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

Making Vaccine

lesswrong.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 378 posts

Re: Making Vaccine

#101

Post by majormajor »

zests wrote: post #83
fabian2k wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said that the immune system can cause damage. Vaccines have a very high safety standard as they are given to large numbers of healthy people, so the tolerance for serious side effects is very low. So the development there is very careful, and anything that looks too dangerous is hopefully caught in animal experiments or at worst at phase I. A well known example of how dangerous the immune system can be is the follo…

I have no doubts about the safety of vaccines in healthy people. I have some harmless curiosity about people who are not known to be healthy. How do you actually determine if someone is "too immunocompromised" for a vaccine? This must be a question with no good answer.

> I have no doubts about the safety of vaccines in healthy people. I have some harmless curiosity about people who are not known to be healthy. How do you actually determine if someone is "too immunocompromised" for a vaccine?

My understanding is that being too immunocompromised for a vaccine happens in two different ways:

1) the vaccine contains live virus and so there's danger that the weak immune system couldn't fight this off

2) the vaccine isn't live, so it's not dangerous on its own, but the immune system is too weak to recognize it, so it doesn't build any immunity to the real thing. (One doctor I was talking to said the mRNA ones should be good here, because your own body produces so much of the lookalikes that even a weak immune system should notice it - and then you're much better prepared to fight the real thing off faster.)

Only the first is immediately dangerous, so the standard seems to be to just stay away from those.

I'm not sure if much is commonly done for the second, in terms of looking for response, but you can get tests for measles antibodies and such, so that would probably be how?

Re: Making Vaccine

#102

Post by nostromo »

dragontamer wrote: post #66
nostromo wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2,000,000+ people are dead because we didn't take this path. The risk to testers under 40 would have been negligible. I'm not being flippant about other peoples' lives -- I would have signed up myself if the compensation was high enough.

> The risk to testers under 40 would have been negligible. Luke Letlow (age 41) says otherwise, since he's dead. Okay, he's above 40, but he's high-profile and easy for me to remember. Plenty of sub 40 year olds have died. Even among the survivors... plenty of young and healthy 20-30 year olds are having month-long recoveries, unable to breath at their old capacity. Purposefully damaging the control group (who by def…

"One person died" isn't a refutation, it's just an appeal to emotion.

Under 40 the survival rate is 99.98% for everyone -- including the already ill. If you screened for comorbidities and gave people great healthcare, you could get that 99.999% or higher. And save millions of lives (and trillions of dollars) by doing so.

Re: Making Vaccine

#103

Post by Aachen »

jiofih wrote: post #99
Aachen wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They spent a thousand bucks on this and many weeks and blood tests. I agree with your general point but do give them some credit.

No mention of blood test results in the post.

Yeah, the results aren't in yet.

> Consider this a pre-registration. I intend to share my test results here.

Of course, without checking/testing this would be a completely useless exercise. Or if you test in the wrong way, like a nose swab after doing nose spray vaccination. OP instead will do blood tests and does seem to have thought this through to an extent that I find reasonable.

However, henceforth considering yourself safe indefinitely and normalizing socializing during the pandemic and normalizing the homebrewing of vaccines... that's where I'm not certain about the conclusion (iff it proves effective in the first place - e.g. I also see no mention of false positive rates in the test they'll use).

Re: Making Vaccine

#104

Post by [deleted] »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #48

TLDR: I attempted to make a COVID vaccine. It was cheap. I have no proof that it worked. Other risks are unknown. The story reminds me of Barry Marshall, but with less science behind it. https://jamesclear.com/barry-marshall

[deleted]

Re: Making Vaccine

#105

Post by dcolkitt »

jiofih wrote: post #77
dcolkitt wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the point is, even if there's a 1% chance that this plausibly works, the government should be throwing money at bio-hackers like this. Or at the very least exempting them from the regulations that stand in their way. Very likely these moonshots won't work. But they're still dirt cheap relative to the economic impact of Covid. If there's a way to disrupt the current slow approach to vaccine production, we should b…

If they have total immunity from FDA regulations, how are you going to be confident it actually works and is safe at scale? The regulations are there for good reasons. I haven’t heard of a single one of the available vaccines being held back by regulations, only the speed at which they could go through human trials.

