FDA approves Pfizer vaccine – UC Santa Cruz scientists explain how it works
1–10 of 17 posts
Re: FDA approves Pfizer vaccine – UC Santa Cruz scientists explain how it works
#2To be clear, the FDA has not approved the vaccine yet, but an FDA advisory panel has endorsed it [0].
[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-pfizer...
Re: FDA approves Pfizer vaccine – UC Santa Cruz scientists explain how it works
#3To be clear, the FDA has not approved the vaccine yet, but an FDA advisory panel has endorsed it [0]. [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-pfizer...
@dang can the title be changed, since this is such an important issue?
Re: FDA approves Pfizer vaccine – UC Santa Cruz scientists explain how it works
#4I really don't know a single thing about vaccines or biology really. That being said, I am curious - are there are trade offs to be made with this mRNA technique? It sounds like mostly upsides, but perhaps there are considerations for this approach over a traditional one?
Re: FDA approves Pfizer vaccine – UC Santa Cruz scientists explain how it works
#5I really don't know a single thing about vaccines or biology really. That being said, I am curious - are there are trade offs to be made with this mRNA technique? It sounds like mostly upsides, but perhaps there are considerations for this approach over a traditional one?
The major trade off is requiring low temperatures to transport and store. Pfizer currently requires -70C and Moderna -20C, whereas other vaccines only require fridge temperatures or even room temperature! The vaccines like the viral vector and mRNA vaccines that target specific viral proteins also may miss out on antibodies for other viral proteins that a live attenuated or deactivated vaccine may produce.
Re: FDA approves Pfizer vaccine – UC Santa Cruz scientists explain how it works
#6To be clear, the FDA has not approved the vaccine yet, but an FDA advisory panel has endorsed it [0]. [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-pfizer...
@dang can the title be changed, since this is such an important issue?
To add dang (and for others), for future reference: in regulatory affairs, “cleared”, “approved”, “granted”, and “authorized” are distinct actions for the FDA. These verbs are not interchangeable and using the wrong word can bring significant (financial, for the associated company) consequences because it implies that the FDA did something they did not, e.g., cleared for a 510(k) device vs granted for a de novo device.
Re: FDA approves Pfizer vaccine – UC Santa Cruz scientists explain how it works
#7This article, really, in no way explains the biological mechanisms of the mRNA vaccine. It's all described in generalities and no specifics
Re: FDA approves Pfizer vaccine – UC Santa Cruz scientists explain how it works
#8I hope this doesn’t work and kills millions of Americans...
Re: FDA approves Pfizer vaccine – UC Santa Cruz scientists explain how it works
#9I really don't know a single thing about vaccines or biology really. That being said, I am curious - are there are trade offs to be made with this mRNA technique? It sounds like mostly upsides, but perhaps there are considerations for this approach over a traditional one?
The major trade off is requiring low temperatures to transport and store. Pfizer currently requires -70C and Moderna -20C, whereas other vaccines only require fridge temperatures or even room temperature! The vaccines like the viral vector and mRNA vaccines that target specific viral proteins also may miss out on antibodies for other viral proteins that a live attenuated or deactivated vaccine may produce.
Thanks! If you don't mind, when you say:
> ...may miss out on antibodies for other viral proteins...
Do you mean to say that a more traditional one which uses the deactivated virus can help find proteins related to the virus but not specifically targeted, or do you mean that a traditional one could target other proteins that could apply to _other_ viruses?
Re: FDA approves Pfizer vaccine – UC Santa Cruz scientists explain how it works
#10I read about facial paralysis on four people who took this. Big nope from me until more is done to test these.