5 ms·

“The huge success of the mRNA vaccination platform” Does anyone know what the agreed upon criteria for asserting the success of mRNA vaccinations is? Aren’t w

“The huge success of the mRNA vaccination platform” Does anyone know what the agreed upon criteria for asserting the success of mRNA vaccinations is? Aren’t we anticipating an uptick in cases in the US as we approach winter? Why are we assuming success already?

maxerickson 5y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by "agreed upon", but they are, blatantly, obviously, preventing (lots of) infections in lots of countries at this point.
- redis_mlc 5y ago
  Or, you know, corona is a highly contagious disease and after a year we've reached herd immunity in the US. Which is basically what the NIH just reported on June 22, 2021: https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-study-suggests-covid-19-prevalence-far-exceeded-early-pandemic-cases https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-study-sugg... The NIH report debunks two common tropes on HN: 1) That consumer masks work - they don't stop the spread of corona. 2) That COVID-19 vaccines are necessary for herd immunity - we already had it beforehand. This was obvious (and I mentioned that here several times) since early 2020 if you look at the Santa Clara hospital ICU utilization, which averaged only 10% throughout most of the pandemic because of daily flights from China to SFO causing widespread infections in SF and SC. Sorry for reporting actual science (with data) on HN, instead of the garbage discussed here since early 2020. My bad.
didibus 5y ago
> Why are we assuming success already? I guess a combination of how little side-effects they've had at scale, and of how effective the data shows they are at preventing the first virus and the earlier variants, which is what it was designed for. I think the uptick expected is with regards to unvaccinated people, and to new variants for the most part. You should also still see a 5% to 10% of cases in vaccinated people, as the vaccines show a range of effectiveness only around the 90%, so an uptick will still occur, but the overall numbers should be much lower in vaccinated people. To conclude, success is not on our fight against Covid, though you can say it definitely helped a lot, but the vaccine technology has definitely shown success here.
fastaguy88 5y ago
Before hundreds of millions of people were vaccinated, the agreed on success was from the initial clinical trials, which saw virtually no infections in the vaccinated group, and hundreds in the unvaccinated. Now, with so many people vaccinated, more than 90% of new cases are in people who are unvaccinated (and virtually no COVID-related deaths).
DaniloDias 5y ago
Good lord, people. The above is a legitimate question. Breakthrough cases happen. This negates the argument for “preventative.” Does it prevent deaths? Perhaps. It appears to cause deaths too. https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data We haven’t even had a legitimate debate about whether the vaccinations created the DELTA STRAIN! If you want to be on the side of science, you have to define shared success criteria.
- headsoup 5y ago
  While it could be presented better, I think this point is fair. We seem to mostly be happy to write-off the downsides because 'but the alternative is worse.' Sure, but let's not stop applying a critical eye and measured caution with things that are still in trial phase with inconclusive evidence for long term success.
  - manwe150 5y ago
    If he wrote instead of “does it prevents death? Perhaps.” actual estimated numbers, I think the question would be clearer: “is 300000 bigger than 6000? Perhaps.” But that “Perhaps” seems to be doing a lot of work there, which would normally be done by words such as “So far quite well” Has any of their claims ever happened before? Random internet dude would benefit from offering some links to past examples, or his questions sound like he hasn’t done any honest attempt at research, but just made them up like a fairy tale villain.
  - sjagoe 5y ago
    I think misrepresenting data that explicitly states it can not be used to make this conclusion, to come to this conclusion is not a fair point and works to propagate vaccine conspiracy theories. See my other reponse with details from VAERS about not using this data to directly determine vaccine cause of adverse effects.
    - hammon 5y ago
      sssh!, we cannot speak about "adverse" deadly reaction to experimental rna treatments :P Blood clots does non exist! And if healthy people dies, these are "collateral deaths, very rare". Until you are one of the very rare death, who in 95% of case get covid whith-out any symptoms...
SonOfLilit 5y ago
Even if humanity wasn't able to manufacture 12b vaccination doses in time for the winter (success of the vaccination program), mRNA still undoubtedly proved itself as a technology (success of mRNA as a vaccination platform). mRNA vaccinations were faster to develop, easier to modify for new strains, and probably more effective than alternatives.

