea. Take a look at: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.adg7327 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.adg7327 and related papers. Is the propensity to generate IgG4 antibodies specific to mRNA vaccines? Is it a problem? It seems entirely plausible that an mRNA flu vaccine would look amazing for one season and less amazing years later. Or not. The COVID vaccine trials were very focused on the efficacy of a 1-3 dose series, in people with no previous immunity, at preventing disease or reducing its severity over a period of weeks to months after the vaccine series. This is not at all the situation with influenza or the situation now with COVID. Compare to vaccines like MMR or Varicella, which were, and still are, studied over a period of many years.
- boroboro4 1y ago
  This is fascinating study, thanks for sharing! It definitely brings questions about repeated mRNA vaccinations (and mRNA therapies I guess then too?). Good thing repeated boosters for COVID shouldn't affect other diseases if I understood the study correctly (since target protein is different). Can be an issue for flu vaccines for sure (or it's not since protein used slightly different year to year?).
- matthewdgreen 1y ago
  But answering this question is exactly why public funding is so important. If you're concerned about mRNA having long-term downsides, then continued government funding is exactly the right mechanism to force manufacturers to conduct the long-term studies you'd need to figure it out. It does not seem like it's necessarily in the manufacturer's interest to do these studies, if they're using their own funds and trying to turn a profit.
- Izkata 1y ago
  > Is the propensity to generate IgG4 antibodies specific to mRNA vaccines? Is it a problem? It seems entirely plausible that an mRNA flu vaccine would look amazing for one season and less amazing years later. Or not. Flu vaccine effectiveness has been trending slowly downwards for about a decade. I don't recall any established reasons for it, though.
csense 1y ago
The problem I've had with MRNA vaccines is that we decided a lengthy multi-year trial protocol was necessary to ensure vaccines are safe and effective. Then COVID hit, and suddenly we decided to rush MRNA [1] vaccines into mass production without those protocols. Moreover, at one point they wanted to force [2] them on the population. The thing that bothered me most is the government passed a law to prevent people from suing for damages if they're hurt by COVID vaccines [3]. If the vaccine really is safe and effective, why was the waiver necessary? [1] If the made the COVID vaccine the same way they've been making them since polio, I'd be less uneasy -- if you made 25 vaccines with the process and they all worked okay, saying "it should be fine" for the 26th one is backed by some evidence. But given MRNA vaccines were brand-new with the COVID ones, until then they'd made 0 vaccines with the process; saying "it should be fine" for the 1st one seems to be rather irresponsible. [2] In my opinion, "you're being forced to do X" is a fair description of the situation if you have to show proof you did X if you want to get a job, get an education, or get on an airplane. Around the time of the first vaccines getting rolled out, these policies were being discussed very seriously. [3] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-c...
- add-sub-mul-div 1y ago
  The right's "rushed into production" talking point is especially amusing given their other messaging about cutting through government red tape. It's all just vibes.
  - boroboro4 1y ago
    We had a disease killing 10000s (if not 100000s) people in the country and you think government shouldn't adjust their regulatory framework to it? I would be very unhappy if they did not, government suppose to be conservative, but not that conservative. Calling this "just vibes" is very hypocritical in my opinion.
    - add-sub-mul-div 1y ago
      Right, my point is that we did appropriately cut through red tape when it became important to do so. Which (1) weakens arguments that complain about red tape and (2) exposes hypocrisy about claiming to oppose government red tape but then taking a bad faith stance about the vaccine being "rushed".

potato3732842 1y ago

>Which is so unfortunate given the potential mRNA vaccines and therapies have. There's what should be a glaringly obvious lesson about ends and means here but nobody will learn it.

amluto 1y ago

I would have liked to see some actual studies of whether multiple doses, over the course of years, of mRNA vaccines are a good idea. Take a look at: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.adg7327 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.adg7327 and related papers. Is the propensity to generate IgG4 antibodies specific to mRNA vaccines? Is it a problem? It seems entirely plausible that an mRNA flu vaccine would look amazing for one season and less amazing years later. Or not. The COVID vaccine trials were very focused on the efficacy of a 1-3 dose series, in people with no previous immunity, at preventing disease or reducing its severity over a period of weeks to months after the vaccine series. This is not at all the situation with influenza or the situation now with COVID. Compare to vaccines like MMR or Varicella, which were, and still are, studied over a period of many years.

boroboro4 1y ago
This is fascinating study, thanks for sharing! It definitely brings questions about repeated mRNA vaccinations (and mRNA therapies I guess then too?). Good thing repeated boosters for COVID shouldn't affect other diseases if I understood the study correctly (since target protein is different). Can be an issue for flu vaccines for sure (or it's not since protein used slightly different year to year?).
matthewdgreen 1y ago
But answering this question is exactly why public funding is so important. If you're concerned about mRNA having long-term downsides, then continued government funding is exactly the right mechanism to force manufacturers to conduct the long-term studies you'd need to figure it out. It does not seem like it's necessarily in the manufacturer's interest to do these studies, if they're using their own funds and trying to turn a profit.
Izkata 1y ago
> Is the propensity to generate IgG4 antibodies specific to mRNA vaccines? Is it a problem? It seems entirely plausible that an mRNA flu vaccine would look amazing for one season and less amazing years later. Or not. Flu vaccine effectiveness has been trending slowly downwards for about a decade. I don't recall any established reasons for it, though.

csense 1y ago

The problem I've had with MRNA vaccines is that we decided a lengthy multi-year trial protocol was necessary to ensure vaccines are safe and effective. Then COVID hit, and suddenly we decided to rush MRNA [1] vaccines into mass production without those protocols. Moreover, at one point they wanted to force [2] them on the population. The thing that bothered me most is the government passed a law to prevent people from suing for damages if they're hurt by COVID vaccines [3]. If the vaccine really is safe and effective, why was the waiver necessary? [1] If the made the COVID vaccine the same way they've been making them since polio, I'd be less uneasy -- if you made 25 vaccines with the process and they all worked okay, saying "it should be fine" for the 26th one is backed by some evidence. But given MRNA vaccines were brand-new with the COVID ones, until then they'd made 0 vaccines with the process; saying "it should be fine" for the 1st one seems to be rather irresponsible. [2] In my opinion, "you're being forced to do X" is a fair description of the situation if you have to show proof you did X if you want to get a job, get an education, or get on an airplane. Around the time of the first vaccines getting rolled out, these policies were being discussed very seriously. [3] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-c...

add-sub-mul-div 1y ago
The right's "rushed into production" talking point is especially amusing given their other messaging about cutting through government red tape. It's all just vibes.
- boroboro4 1y ago
  We had a disease killing 10000s (if not 100000s) people in the country and you think government shouldn't adjust their regulatory framework to it? I would be very unhappy if they did not, government suppose to be conservative, but not that conservative. Calling this "just vibes" is very hypocritical in my opinion.
  - add-sub-mul-div 1y ago
    Right, my point is that we did appropriately cut through red tape when it became important to do so. Which (1) weakens arguments that complain about red tape and (2) exposes hypocrisy about claiming to oppose government red tape but then taking a bad faith stance about the vaccine being "rushed".