Hacker News Reader

I feel like we are going to have to get a yearly booster and they will be guessing the strains every year just like the flu.

Note: 100% a gut feeling

Jan 23rd, https://www.rt.com/news/546859-pfizer-ceo-future-vaccines/

> In a series of interviews with Israeli TV channels, Albert Bourla said it would “not be a good scenario” if people were to get boosters every four to five months. “What I'm hoping [is] that we will have a vaccine that you will have to do once a year,” ... Bourla argued that it is both easier to sell the idea and “easier for people to remember” if a vaccine is required only once per year, calling it “an ideal situation” from “a public health perspective.”

There's some distant hope for a "super" vaccine against the entire coronavirus (sub)family: https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/pan-coronavir...

I'm hoping for some serious advances in masks. And the social acceptability of walking around looking like Bane.

Imagine if the development work for covid vaccines ends up with more effective vaccines against things like flu and even the common cold

That was pretty obvious since March 2020. Highly contagious respiratory viruses with non-human reservoirs don't go back into the bottle, once they're circulating.

No, but flu is the only one that evolves so quickly that we need a new shot every year.

Coronaviruses give people colds too, they just weren't as widespread or symptomatic as influenza. Now, they probably will be.

> I forget what it's called, but there's this phenomenon in immunology where the immune system can get "stuck" with whatever initial antibodies it comes up with and doesn't adapt well.

It's called original antigenic sin[0]. It's one of the reasons that mass vaccination against a variant that is no longer circulating may not be the wisest strategy. But anyone who dares mention it is shouted down as anti-vaxx.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_antigenic_sin

I guess that’s a theoretical possibility for a different virus, but in truth the mRNA vaccines provide robust protection from serious illness from omicron: https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination

It is a possibility for any virus

Well it’s empirically not the case for Omicron, as the vaccines have continued to provide robust protection against hospitalization and death

Neither the post you replied to or I said it applied to omicron. in fact, the parent said that it didn't. The fact that it didnt apply to omnicron, does not mean that it couldn't apply to covid, which is the claim you made.

So it’s about a theoretical future variant?

The point was that it could have happened with Covid-19, and could still happen with Covid-19.

Probably not very likely, but to say Covid-19 is somehow outside the scope of original antigenic sin theory is silly.

Ok, not sure what point you’re trying to make then. The vaccines worked very well against delta and omicron variants and had we halted vaccinations once variants began to take hold it would have cost millions of lives. There are many thousands of known variants of Covid-19

My only point was to provide correction to your erroneous statement.

>I guess that’s a theoretical possibility for a different virus

Im not trying to claim it applied to omicron, current vaccine efficacy, that we should halt vaccinations, or any other strawman you are trying to put up.

You can simply acknowledge the correction

> the immune system can get "stuck" with whatever initial antibodies it comes up with and doesn't adapt well

Original antigenic sin. However I don't think it predicts that the alpha-based boosters we have will be any more effective, and I don't think that we are observing particularly impressive effectiveness either.

Will there be confirmed better oversight than with Pfizer's 12-15 year old clinical trial, re: Maddie De Garay's story?

https://youtu.be/L2GKPYzL_JQ - "How many more adverse effects have been covered up during the trials? - Maddie de Garay's story."

The Maddie de Garay story is tragic and history will not look kindly on the unnecessary censorship of an injured child in Pfizer's original clinical trial. They could have used that incident as an opportunity to demonstrate the protocols for investigation and prevent of similar injuries.

It's promising that there will be slightly higher regulatory standards for the Omicron vaccine: clinical trial in humans must be completed before approval and clinical trial data must be submitted at the same time, i.e. no 75-year delays.

> the debate appears to have shifted with the European Medicines Agency (EMA) saying on Friday that international regulators now preferred clinical studies to be carried out before approval of a new vaccine ... Inclusion of clinical trial data in the regulatory filings may have an impact on the delivery of initial batches.

Don't you think everyone in society would be shocked to also know that, aside from suppressing her severe adverse reactions, they only tracked participants for 7 days - along with other blatantly obvious problems with the vaccine trial designs?

Yes, we need more transparency on all the trials, e.g. comparing methodology and benchmarking against standard practices. Justifications for corner cutting in 2020 trials should not apply to 2022+ trials. If this issue were more widely understood, there would be several open-source repos aggregating "lessons learned" and public info about the trials, across countries and vendors.

It's interesting that you're minimizing the gross lack of integrity as simply corner cutting - there isn't a single valid reason for that. Anything counter-mainstream narrative is suppressed, so that is part of the problem to your "if this issue were more widely understood" - the scientific process, conversation, has been highly suppressed over these last 2 years.

A major British medical journal just demanded that the raw trial data be released - but will it even be untampered with - like the Maddie De Garay situation insinuates happens widespread since there were no, and still no, government health agencies who have sounded an alarm - or caught it and put a hold on the vaccine release for different age groups until uncompromised trials were completed?

The system capture here is so obvious it's blinding.

Step 1 is to remove plausible deniability, e.g. urgency being used to bypass existing controls, and restore some systemic control. Ultimately we will need new systems to prevent this from happening again, at many levels of governance.

There are many nested challenges, e.g. system/regulatory capture is not new, but can you think of a single historical example with pervasive lockstep censorship across media, industry and government in multiple countries? Did government relief/stimulus funding distort incentives for health outcomes, e.g. ineffective high-fee ventilators vs. early treatment with existing drugs?

Even in the face of lockstep censorship, as truth/facts surfaced in 2020-2021, why did no organized presentation achieve widespread public visibility? Without an accurate threat model (e.g. infiltration of health freedom groups, https://ccsfreedom.org/), truth will not be sufficient to prevail against organized opposition.

FYI this guy is extremely anti-vax and what he was saying was roundly condemned. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/dec/07/liber...

And what are your thoughts, not fed to you by a mainstream narrative, on the contents of what Maddie De Garay shared about her and her daughter's experience in the Pfizer trial - or is ~10 minutes plus the time to think and write about it too much effort for you to dedicate to such an important issue such as integrity?