It took two days to develop Moderna’s vaccine • Hacker News Board

Re: It took two days to develop Moderna’s vaccine

#281

Post by _ph_ » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 8:02 AM UTC

tzs wrote: post #24

Suppose an mRNA vaccine is developed for some virus, but it fails to clear phase 1 safety testing. Question: what would be the likely reasons for that? In particular, is it almost certainly going to be due to whatever carries the mRNA, or could the mRNA itself be the problem? If it is the carrier in which potential safety issues lie, does that mean that once we have one successful safe mRNA vaccine for virus A, then…

In therory, the mRNA vaccines should be extremely safe, as they are so specific and only require a carrier but no other substances in the vaccine. In practise, you still need to test. There is always a small risk of something unexpected happening. Like the vaccine from Australia which has been completely abandoned - not sure whether it also was mRNA or some other kind of vaccine. It didn't cause any health problem, but the vaccinated people were tested as HIV-positive. Of course they were not, but the vaccination caused those false positive. So while no direct heahlt impact, it is quite a disaster if one couldn't test people for HIV any more.

Re: It took two days to develop Moderna’s vaccine

#282

Post by tsjq » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 8:11 AM UTC

mrits wrote: post #71

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #47

I’m glad to see this and we need to concentrate on speeding this process up. This isn’t the last pandemic and all things considered this one was a pretty benign one to have to fight. The next one might not just kill mainly the old and weak and might need much more than a mask (that we still can’t get people to wear!) to prevent its spread. Hopefully before then, we can work to get everyone more on the same page and h…

To get worse than COVID you'd need a virus that takes a long time to develop symptoms and then has a high death rate. In that scenario there would be a lot more public fear and we'd have an easier time keeping people at home. So I'm still of the opinion it's harder to have a worse situation than COVID.

HIV fits that list ?

Re: It took two days to develop Moderna’s vaccine

#283

Post by _ph_ » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 8:14 AM UTC

ballenf wrote: post #13

Just curious -- would it be that much harder to develop a vaccine that was itself contagious? Recipients would expel the vaccine in their own respiration?

I had the same idea and was convinced by a biologist, that his is a very bad idea. To be able to spread, this vaccine-virus needs to infect the people vaccinated. Any infection is dangerous, as it means the virus is multiplying in your body until the immune system hopefully takes hold of it. What happens if it doesn't? This happens with traditional vaccines all the time, but the consequence is only that you are not acquiring immunity, no other harm done.

The other point is, you have made a completely new human-transmissable virus. How do you reliably prevent it from mutating into something more dangerous?

Re: It took two days to develop Moderna’s vaccine

#284

Post by nullsense » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 8:15 AM UTC

matz1 wrote: post #127

lostlogin wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s normal here in NZ and with the exception of borders, restrictions were removed a fair while ago. The economy is considerably better off than most expected too. https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/123696832/gdp-jump-of-14-per-...

Didn't nz had strict lockdown? Also from the article: However, Stats NZ national accounts manager Paul Pascoe said the effects of Covid-19 on different industries had varied “and for some industries these may persist for some time”. The rebound was not enough to make up for the lost activity during the lockdown period, with GDP in the 12 months ended on September 30 down 2.2 per cent on the prior year.

Just last night on the news they announced we were actually out of recession. The bounce back has been pretty good. Tourism is still fairly impacted. Most everything else feels pretty normal.

The lockdowns were worth it IMO. Especially now we see it ravaging the rest of the world becoming more and more severe. That just feels totally foreign to me since we only experienced a very mild outbreak initially, followed by a tiny one a bit later on.

NZ is a good place to be.

Re: It took two days to develop Moderna’s vaccine

#285

Post by closeparen » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 8:15 AM UTC

dag11 wrote: post #175

michaelt wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you're in a high-risk group, getting a vaccine early is kinda irrelevant. Being able to go to concerts and sports events and theatres safely is pointless if there aren't any concerts or sports events or theatres open. If you've got elderly loved ones you want to keep safe, you'd need to vaccinate them, not yourself. And if all you want to do is go to the shops without a mask, while everyone assumes you're a du…

There's a strong social benefit too. Being able to more comfortably spend time with friends and family you care about, even if they can't be vaccinated yet, seems worthwhile in itself. There's also the related consideration for dating, etc.

