Live data from Hacker News

Moderna’s HIV vaccine has officially begun human trials

them.us

371–380 of 490 posts

Re: Moderna’s HIV vaccine has officially begun human trials

#371
post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Activity-based risks are not additive. Time spent driving is not time spent having sex (well, hopefully). So if risk(dying while driving) ~ risk(dying because of sex) ~ 0, you can easily ignore both of those.

Be careful. The infinite sum of epsilons over an infinite domain and over the time domain can and usually does converge to a finite value in real life. Also, you can avoid having sex with a HIV-positive person. You can probably not avoid driving. So the fact that a risk may be low is not sufficient to take such risk if you can hedge against it.

It is because everyone dies relatively quickly that you can ignore ultra low risks. Suppose your lifespan was potentially 1 trillion years, how low would your risk tolerance need to be?

Meanwhile doing some once a day with a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance of possibility killing you in 40 years just isn’t worth considering.

Re: Moderna’s HIV vaccine has officially begun human trials

#373
post #249
post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can’t sample all parts and all fluids of someone’s body all the time. Maybe trace undetectable levels of the virus can be transmitted… You don’t need to be a 100% sure. Once the risk becomes small enough you can spend your time worrying about other risks.

Now that may be entirely the right posture, but the triple equals signs in the post upthread did rather imply certainty.

The standard you are applying is literally not possible to imply anywhere.

Hell, an HIV viron could be created spontaneously through quantum tunneling in your body with some non-zero probability. I think it would be legitimate to triple equal signs that to "not going to happen" though.

Re: Moderna’s HIV vaccine has officially begun human trials

#374

I remember growing up being terrified of HIV/AIDS. The idea of something being permanent and transmissible via sex, and literally dismounting your immune defense to all other diseases on the planet... To this day it still terrifies me, even though the treatments have become so good. Each year it seems there are new stories about HIV research, and progress keeps being made. I pray for positive results and am really am…

We must have started having sex at the time (90s?). Even as a straight man, who religiously used condoms (because being terrified), I was scared the first time I took an HIV test.

Religiously using condoms is not using them very much

Re: Moderna’s HIV vaccine has officially begun human trials

#375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So some other points. Some Sex lubes can make it easier for infections to get into the body. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_lubricant#Water-based Thing is I wonder if a higher vitamin A and zinc intake can help because all epithelial cells need retinol (vitamin A), zinc is needed to move retinol around the body as Retinol Binding Protein (RBP) for epithelial cells. Alcohol can reduce fat soluble vitamins stor…

I had no idea "dry sex" was a thing. I am speechless. wtf?

Some cultures believe lubrication is a sign of poor virtue or infidelity. Women use chalk, cornstarch, etc, to ensure they stay dry and to (supposedly) enhance the pleasure of their partner.

Re: Moderna’s HIV vaccine has officially begun human trials

#376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, given that it's a new (throwaway?) account used to post in a thread about a vaccine, there's a high chance this is another neo-anti-vaxxer, here to tell us why this is "not a vaccine" and all that.

>we don't actually know what he said, but its safe to assume he's one of those labels we assign to bad people with bad thoughts

Nah, he gave hints on what he was getting at. He just wasn't being clear about it.

Re: Moderna’s HIV vaccine has officially begun human trials

#377
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think slowly will come the realization that mRNA vaccines aren’t as fast to develop as people thought. Sputnik/AstraZeneca vaccines were released almost at the same time as Moderna/Pfizer. Yes, the latter were first commercial mRNA vaccines, but the technology is nevertheless rather mature. I watched a lecture by the people credited with creating mRNA vaccines and it turns out people have been working on the techno…

One single employee at Pfizer created 10 vaccine candidates in one day. > Now, the thing is that you can’t just sequence a virus, do bioinformatics, synthesize mRNA and package it into a nano particle. You can, and that's exactly what was done. However, out of the 10 or so candidates, they selected a few of the more promising ones to continue research. They are fast to develop. However, there are other steps in the p…

> If we were reckless and just wanted to inject someone with the latest update, this could be done in a matter of days. Human trials took months and people still complained that it was 'developed too quickly'. Then there's logistics.

I'm sure there is also the commercial concerns about cannibalising their own product. Would you take the 1-strain BioNTech vaccine if you knew that a 5-strain is also in circulation?

Re: Moderna’s HIV vaccine has officially begun human trials

#378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I get your point, at the end of the day the net result is what we care about. But the assumptions that you use to calculate that net are where all of the disagreements stem from. In your example, you've constrained it to losing well defined revenue, and "you know this fix is low risk", so the answer is easy. Maybe (wrongly or rightly) you don't have faith in the revenue numbers, or in the test suite or the engi…

I think the place where the disagreement or misunderstanding lies is in how we're describing thinking about unknowns. You seem to be taking this from the perspective that, because there are unknowns, literally anything could happen . And we don't think that's the case with my vaccines or code. Pushing v2 of your webapp to master isn't going to cause rockets to launch. There are things that could happen and there are…

> One such thing is sudden onset symptoms well after the thing has left your system, because there isn't a biological way for that to have an effect

The hard part about conversations like this are that you could have written the definitive book on this stuff, or you could be just another dummy on the internet like me. So I have to take a statement like that and do my best to evaluate it myself, since I have no idea how to value your expertise. If you're an expert of some sort, I apologize in advance.

