Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SARS-CoV-2 501Y.V2 escapes neutralization by South African COVID-19 donor plasma

biorxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 131 posts

Re: SARS-CoV-2 501Y.V2 escapes neutralization by South African COVID-19 donor plasma

#121

Post by PeterStuer »

bluGill wrote: post #114
PeterStuer wrote: post #25

the government of my region has decide that instead of following normal vaccination procedures, they will spread the available vaccine (Pfizer) to just give 1 dose to as many people as possible as opposed to the 2 required to be effective as per the clinical trials and the manufacturers advice. This decision is purely political, defying all biological evidence. Seems to me this is the perfect scenario to evolve vacci…

Probably not. The second dose of the vaccine is more about ensuring that you are covered for a long time. So long as everyone gets the second dose in a few months we are fine. If we wipe out COVID there is no reason to give second doses at all.

Well, I hope you are right.

"Pfizer said in a statement that there are "no data" to demonstrate that a single dose of its coronavirus vaccine will provide protection from infection after 21 days."

https://www.axios.com/pfizer-single-dose-data-716702dd-324f-...

Re: SARS-CoV-2 501Y.V2 escapes neutralization by South African COVID-19 donor plasma

#123

Post by valarauko »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #118
valarauko wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the flip side, you have a sizable portion of the population that feels even the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the FDA was rushed (To be clear, I'm playing the Devil's Advocate here - I personally don't disagree with the FDA's decisions, and got my own shot weeks ago) Genuine Q: which steps of the process do you see as superfluous? Pfizer announced the end of the phase 3 trials on November 18th, they submitt…

It didn't take 11 months for the FDA to give the OK. It took 11 months to design a vaccine from scratch, conduct phase I safety trials, phase 2 human safety and dosage trials, and a phase 3 trial to determine efficacy. The standards for the phase 1-3 trials are largely set by the FDA. Further, the whole idea that I can't weigh my own risks, and sign a paper saying "I acknowledge that this treatment is not fully teste…

Sure, the timeline is driven by established protocols of safety & efficacy testing. So what should be done differently here? Are you advocating for mass availability to the general public on a caveat emptor basis, after say, animal safety trials?

From the FDA side, I suppose the issue is that in the absence of preliminary phase trial data, we don't know what we don't know. So it's less about not trusting the public to understand their individual risks, but that the drugs/vaccine offer risks that are unbounded. So perhaps the vaccine lipid nanoparticles are contaminated with toxic precursors that were not fully purified in the supply chain, or the lipids trigger an immune response to implants (something that did happen with cosmetic fillers), or they cross react with prescription statins in dangerous ways, or the encapsulated mRNAs trigger ANA antibodies, and so on. You may understand your own risk, but we were extremely ill equipped to understand the risks associated with the vaccines themselves till very recently.

Re: SARS-CoV-2 501Y.V2 escapes neutralization by South African COVID-19 donor plasma

#124

Post by randcraw »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #119
randcraw wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be arguing that if FDA had begun widespread inoculation earlier with the current vaccines, variant COVID strains would not have arisen. But that's wrong on several levels. Even if we had started producing vaccine en-masse in March, it would still take many more months (several years) to inoculate everyone on the planet. These novel strains would still have arisen within that time frame. We would also have…

You seem to be arguing that if FDA had begun widespread inoculation earlier with the current vaccines, variant COVID strains would not have arisen. My statement isn't quite that strong. It MAY NOT have arisen; it's all probabilities. Every time the virus is passed to another person, there's another opportunity for a mutation. If we could have driven the infection rate down sooner via vaccine, then there's some chance…

I sympathize. But vaccines are only one way to diminish the infection rate. Other options have not been employed to their maximum effect in the US, like distributing (and requiring) better masks, requiring mask wearing at all times when not at home, mandatory quarantine of infected people in encampments (as China and Singapore have done), and legal punishment of those who do not comply.

Employing medical procedures which are probably unsafe is not the only solution left to us.

Re: SARS-CoV-2 501Y.V2 escapes neutralization by South African COVID-19 donor plasma

#125

Post by ravenstine »

jasonlaramburu wrote: post #106
ravenstine wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While those are certainly measures to take, they're a non answer. We need to return to some amount of noalcy, and none of those measures are up to snuff. Literally everyone where I live wears a mask and distances, yet cases are sky high. Somehow my grandfather caught the virus despite his assisted living home despite them being so locked down that we haven't been able to see him in person besides through a glass wind…

>We all get it. Yet people continue to get sick and die. Is that because the interventions (masking, social distancing) are de facto ineffective, or because a critical mass of people simply ignores them?