maxerickson 5y ago

I'm not sure what you mean by "agreed upon", but they are, blatantly, obviously, preventing (lots of) infections in lots of countries at this point.

redis_mlc 5y ago
Or, you know, corona is a highly contagious disease and after a year we've reached herd immunity in the US. Which is basically what the NIH just reported on June 22, 2021: https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-study-suggests-covid-19-prevalence-far-exceeded-early-pandemic-cases https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-study-sugg... The NIH report debunks two common tropes on HN: 1) That consumer masks work - they don't stop the spread of corona. 2) That COVID-19 vaccines are necessary for herd immunity - we already had it beforehand. This was obvious (and I mentioned that here several times) since early 2020 if you look at the Santa Clara hospital ICU utilization, which averaged only 10% throughout most of the pandemic because of daily flights from China to SFO causing widespread infections in SF and SC. Sorry for reporting actual science (with data) on HN, instead of the garbage discussed here since early 2020. My bad.

didibus 5y ago

> Why are we assuming success already? I guess a combination of how little side-effects they've had at scale, and of how effective the data shows they are at preventing the first virus and the earlier variants, which is what it was designed for. I think the uptick expected is with regards to unvaccinated people, and to new variants for the most part. You should also still see a 5% to 10% of cases in vaccinated people, as the vaccines show a range of effectiveness only around the 90%, so an uptick will still occur, but the overall numbers should be much lower in vaccinated people. To conclude, success is not on our fight against Covid, though you can say it definitely helped a lot, but the vaccine technology has definitely shown success here.

fastaguy88 5y ago

Before hundreds of millions of people were vaccinated, the agreed on success was from the initial clinical trials, which saw virtually no infections in the vaccinated group, and hundreds in the unvaccinated. Now, with so many people vaccinated, more than 90% of new cases are in people who are unvaccinated (and virtually no COVID-related deaths).

DaniloDias 5y ago

Good lord, people. The above is a legitimate question. Breakthrough cases happen. This negates the argument for “preventative.” Does it prevent deaths? Perhaps. It appears to cause deaths too. https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data We haven’t even had a legitimate debate about whether the vaccinations created the DELTA STRAIN! If you want to be on the side of science, you have to define shared success criteria.

headsoup 5y ago
While it could be presented better, I think this point is fair. We seem to mostly be happy to write-off the downsides because 'but the alternative is worse.' Sure, but let's not stop applying a critical eye and measured caution with things that are still in trial phase with inconclusive evidence for long term success.
- manwe150 5y ago
  If he wrote instead of “does it prevents death? Perhaps.” actual estimated numbers, I think the question would be clearer: “is 300000 bigger than 6000? Perhaps.” But that “Perhaps” seems to be doing a lot of work there, which would normally be done by words such as “So far quite well” Has any of their claims ever happened before? Random internet dude would benefit from offering some links to past examples, or his questions sound like he hasn’t done any honest attempt at research, but just made them up like a fairy tale villain.
- sjagoe 5y ago
  I think misrepresenting data that explicitly states it can not be used to make this conclusion, to come to this conclusion is not a fair point and works to propagate vaccine conspiracy theories. See my other reponse with details from VAERS about not using this data to directly determine vaccine cause of adverse effects.
  - hammon 5y ago
    sssh!, we cannot speak about "adverse" deadly reaction to experimental rna treatments :P Blood clots does non exist! And if healthy people dies, these are "collateral deaths, very rare". Until you are one of the very rare death, who in 95% of case get covid whith-out any symptoms...

SonOfLilit 5y ago

Even if humanity wasn't able to manufacture 12b vaccination doses in time for the winter (success of the vaccination program), mRNA still undoubtedly proved itself as a technology (success of mRNA as a vaccination platform). mRNA vaccinations were faster to develop, easier to modify for new strains, and probably more effective than alternatives.