Unfortunately not. Being vaccinated doesn't stop you from having and transmitting the virus, only from getting sick. It won't be safe for you to see your friends until they have it too.

Re: It took two days to develop Moderna’s vaccine

#286

Post by jobigoud » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 8:19 AM UTC

AceyMan wrote: post #280

woofie11 wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also depends on how one defines danger. Would you rather die a few years earlier in your old age? Or live with reduced lung capacity for many years? And how common is that with COVID19? We're still waiting to see the fall-out of long COVID.

Vote / Reply I'll take two fewer years of lifespan, for 200, Alex. I'm an athlete, and my cardiopulmonary bits are essential to my sense of well-being. /Acey

You say this now but if we ask you then, the day of your death, would you rather die now or live a few more years in a diminished capacity, you might have a very different answer.

Re: It took two days to develop Moderna’s vaccine

#287

Post by bamboozled » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 8:31 AM UTC

the-pigeon wrote: post #222

adewinter wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"more deadly" does not necessarily mean more deaths in this case. If it kills like ebola more folks could take it seriously ultimately resulting in lower transmission and death rates.

In particular, when COVID19 was first spreading but we knew about it back in February countries could've easily contact traced to flush it out and then quarantined all incoming travelers to keep it out. But most countries deemed those actions too extreme and economically damaging so instead let it come spread and do way more damage.

It’s a shame we’ve forgotten about the incompetence and idiocy that got us to where we are today.

So many failures got us to this point.

Re: It took two days to develop Moderna’s vaccine

#288

Post by Slartie » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 8:44 AM UTC

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #203

aazaa wrote: post #34

> They identified the sequence for the spike protein, plugged that into their vaccine platform, and voila – an mRNA vaccine against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Moderna zeroed in on the spike protein thanks th large amount of previous research on SARS-CoV-1. Vaccines effective in animal models of SARS were developed based on this approach starting around 2004: https://www.pnas.org/content/101/17/6641 The article continues:…

The idea that while it may have taken only a few days, it still wasn't "easy" is probably best demonstrated by the Pfizer/BioNTech joint venture: Pfizer has tens of thousands of biologist of any stripe working for them, but they chose to partner with a comparatively tiny startup that had the expertise to design the vaccine.

Actually the partnership came together the other way round: the "comparatively tiny startup" saw articles about SARS-CoV-2, decided to start sketching out a vaccine, called Pfizer, which they had prior business relations due to joint work on previous projects, asked whether they'd be interested in jointly develop this new vaccine, and Pfizer's head of vaccine research said "yeah, sure!" immediately.

Re: It took two days to develop Moderna’s vaccine

#289

Post by andylynch » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 8:45 AM UTC

matz1 wrote: post #187

lostlogin wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many who argue against lockdowns, but I haven’t yet seen an argument for that approach with an example of how it could look (for death toll and the economy). Has any country managed both those things without a lockdown? A hand waving “that approach could never work in X country because it’s so different there” seems the standard response to any strategy that has been proven to work.

Sweeden is one example, the death toll is still manageable and the life is pretty much still normal. Not a country: florida, it is one of the state in the usa that has the least covid related restriction. They are doing very well. Went there myself to visit recently. Its not hard to see why lockdown is not worth it. According to cdc, covid has very very low ifr : 0-19 years: 0.00003 20-49 years: 0.0002 50-69 years: 0…

I’m not sure about Sweden. This week their king was on TV saying ‘we have failed’. Nearly 8,000 dead. This is not normal.

Re: It took two days to develop Moderna’s vaccine

#290

Post by _ph_ » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 8:52 AM UTC

inglor_cz wrote: post #188

tialaramex wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

High lethality is often associated with reduced transmissibility. Which makes sense - dead people certainly aren't going to cough on you. In a Sci Fi movie maybe the virus has a long delay, you're infectious for a month with no symptoms, then drop dead in seconds. But in the real world that's less likely the more extreme it gets. One thing that did make this virus more dangerous was that many humans became infectious…

"High lethality is often associated with reduced transmissibility. Which makes sense - dead people certainly aren't going to cough on you." The worst case I can think of is an ubiquitous animal vector (rats? mice?) that only gets a mild form of the disease but can spread it, while people fall dead all around.

Like with the plague. This is why it stuck around for centuries while causing high death rates. Without the animal transmission it would have been much more contained.

Obviously, it was made worse by people blaming cats and killing their best defense.