We know for a fact that vaccines have long term effects. They wouldn't be useful otherwise. It would be nice if they could only have positive long term effects, but why would there be any guarantee of that?

Symptoms could start immediately but be undetectable until they progress far enough (think a tiny little tumor for just one example). Again, not claiming this is happening, just saying that it seems nutty to assume it can't happen.

When I read "we understand how vaccines work pretty well", I automatically translate it to "we understand pretty well what happens when we inject a substance into a human body", and then I think "really?". We have some useful models, sure, but "understanding pretty well" seems a vast overstatement of the situation, especially when its laypeople chatting on the internet.

The abstract concept of a vaccine is pretty simple. Anybody can regurgitate the picture book version of it. Any specific instantiation of one is remarkably complex, all the way from manufacturing, to transport, to administration, and then interacting with the legacy ball of spaghetti that is the human body and it's various systems.

The fact that we humans decided to name some substance the same thing that we named some other substances that we created in the past doesn't necessarily tell you how that substance is going to interact with the body. It can provide you with hypotheses, but hypotheses need to be tested.

Re: Moderna’s HIV vaccine has officially begun human trials

#379
post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be careful. The infinite sum of epsilons over an infinite domain and over the time domain can and usually does converge to a finite value in real life. Also, you can avoid having sex with a HIV-positive person. You can probably not avoid driving. So the fact that a risk may be low is not sufficient to take such risk if you can hedge against it.

It is because everyone dies relatively quickly that you can ignore ultra low risks. Suppose your lifespan was potentially 1 trillion years, how low would your risk tolerance need to be? Meanwhile doing some once a day with a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance of possibility killing you in 40 years just isn’t worth considering.

> Suppose your lifespan was potentially 1 trillion years, how low would your risk tolerance need to be?

Depends what your quality lifespan is. If I get sick of everything, that time isn't worth much.

There's also a "time-value" of life.

Cool stuff I can do today may be worth a lot more to me than things I can do 500B years from now. Especially since the person that would be doing them is someone I cannot identify with at all.

Re: Moderna’s HIV vaccine has officially begun human trials

#380
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One reason is that mRNA vaccines can be developed much faster than traditional vaccines. So the idea is you have a better chance of "outrunning" a strain.

I think slowly will come the realization that mRNA vaccines aren’t as fast to develop as people thought. Sputnik/AstraZeneca vaccines were released almost at the same time as Moderna/Pfizer. Yes, the latter were first commercial mRNA vaccines, but the technology is nevertheless rather mature. I watched a lecture by the people credited with creating mRNA vaccines and it turns out people have been working on the techno…

> If mRNA vaccine was as magical as it was marketed, we wouldn’t be getting 3-4(and soon 5?) doses of the same vaccine with the emergence of new variants. Rather, there would be delta- and omicron-specific vaccine.

There are about 5 different false assertions in here with nothing to back them up.

The Israelis have found that a 4th shot isn't particularly useful in immocompetent healthy younger adults under 65. We're unlikely to have a 4th shot. This makes sense because in between the first dose(s) and the booster shot the immune system had time for the response to mature via hypermutation/maturation.

There's nothing wrong with the mRNA vaccines either since they're better for this virus than any other vaccine for this virus. The old school inactivate virus vaccines are worse than mRNA vaccines (although cheaper and easier to mass produce).

People compare mRNA vaccines to the polio vaccine but that is apples and oranges, since coronavirus is a virus that doesn't typically have a viremic phase (outside of severe multi-organ COVID). An appropriate comparison would be between coronavirus vaccines and flu vaccines. Comparing a coronavirus vaccine to a polio vaccine is just ignorant.

The mRNA vaccines are also wildly successful by the measure which matters most, which is protection against severe disease and death. They were never promised as being perfect against contracting the disease and transmission. You can lookup very public headline statements from Fauci in late 2020 before the vaccine trials were done setting expectations around a 50% vaccine efficacy against contracting disease.

We're also unlikely to be chasing after reformulating the vaccine for specific variants since by the time it could be updated and a hundred million doses were produced and shipped and we tried to get them into people's arms the variant wave would be over in that region. Just producing and moving the doses is a logistics problem that will take months. And the boosted response to the ancestral virus is still very strong against Omicron, and there's no evidence of any waning of efficacy against severe disease or hospitalization and no evidence of escape from T-cells (and the pattern of mutations in Omicron is random with respect to T-cell epitopes and shows no clustering).

The newspapers never should have sold vaccines as a way to stop the virus in its tracks. That isn't a problem with the science or the technology though. That is just that human emotions got out of control wishing for a magic shot that would make it all stop.

People often complain about the trials being cut short, but in fact we had enough data to determine the efficacy and safety outcomes. What we cut short was durability. Turns out the neutralizing antibodies and efficacy against infection/disease wane over 6-12 months (as it does with natural infection as well). That's the reason why the original 90% VE against infection numbers turned out to be wrong, we cut the studies short to start getting it into arms. The 90% VE against hospitalization/death have been maintained though.

Post reply on HN