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

Current RNA vaccines protect against worrying coronavirus variants

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 324 posts

Re: Current RNA vaccines protect against worrying coronavirus variants

#181

Post by Spare_account »

mxcrossb wrote: post #177
Spare_account wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has me wondering: Are there any events in history (with any other viruses) where this hasn't proven to be the case? Viruses that we've developed vaccines for, that have eventually been rendered inneffective due to a mutation? Is it a common occurence?

It seems like the flu virus is the example you want right? Every year the vaccines delivered is a cocktail based on the predicted most common variants, because no one vaccine can protect against them all.

I considered that, but as I understand it (this could wrong) the variants that are more prevalent each year are pre-existing and we just don't know which ones will be 'popular' ahead of time.

Another way of looking at this is that they're not new mutations that we scramble to develop and test vaccines for, we just roll out the same tried and tested vaccines, but we have to cobble together a different blend some years.

If the above is correct, then I guess the Flu example to answer my question would be: How often is a new variant of Flu (HxNy) discovered that necessitates a new vaccine being developed?

Re: Current RNA vaccines protect against worrying coronavirus variants

#182

Post by g3e0 »

loxias wrote: post #82
reedjosh wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> WTF? Why? You have a free, safe, live-saving vaccine being offered to you! Why would you not take it?? People have real distrust of the system that produced the vaccine and even distrust of the media that purports this disease is so deadly. I know from your perspective scepticism is hard to understand, but it's not that God tells me science is fake or anything so outlandish. I genuinely don't trust the corporations…

> People have real distrust of the system that produced the vaccine and even distrust of the media that purports this disease is so deadly. WHY??? Why do they distrust the vaccine?? Anything? Any possible reason? It's probably the safest vaccine ever made. I. DON'T. GET. IT. Do others not hear the ambulances? Do they not see the overflow from the hospitals? Are the dead bodies some sort of elaborate deep fake?? Has t…

I know this is an inflammatory topic that evokes visceral feelings but.. you should be aware that when you are trying to change someone's mind, aggressive arguing like this is much more likely to make the other person believe what they already believe more strongly (i.e. the opposite of what you want).

Re: Current RNA vaccines protect against worrying coronavirus variants

#183

Post by majewsky »

sigmaprimus wrote: post #166
ulfw wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"which from my understanding is a form of gene therapy" You're the one who is asking SOCIAL MEDIA companies (i.e. Facebook and twitter) to educate you more. "I wish the social media giants would just stop all the censorship and allow the discussions to take place." Maybe that's the issue all along. Shouldn't have random people and nefarious state actors provide your education, but maybe go out there and read reputabl…

Nice try, don't try to argue that silencing information is helping because I should educate myself through approved sources rather than conversations with community. Whats next re education camps? Dont be a bully dude!

It's not bullying to point out that some information sources are of poorer quality than others, and that social media selects not for information quality, but for flashiness and ability to enrage.

Re: Current RNA vaccines protect against worrying coronavirus variants

#184

Post by Spare_account »

reissbaker wrote: post #179
Spare_account wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has me wondering: Are there any events in history (with any other viruses) where this hasn't proven to be the case? Viruses that we've developed vaccines for, that have eventually been rendered inneffective due to a mutation? Is it a common occurence?

Not rendered ineffective per se, but it's part of why you need a flu shot every year. There are a lot of strains and they mutate a lot, so we do a best guess of which current strains will be the most infectious in a given year and develop vaccines targeting those strains. Generally the vaccines are moderately effective, but it's because we update them every year. If we didn't, they wouldn't be. That being said there…

>but it's because we update them every year.

OK, this is the part I wasn't aware of. I assumed (dangerous, I know) that each year's 'new' flu vaccine was really just a new 'blend' of existing proven vaccines, for the most prevalent strains that year.

Edited to remove badly conceived question. New Question: How often do we have to develop novel vaccines for new Flu variants?

Re: Current RNA vaccines protect against worrying coronavirus variants

#185

Post by feanaro »

adrianN wrote: post #149
killingtime74 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you should ask for sources instead. Authority is the wrong thing to trust in science

Unless you have a background in immunology the sources are probably not terrible useful to you.

