91–100 of 195 posts
Does these vaccines need an adjuvant to work, or is the change to the affected cells large enough to trigger an immune reaction?
Anyone knows why they insist on both doses given the limited supply of the vaccine and the marginal increase in effectiveness with the second dose? I would imagine every single day counts. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Rvzdi8RS9Bda5aLt2/covid-12-1...
From the linked article[0]: “Yes, Moderna’s vaccine prevents transmission. One dose is good for reducing infection by 63%, two by over 90%.” The number of people you need to vaccinate with a 63% effective vaccine versus a 90% effective vaccine is a huge gap. There are two issues with vaccines that staring at these numbers won’t tell you: 1. Not everyone is going to get vaccinated. 2. The number of people who will get…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does anyone here know the reason for the difference? They're both mRNA vaccines, right? So why does one need a deep freeze and the other one not?
According to NPR [1] > Moderna spokesperson Colleen Hussey explained to NPR in an email that its vaccine doesn't need to be kept so cold because of its particular "lipid nanoparticle properties and structure," and because the company has learned from experience — it's developed ten mRNA vaccine candidates already. "Now we don't need [ultra-cold conditions] as the quality of product has improved and [it] doesn't need…
The latter would require another phase2/phase3 trial I assume, and you'd think they would've tested the former by now thoroughly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both of the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) require two doses. Don't know if the 2nd dose is the same as the first.
Both the first and second doses of the mRNA vaccines are identical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Challenge trials don’t work when 40% of infected are asymptomatic. And challenge trials especially don’t work when 15% of cases require hospitalization and ICU beds are already maxed out.
What doesn't work about it? Being ethical and getting results are not the same thing.
Anyone knows why they insist on both doses given the limited supply of the vaccine and the marginal increase in effectiveness with the second dose? I would imagine every single day counts. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Rvzdi8RS9Bda5aLt2/covid-12-1...
From the linked article[0]: “Yes, Moderna’s vaccine prevents transmission. One dose is good for reducing infection by 63%, two by over 90%.” The number of people you need to vaccinate with a 63% effective vaccine versus a 90% effective vaccine is a huge gap. There are two issues with vaccines that staring at these numbers won’t tell you: 1. Not everyone is going to get vaccinated. 2. The number of people who will get…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to NPR [1] > Moderna spokesperson Colleen Hussey explained to NPR in an email that its vaccine doesn't need to be kept so cold because of its particular "lipid nanoparticle properties and structure," and because the company has learned from experience — it's developed ten mRNA vaccine candidates already. "Now we don't need [ultra-cold conditions] as the quality of product has improved and [it] doesn't need…
Are they saying it's possible the existing BioNtech vaccine will be stable at lower temps or that they could make it with the alternative lipid? The latter would require another phase2/phase3 trial I assume, and you'd think they would've tested the former by now thoroughly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s terrible messaging given that reinfection is rare but possible and occasionally deadly. We want everyone to take it.
Hard to imagine that infection and recovery from the actual virus confers less immunity than the vaccine, but even without knowing that, it seems reasonable that people who have already recovered should be a lower priority for vaccination than more at-risk groups.
Most people probably are at lower risk, but some people are dying from reinfection. They certainly weren’t.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does anyone here know the reason for the difference? They're both mRNA vaccines, right? So why does one need a deep freeze and the other one not?
According to NPR [1] > Moderna spokesperson Colleen Hussey explained to NPR in an email that its vaccine doesn't need to be kept so cold because of its particular "lipid nanoparticle properties and structure," and because the company has learned from experience — it's developed ten mRNA vaccine candidates already. "Now we don't need [ultra-cold conditions] as the quality of product has improved and [it] doesn't need…
They're saying that the differences are secret, and they're not gonna release the specific structure of the LNPs and why the differences are there. The equivalent of having two proprietary binaries that both accomplish the same task, but have different code, and the reasons why are secret as well.
And we're accepting this on the first mRNA vaccine ever to be used on a massive scale, all to protect their profits before the rest of the world can start producing vaccines. Yes they spent a lot of money and time creating the vaccine. Now open source it and let the rest of the world save their citizens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Different lipid nano particles, or maybe just stability testing. The vaccines could be stable at lower temperatures but the companies haven’t had time to prove it by letting the vaccine sit in a fridge for months.
At higher temperatures, you mean.