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

New antibody neutralizes all known SARS-CoV-2 variants in lab tests

hms.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 211 posts

Re: New antibody neutralizes all known SARS-CoV-2 variants in lab tests

#161

Post by CrendKing »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #106
jjcon wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that because the number of possible signatures is so vast and the vaccines so specific, even if they get slightly broader it isn’t going to make things worse because in the grand scale of things we aren’t really walling too much off?

I think what they are saging is that something that kills perfectly, every time does not generate selective pressure. The virus would have to lose the signature completely randomly. Whereas antibiotic resistance is something that could develop because antibiotics could be under doses so individuals survived partial exposure or perhaps they worked by a mechanisms which already had some resistance in the population. It…

In that case, shouldn't we never give vaccine to people with poor immunity system or with immunocompromised condition, and rather just let them be or even die? If this is true (even though difficult to actually implement in the society due to humane consideration), what happens to the vaccines of viruses like HIV? The patients already have weak immune system.

Re: New antibody neutralizes all known SARS-CoV-2 variants in lab tests

#162

Post by saveferris »

scatters wrote: post #130
ChuckMcM wrote: post #26

From the article: The researchers have applied for patents on both the antibodies and the mouse model used to produce them. They hope to see their work developed commercially. ... followed by This work was supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-021989), the National institutes of Health (NIAID Consortia for HIV/AIDS Vaccine Development UM1-AI144371, P01 AI158571, Ma…

This is an antibody, not a vaccine. It's for treating a single infection, not for conferring immunity.

I admittedly have no idea how it works, what the differences are but the article infers that the tech developed here can be used for vaccines. From the article:

“If it does,” he added, “it might provide a new therapeutic and also contribute to new vaccine strategies.”

Maybe you know, is this just for therapeutics and not vaccines?

Edit: looks like someone else answered this below....

Re: New antibody neutralizes all known SARS-CoV-2 variants in lab tests

#163

Post by jjcon »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #103
robbiep wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sorry but I can’t state this any more plainly without this turning into a lecture. It is basic evolutionary biology, in as much as gravity keeps your feet attached to the ground. It is not an appeal to authority, it is simply a statement of fact and an underlying premise of a complex field. You seem like the sort of person who likes doing your own research - I’ve given you the key to the door now you just have to…

Is this a statistical reality? As in it would take a 1/1,000,000 chance to evolve out of this local maxima? Or is it a logical reality? i.e. we know the possible permutations of the RNA and from its current state it could not reach an escape branch? Edit: FYI, my biology is weak but it has occured to me that there must be a topology of evolution.

This is what I was getting at - almost nothing in my scientific field is 100% and I find that true of most things. Thus my question- how sure are we. If we are at six sigma levels great, but I find that at odds with the little I do know.

Re: New antibody neutralizes all known SARS-CoV-2 variants in lab tests

#164

Post by jjcon »

robbiep wrote: post #98
jjcon wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually asked ‘how sure are we’ - you’re right though, just saying - learn more about it - isn’t exactly helpful. If it is as ‘basic’ as you say maybe you could explain it rather than just appeal to authority.

I’m sorry but I can’t state this any more plainly without this turning into a lecture. It is basic evolutionary biology, in as much as gravity keeps your feet attached to the ground. It is not an appeal to authority, it is simply a statement of fact and an underlying premise of a complex field. You seem like the sort of person who likes doing your own research - I’ve given you the key to the door now you just have to…

So it is 100% certainty then? Not just very unlikely? The quantification of certainty among experts is what I am wondering

Re: New antibody neutralizes all known SARS-CoV-2 variants in lab tests

#165

Post by osigurdson »

heavyset_go wrote: post #92
Mikeb85 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can, they just usually don't, as more dangerous viruses kill their host before they can spread as far...

It's wrong to say they usually don't , it's that the deadlier variants haven't lived long enough for us to remember them or have to worry about them at this moment. They still happen and can wipe out populations, and thus die out, as well. They can also reach an equilibrium where they maim many of their hosts, more than we'd like, without killing them all. Mutations are random, nothing really is preventing a virus fr…

If mutations are just random then why do viruses ever reach equilibrium?

Re: New antibody neutralizes all known SARS-CoV-2 variants in lab tests

#166

Post by pas »

saiya-jin wrote: post #145
xupybd wrote: post #57

Can we please have this sort of research for the common cold and flu please. I hate flu season, I'm normally sick three of four times a winter. I get really sick at least once a year. I'd love to avoid that.

