Tweet
Originally posted by TheLurch
View Post
Ok, number of things.
I think Ronson is thinking of the discussion Rogue and I had about the two vaccines from Chinese companies that are based on inactivated viruses, and don't appear to be nearly as effective as most alternatives. They're not totally worthless, but they are definitely in "must have boosters from some other vaccine" territory.
The two mRNA vaccines appear to be effective against all current variants, but only after two doses. J&J takes longer (~6 weeks) after the injection to reach similar levels of protection, and the company released some early data indicating it's effective against the delta variant.
J&J does have a very rare blood clotting side effect, same as AstraZenica - not surprising, since they're based on the same technology. AstraZenica's been... weird. The company sent out a press release with numbers that didn't agree with the ones that eventually came out in a peer reviewed study, and it never even tried to get an Emergency Use Authorization in the US. It's probably fine, but it's just a little bit off. Russia's Sputnik also seems to be good, but again, the company's data on it definitely had some oddities.
Novavax has also released data that looks very good, and should be available in positively huge quantities by the end of the year, but is only just ramping up. There are a large number of others in various stages of development.
As far as we can tell, none of these prevent infections entirely. Instead, the infections are shorter, less likely to be symptomatic, and far less likely to require hospitalization. People who do get infected after vaccination are far less infectious as well. It's also clear that the virus is evolving in a way that allows it to avoid the immune response generated by both prior infections and vaccines. The most dangerous variant circulating currently is delta, and the vaccines all do somewhat worse against that: more symptomatic infections, more hospitalizations, etc. The good vaccines still keep people alive, but the margins of error are getting smaller.
The risk of further evolution that cuts down the effectiveness of the vaccines is why nobody's ruling out a need for boosters specifically designed for variants yet. There's also been no indication that the evolution of the virus has made it any less lethal.
The most important thing all of us can do is to keep from getting infected. The fewer infections there are anywhere, the smaller the virus population, and the fewer chances the virus will have for further evolution. This is why we should also support our countries' efforts to roll out vaccines globally, even if we're simply selfish about things: it ultimately protects us.
I think Ronson is thinking of the discussion Rogue and I had about the two vaccines from Chinese companies that are based on inactivated viruses, and don't appear to be nearly as effective as most alternatives. They're not totally worthless, but they are definitely in "must have boosters from some other vaccine" territory.
The two mRNA vaccines appear to be effective against all current variants, but only after two doses. J&J takes longer (~6 weeks) after the injection to reach similar levels of protection, and the company released some early data indicating it's effective against the delta variant.
J&J does have a very rare blood clotting side effect, same as AstraZenica - not surprising, since they're based on the same technology. AstraZenica's been... weird. The company sent out a press release with numbers that didn't agree with the ones that eventually came out in a peer reviewed study, and it never even tried to get an Emergency Use Authorization in the US. It's probably fine, but it's just a little bit off. Russia's Sputnik also seems to be good, but again, the company's data on it definitely had some oddities.
Novavax has also released data that looks very good, and should be available in positively huge quantities by the end of the year, but is only just ramping up. There are a large number of others in various stages of development.
As far as we can tell, none of these prevent infections entirely. Instead, the infections are shorter, less likely to be symptomatic, and far less likely to require hospitalization. People who do get infected after vaccination are far less infectious as well. It's also clear that the virus is evolving in a way that allows it to avoid the immune response generated by both prior infections and vaccines. The most dangerous variant circulating currently is delta, and the vaccines all do somewhat worse against that: more symptomatic infections, more hospitalizations, etc. The good vaccines still keep people alive, but the margins of error are getting smaller.
The risk of further evolution that cuts down the effectiveness of the vaccines is why nobody's ruling out a need for boosters specifically designed for variants yet. There's also been no indication that the evolution of the virus has made it any less lethal.
The most important thing all of us can do is to keep from getting infected. The fewer infections there are anywhere, the smaller the virus population, and the fewer chances the virus will have for further evolution. This is why we should also support our countries' efforts to roll out vaccines globally, even if we're simply selfish about things: it ultimately protects us.
Comment