I don't think we really know for sure. My guess is that it's both, but that even if masks/distancing were 100% effective on their own, it's not practical to expect enough people to take them seriously enough. This isn't an engineering problem, but a human one. This is why I take issue with those here who just blame everyone not participating for why the virus has spread. By the law of averages, you will never get everyone to comply. You need virtually everyone to comply for the virus to be stopped, and all it takes is a small number of people to allow a virus to spread, which keeps happening when you keep enough healthy people from even beginning to build an immunity. These social measures are stop gaps, and anyone suggesting "or we can just social distance" as if that's an alternative to vaccines needs to get a clue. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at the numbers before and after lockdowns and other restrictions are put in place to realize that they aren't impactful enough to be considered a solution.

Re: SARS-CoV-2 501Y.V2 escapes neutralization by South African COVID-19 donor plasma

#126

Post by bluGill »

PeterStuer wrote: post #121
bluGill wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably not. The second dose of the vaccine is more about ensuring that you are covered for a long time. So long as everyone gets the second dose in a few months we are fine. If we wipe out COVID there is no reason to give second doses at all.

Well, I hope you are right. "Pfizer said in a statement that there are "no data" to demonstrate that a single dose of its coronavirus vaccine will provide protection from infection after 21 days." https://www.axios.com/pfizer-single-dose-data-716702dd-324f-...

We don't know how long protection lasts after the 21 days, but we have enough data from other vaccines to make educated guesses. I wouldn't go more then a couple months.

Re: SARS-CoV-2 501Y.V2 escapes neutralization by South African COVID-19 donor plasma

#127

Post by hansdieter1337 »

wk_end wrote: post #36

The current headline (“strongly resistant to past immunity”) is editorialized and not what the research here shows. It’s resistant to donor antibodies, which is definitely unfortunate and concerning, but there’s more to immunity than just antibodies, and even more to antibodies than just the ones donated. Preliminary research [1] shows that vaccines are still effective, at least, and likely that implies natural immun…

The paper you cited actually states that existing vaccines are less effective: “However, neutralization by 14 of the 17 most potent mAbs tested was reduced or abolished by either K417N, or E484K, or N501Y mutations.”

Re: SARS-CoV-2 501Y.V2 escapes neutralization by South African COVID-19 donor plasma

#128

Post by PeterStuer »

bluGill wrote: post #126
PeterStuer wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I hope you are right. "Pfizer said in a statement that there are "no data" to demonstrate that a single dose of its coronavirus vaccine will provide protection from infection after 21 days." https://www.axios.com/pfizer-single-dose-data-716702dd-324f-...

We don't know how long protection lasts after the 21 days, but we have enough data from other vaccines to make educated guesses. I wouldn't go more then a couple months.

Vaccine dosage and protocol are virus specific, and this Pfizer vaccine is completely unlike other human vaccines as it is a new class (mrna).

Re: SARS-CoV-2 501Y.V2 escapes neutralization by South African COVID-19 donor plasma

#129

Post by hinkley »

pelagicAustral wrote: post #80
hinkley wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How often do you know someone die of cancer? That depends on how many smokers and ex-smokers you know. It makes it all the sadder because the death was preventable. Which puts it into a similar headspace with Covid.

Because obviously only smokers die of cancer...

I can always count on developers to ignore the emotional cost of a decision or action and only count the wall clock time.

It's why Scrum is fundamentally rotten at its core.

Re: SARS-CoV-2 501Y.V2 escapes neutralization by South African COVID-19 donor plasma

#130

Post by wittyreference »

AndrewBissell wrote: post #26
wittyreference wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The primary benefit of the vaccine over 'natural' immunity (other than avoiding actual exposure) is the emphasis on neutralizing antibody formation.

I had assumed the vaccine was also intended/believed to induce T-cell response, is that not the case? Given that they disappear within a matter of months after a natural infection, how long are the antibodies from the vaccines believed to last?

Oh, it is. I meant that that is also part of 'natural' immunization. The distinction between the 'natural' exposure and the vaccine is that the natural exposure targets a number of epitopes, which may or may not include effective neutralizing antibodies against the spike protein; the vaccine, on the other hand, only offers the spike as an antigen, so you know you're generating neutralizing ab.
Post reply on HN