Unless you have some seriously and permanently weakened immunity, exposure to colds and flus actually helps long term. Also you are potentially passing this increased immunity to your offsprings. Of course going through it sucks, I am in same bandwagon with 2 small kids and getting often sick with same stuff they have. And they do have stuff basically semi-constantly from mid autumn to mid spring. Half the class has…

We could do the immunity building by yearly shots (that contain 100+ strains). It doesn't have to suck.

Re: New antibody neutralizes all known SARS-CoV-2 variants in lab tests

#167

Post by DubiousPusher »

CrendKing wrote: post #161
DubiousPusher wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what they are saging is that something that kills perfectly, every time does not generate selective pressure. The virus would have to lose the signature completely randomly. Whereas antibiotic resistance is something that could develop because antibiotics could be under doses so individuals survived partial exposure or perhaps they worked by a mechanisms which already had some resistance in the population. It…

In that case, shouldn't we never give vaccine to people with poor immunity system or with immunocompromised condition, and rather just let them be or even die? If this is true (even though difficult to actually implement in the society due to humane consideration), what happens to the vaccines of viruses like HIV? The patients already have weak immune system.

I guews if you were blindly trying to breed the most durable individual specimems. But humams have major adaptatioms aside from immunity. We have cooperation and the ability to help each other. Is it worth it to let the town butcher or carpenter keel over to secure a small increase in generarional immunity?

Native Americams had no choice but to go the route of inherited immunity when they began contracting Eurasian diseases. Was it worth living through a literal apocalypse to gain immunity?

Re: New antibody neutralizes all known SARS-CoV-2 variants in lab tests

#168

Post by nyokodo »

vletal wrote: post #85
nyokodo wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a lifetime perpetual non-exclusive right to use and re-license said patent on what ever terms they deem acceptable. Probably the biggest immediate positive impact would be automatically securing the rights to produce and distribute the patented good in developing nations. BigCo isn’t making much money there anyway.

Economy of scale. You make little from a large population. Or you can go Nestle level evil and straight out exploit the most in need [1]. Plenty of ways for BigCo to make money of developing nations. [1] https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Professionalism/The_Nestlé_Inf...

> Plenty of ways for BigCo to make money of developing nations.

Making some money sure, but developing nations are not great consumer markets and BigCo isn’t making a big chunk of its profit there. It ought to be possible for BigCo to be made to accept the loss of a market they probably would neglect anyway (especially pharma) in exchange for R&D funding to give legal clearance for other organizations to serve those populations.

Re: New antibody neutralizes all known SARS-CoV-2 variants in lab tests

#169

Post by robbiep »

jjcon wrote: post #164
robbiep wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sorry but I can’t state this any more plainly without this turning into a lecture. It is basic evolutionary biology, in as much as gravity keeps your feet attached to the ground. It is not an appeal to authority, it is simply a statement of fact and an underlying premise of a complex field. You seem like the sort of person who likes doing your own research - I’ve given you the key to the door now you just have to…

So it is 100% certainty then? Not just very unlikely? The quantification of certainty among experts is what I am wondering

No post body was provided.

Re: New antibody neutralizes all known SARS-CoV-2 variants in lab tests

#170

Post by tsimionescu »

peyton wrote: post #131
tsimionescu wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either development is the tricky part, in which case it would be irrelevant if the formula is public, since another company won't be able to compete just by knowing the formula, they also have to fund development of their own; or the basic research is the problem, in which case development is a minor expense and should be covered by the sales. Either way, making the results of research that has already been funded by…

Development is everything that goes into putting an application together for the FDA, as well as getting facilities together for their inspectors. It is indeed irrelevant if the “formula” is public. Every company needs to put together an application of some kind to make marketing claims. There are many kinds of applications. > would still leave these companies with plenty of profits. Development is undertaken with ri…

Again, we are talking in circles.

The thread was about "why would Pfizer pay for R&D if the vaccine/antibody could then simply be relincesed".

And the answer is: because they can sell the vaccine for more money than it costs to research a new one.

If they have to pay extra to develop, then they still have a huge moat. Even if Moderna or J&J is also licensed to produce the same vaccine, Moderna will also have to pay the same cost before they can have a product, so no change in incentives compared to today.

This whole "but then who pays for development" is a red herring you've thrown in.

And in general, the bottom line is this: if a piece of research, be it basic research or clinical trials or anything else is mainly funded from public money, then it should belong to the public, not to the corporation that was payed to execute the study. The corporation has already gotten paid for the R&D in this scenario, so it's fair for the public to license that R&D to other corps as well, and allow all corps to compete on price of the finished good. If this research stops at the molecule, then let various corps compete on turning the same molecule into a finished product, and let them patent the finished drug, but not the molecule itself.

Post reply on HN