> I haven’t heard of a single one of the available vaccines being held back by regulations, only the speed at which they could go through human trials.

The vaccine trials were drastically slowed down by the regulations against human challenge trials.

Re: Making Vaccine

#107

Post by bawolff »

wegs wrote: post #97
bawolff wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly i'd be pretty shocked if this actually worked.

Why? In many cases, the hard part isn't so much making a working vaccine, as proving it works, scaling manufacturing, etc.

Because if all it took to make a vaccine for a respiratory disease was stick some peptides up your nose, we would havev a lot more vaccines (and i dont mean just for covid.).

Even if the other parts are harder (not sure if thats true. The reason proving things work is hard is because most initially promising candidates dont actually), it doesn't follow that every single vaccine candidate works.

Re: Making Vaccine

#108

Post by m-ee »

bawolff wrote: post #49
zests wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you provide more information about how vaccines can cause damage?

For vaccines in general, i imagine it depends on the type a lot. Live vaccines for example have the obvious risk factor of maybe giving you the disease, but i dont know much about the topic. I imagine for this article the biggest risk is you make something other than you expect and poision yourself, or you just make something that does nothing. (IANAexpert)

You can actually do much worse than nothing with antibody dependent enhancement. Let's say you make something that at first glance appears similar to the virus but is a little off. Maybe you chose the wrong proteins, or maybe you used an inactivated virus and the inactivation step damaged some key part of the virus. You inject the vaccine and your body learns how to make antibodies for this particle.

Now the real virus shows up, your body goes "Aha! I've seen this before let me make those antibodies." But it wasn't trained on the real virus, so the antibodies it makes aren't actually effective against the real thing. The virus replicates and your body makes more and more antibodies but they do nothing to stop it. Meanwhile the the antibodies are running rampant in your body causing inflammation and blood clots.

This has happened before with vaccine candidates, and is analogous to what goes in on severe covid. The body tries to respond to the invading virus but does so ineffectively and causes potential deadly damage.

Re: Making Vaccine

#109

Post by pwython »

yters wrote: post #76
bawolff wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[Deleted. I didn't fully read the parents post, and responded emotionally. That was wrong of me and I apologize]

I personally know very intelligent and highly educated people who went to top universities who are convinced vaccines caused mental retardation in their children. They may be wrong, but I would not call them nutjobs.

> "very intelligent and highly educated people who went to top universities"

Imagine trusting a "rocket scientist" to even weigh in on medical topics because they are "very intelligent" in their totally unrelated field. This is an unfortunate misconception that plagues conspiracy theory extremists who reference PhD graduates in their arguments against things like 5G brain control.... pointing to people with doctoral degrees in Music or something.

Re: Making Vaccine

#110

Post by dragontamer »

nostromo wrote: post #102
dragontamer wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The risk to testers under 40 would have been negligible. Luke Letlow (age 41) says otherwise, since he's dead. Okay, he's above 40, but he's high-profile and easy for me to remember. Plenty of sub 40 year olds have died. Even among the survivors... plenty of young and healthy 20-30 year olds are having month-long recoveries, unable to breath at their old capacity. Purposefully damaging the control group (who by def…

"One person died" isn't a refutation, it's just an appeal to emotion. Under 40 the survival rate is 99.98% for everyone -- including the already ill. If you screened for comorbidities and gave people great healthcare, you could get that 99.999% or higher. And save millions of lives (and trillions of dollars) by doing so.

> Under 40 the survival rate is 99.98% for everyone -- including the already ill

I doubt that. But I'm not entirely sure how to calculate the numbers you just said.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

I realize this page changes, so I've taken a screenshot here: https://imgur.com/0iM5FHC

This is the chart of who died in January 2021. Yes, most deaths are aged 65+, but there's been deaths in all age categories. I doubt its 99.98% as you suggest (especially since the current case-mortality-rate is ~2.5%, at least for my state)

The official CDC numbers are stratified from 35 to 44, I'm not entirely sure who you are citing to get "below 40" age groups.

Post reply on HN