Probably, but not definitely. The only thing preventing you from understanding the sources yourself is some effort. It's not as hard as it is sometimes imagined.

Re: Current RNA vaccines protect against worrying coronavirus variants

#186

Post by refurb »

xwolfi wrote: post #167
refurb wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Only the manufacturer"? You mean the company that scaled up production to hundreds of millions of doses, ran clinical trials in dozens of countries for tens of thousands of patients, put together all the regulatory documentation for dozens of countries, including negotiations with regulators, then developed a worldwide logistics system to get the vaccine where it's needed. And did all that with few stumbles in less…

But they re like Fosun, one of several. Ofc it s amazing how Fosun managed to vaccinate a million of us in Hong Kong, shipping ultra cold vaccines from Germany and setting up factories soon in Singapore. But man, the vaccine is made by Biontech and without them fosun would be shipping nothing at all. As for Pfizer, they do nothing at all for me in Hong Kong, see ?

No, they aren't like Fosun. Fosun took possession of finished product and sent it to people doing the vaccinations. That's it.

Pfizer did: 1) scaled up production to hundreds of millions of doses, 2) ran clinical trials in dozens of countries for tens of thousands of patients, 3) put together all the regulatory documentation for dozens of countries, including negotiations with regulators, 4) then developed a worldwide logistics system to get the vaccine where it's needed, including to local distributors like Fosun.

Re: Current RNA vaccines protect against worrying coronavirus variants

#187

Post by tsimionescu »

feanaro wrote: post #185
adrianN wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you have a background in immunology the sources are probably not terrible useful to you.

Probably, but not definitely. The only thing preventing you from understanding the sources yourself is some effort. It's not as hard as it is sometimes imagined.

One problem with that is that any individual study should be read in the context of other published literature, if you want to form an informed opinion. The only alternative is authority - either looking at the journal where it was published, the authority of the authors, or the authority of someone who recommended the paper.

Otherwise, it's easy to find plausible-sounding papers that have failed to reproduce in subsequent studies, that use too low samples compared to similar studies with different conclusions, that were later retracted etc.

Re: Current RNA vaccines protect against worrying coronavirus variants

#188

Post by jonathanstrange »

xeromal wrote: post #67
simonCGN wrote: post #65

It it a Biontech vaccine. Pfizer is only the manufacturer. After all, you also do not call the MacBook a Foxconn Laptop.

We're past that now. It's known as Pfizer in the official language of too many cities and countries.

I only know it as Biontech-Pfizer vaccine.

Re: Current RNA vaccines protect against worrying coronavirus variants

#189

Post by Avalaxy »

simonCGN wrote: post #65

It it a Biontech vaccine. Pfizer is only the manufacturer. After all, you also do not call the MacBook a Foxconn Laptop.

Same for the Janssen vaccine (from the Netherlands), which is called Johnson & Johnson vaccine everywhere.

Re: Current RNA vaccines protect against worrying coronavirus variants

#190

Post by Taniwha »

Spare_account wrote: post #184
reissbaker wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not rendered ineffective per se, but it's part of why you need a flu shot every year. There are a lot of strains and they mutate a lot, so we do a best guess of which current strains will be the most infectious in a given year and develop vaccines targeting those strains. Generally the vaccines are moderately effective, but it's because we update them every year. If we didn't, they wouldn't be. That being said there…

>but it's because we update them every year. OK, this is the part I wasn't aware of. I assumed (dangerous, I know) that each year's 'new' flu vaccine was really just a new 'blend' of existing proven vaccines, for the most prevalent strains that year. Edited to remove badly conceived question. New Question: How often do we have to develop novel vaccines for new Flu variants?

yes - they make a prediction about which strains will be prevalent every Northern and Southern winters - it's a bit of a crap shoot, they're not always right though usually they are.

As I understand it predicting which flu strains to vaccinate this year is particularly hard because mask wearing/isolation/social distancing has reduced flu levels enough that they don't have a lot of data to base their predictions on

Post reply on HN