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

191–200 of 211 posts

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

#191

Post by jjcon »

johnchristopher wrote: post #179
jjcon wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did I deny Covid? I simply asked if stronger vaccines could lead to stronger viruses and make things worse than they already are

No, you did not simply ask that. You also said Covid is now not that bad and implied it's okay to be infected since everyone you know has been infected now.

Assume good faith - its in the rules friend (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

If that is what you took from my comment I apologize that isn't what I intended to convey at all. I did however intend to ask a question about the topic at hand (broader vaccines) in our current situation which is categorically improved relative to early covid

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

#192

Post by jjcon »

johnchristopher wrote: post #120
ehvatum wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, you are stigmatizing someone for offering a correct observation (that the successive COVID variants have proven less debilitating and deadly) and for asking a question that must be on many people’s minds: can monoclonal antibody administration promote resistance analogous to bacterial antibiotic resistance? Be aware that live virus vaccines are certainly not monoclonal antibody injections. As well, rather…

> To be fair, you are stigmatizing someone for offering a correct observation (that the successive COVID variants have proven less debilitating and deadly) and for asking a question that must be on many people’s minds: can monoclonal antibody administration promote resistance analogous to bacterial antibiotic resistance? No, I am singling out another comment which spreads doubts and denial by hiding them among good f…

> by hiding them among good faith arguments

It is literally in the HN rules that you are supposed to assume good faith, not concoct false attributions of intent and conspiracy. I did not intend to hide anything, I was earnestly asking a question (clearly shared by plenty others in this post). It should not upset you this much. I apologize for anything triggering to you that I said, that wasn't my intent.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#193

Post by inopinatus »

jjcon wrote: post #190
inopinatus wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cars kill over a million people each year and while terrible, they really aren't "all that bad" I struggle to comprehend the mindset that allows anyone to think killing a million people "isn't all that bad". > I was asking if by developing such broad vaccines (as opposed to those that we have developed in the past) if we ran the risk of selecting for worse viruses. Whilst you were responding I edited that remark fr…

> think killing a million people "isn't all that bad". Please read again, I said cars are not all that bad, if you are going to have discussion please assume good faith (see hn rules please https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html )

The hair doesn't split that fine. If something kills a million people, it's bad.

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

#194

Post by wbl »

tsimionescu wrote: post #170
peyton wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

In small molecule the second player can just copy. With vaccines this is harder but a lot of the risk is already gone. Development encompases everything from tox, to dosing, and there is much risk at every step of the procees. For small molecule the lead is going to get massive amounts of small variations made and tested to try to find the one that works: that's not coming from the research that lead to a paper with a hit.

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

#195

Post by wbl »

jrockway wrote: post #134
peyton wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How? What’s the incentive for Pfizer to fund development if they don’t get exclusivity?

Why would RedHat develop Linux when Debian gives it away for free?

Debian doesn't have to spend a billion bucks to convince Uncle Sam to let you download it.

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

#196

Post by ChuckMcM »

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.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here but what I took away from all of the papers on the MRNA vaccines is that they were designed to tell cells to build a protein (spike protein) that would stimulate the immune system to create an antibody that recognized said protein and it was those antibodies that made it harder to become infected with SARS-COVID-2.

One of the papers I read compared and contrasted the antibody that Pfizer used in their development vs the one that Moderna used in their development, with the conclusion that the Moderna "provoked" antibody was slightly more effective at preventing an infection from taking hold.

And based on that understanding (which may be flawed, please let me know if it is) then having a better 'target' antibody that you are trying to provoke the immune system to create, would make an MRNA vaccine more effective.

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

#197

Post by dang »

dataangel wrote: post #29
benjaminwootton wrote: post #17

Quoted post unavailable.

Quoted post unavailable.

The last two comments you've posted (this and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32473246) have broken the site guidelines egregiously. Can you please stop doing that—regardless of how bad another comment is or you feel it is? We ban accounts that post like this and I don't want to have to ban you.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

(I suppose I'd better add that no, I'm not posting this because I agree with the GP. I'm posting this because I saw a repeated pattern in your comments.)

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

#198

Post by ChuckMcM »

feet wrote: post #144
ChuckMcM wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps. If you feel you have an understanding of the system I'm criticizing, why not help me understand why it has to be this way? I get it if you don't have the time or inclination to do so, but surprisingly I'm actually really open to learning new things and it would be appreciated not only by me but by other people reading your comments if you could explain the current system, perhaps other systems that have been…

I apologize if my statement was unclear. I'm not claiming to understand the system any better than you. The type of comment that you left is a pattern I have been noticing where someone will state that they don't understand something and then proceed to criticize it. This does not make sense to me, as I don't understand how someone can assume they have legitimate criticisms of a system without first asking clarifying…

That's fair and I appreciate the feedback. FWIW, I suspect we think about the phrase 'legitimate criticism' a bit differently, I was trying to be pretty clear that my criticism, such as it was, was based on the existing system annoying me. For me, anyone who tells me about a system that annoys them I consider it a legitimate criticism in part because I think it is legitimate for anyone to criticize any system that annoys them for any reason. I may not agree with it, and the system may not annoy me, or I may sympathize but realize it is unavoidable, but it is still okay for them to criticize it.

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

#199

Post by jjcon »

inopinatus wrote: post #193
jjcon wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> think killing a million people "isn't all that bad". Please read again, I said cars are not all that bad, if you are going to have discussion please assume good faith (see hn rules please https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html )

The hair doesn't split that fine. If something kills a million people, it's bad.

Things really can be good and bad. Cars I think by most accounts are good (do you disagree?), but they do lead to the deaths of a million+ every year, that is bad.

Junk foods like ice cream, pizza, soda etc. I think can be good but they also lead to the deaths of millions a year (albeit more indirectly). The world just isn't black and white. It is complex and there is nuance.

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

#200

Post by robbiep »

jjcon wrote: post #180
robbiep wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Quit being so hostile, if you are not interested in discussion I would recommend not spending time on discussion boards. You first spoke as if it was an absolute certainty ("This is basic evolutionary theory") and now are saying, "all of the normal caveats apply" which is exactly what I was getting at in my OP thread. The "normal caveats"/edge cases are exactly what this whole discussion is about. Clearly we are spea…

I'm sorry you're interpreting my comments as hostility, but basically you're being a the sort of commenter that it isn't really worth engaging with. You're not interested in my answers, and you've accused me of using arguments from authority. From my perspective you seem intent on finding some loophole where i'm either lying to you or i'm incorrect. In a message board format, particularly with the number of outright bad actors when it comes to anything COVID related, how is it actually in my interest to provide you with a freshman course on molecular biology?

The problem is you haven't grasped that they're actually the same answer. It can be true that a field driven by stochastic behaviour consists mostly of degrees and probabilities, and still, due to the realities of how evolution and natural selection work, mean that it is impossible for an extremely highly conserved component of spike protein to jump to a new configuration, that at the same time escapes antibody response for the conserved region and maintains any degree of fitness in the wild.

Please park your antagonism and if you are actually interested, walk through the door and explore the field yourself. It's fascinating

Post reply on HN