Moderna Vaccine Appears To Work Against Variants (bbc.com) 94
Moderna's Covid vaccine appears to work against new, more infectious variants of the pandemic virus found in the UK and South Africa, say scientists from the US pharmaceutical company. The BBC reports: Early laboratory tests suggest antibodies triggered by the vaccine can recognize and fight the new variants. More studies are needed to confirm this is true for people who have been vaccinated. Current vaccines were designed around earlier variants, but scientists believe they should still work against the new ones, although perhaps not quite as well. There are already some early results that suggest the Pfizer vaccine protects against the new UK variant.
For the Moderna study, researchers looked at blood samples taken from eight people who had received the recommended two doses of the Moderna vaccine. The findings are yet to be peer reviewed, but suggest immunity from the vaccine recognizes the new variants. Neutralizing antibodies, made by the body's immune system, stop the virus from entering cells. Blood samples exposed to the new variants appeared to have sufficient antibodies to achieve this neutralizing effect, although it was not as strong for the South Africa variant as for the UK one. Moderna says this could mean that protection against the South Africa variant might disappear more quickly. Moderna says it's investigating whether a redesigned vaccine would be more effective against the new variants. It's also testing whether giving a third booster shot might be beneficial.
For the Moderna study, researchers looked at blood samples taken from eight people who had received the recommended two doses of the Moderna vaccine. The findings are yet to be peer reviewed, but suggest immunity from the vaccine recognizes the new variants. Neutralizing antibodies, made by the body's immune system, stop the virus from entering cells. Blood samples exposed to the new variants appeared to have sufficient antibodies to achieve this neutralizing effect, although it was not as strong for the South Africa variant as for the UK one. Moderna says this could mean that protection against the South Africa variant might disappear more quickly. Moderna says it's investigating whether a redesigned vaccine would be more effective against the new variants. It's also testing whether giving a third booster shot might be beneficial.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: wow sample of 8.. (Score:2)
Well, if you're trying to make a quasi-historical argument, Mark and Matt are closer to the source and are considered a bit more reliable.
Re:wow sample of 8.. (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, stupid Moderna not conducting followup research, except for of course the followup research the article explicitly mentions them conducting...
This is perfectly useful preliminary research, valuable for policymakers. The sort of antiboies that people produce seem to bind quite effectively with the UK strain and fairly effectively against the SA strain - good enough info for now. I also assume that Moderna knows whether there tends to be a great deal of variety in antibodies produced between individuals or not. Now trials will progress and we'll see how unvaccinated compares with old two-shot vaccination vs. new vaccine vs. booster, in a population.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, stupid Moderna not conducting followup research, except for of course the followup research the article explicitly mentions them conducting...
This is perfectly useful preliminary research, valuable for policymakers. The sort of antiboies that people produce seem to bind quite effectively with the UK strain and fairly effectively against the SA strain - good enough info for now. I also assume that Moderna knows whether there tends to be a great deal of variety in antibodies produced between individuals or not. Now trials will progress and we'll see how unvaccinated compares with old two-shot vaccination vs. new vaccine vs. booster, in a population.
I'm virtually certain, left to the discretion (or mere suggestion) of Moderna, a 3rd vaccination will improve the effectiveness a nonzero amount, and thus, be implemented.
Just because they've made a fair amount on the vaccine thus far, I do not expect them to shy away from the prospect of future positive quarterly earnings.
I have more than a few friends and acquaintances who are skeptical of the rapid vaccine development and rollout... although I like to point out the government throwing billions at (here
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly no doubt ther experts will recommend a new boost ever month or quarter for a year or two. One has to wonder how they managed to test this in such a short period of time when it takes years for other medicines.
Well, emergency exceptions to typical FDA approval, and such, undoubtedly expedited the process for the companies that contributed, but tossing billions of units of currency at a problem probably properly incentivizes the process.
I'm less worried about the short(ish) trial period than I am the likelihood of tomorrows sunrise.
Re:wow sample of 8.. (Score:4, Informative)
I'm less worried about the short(ish) trial period than I am the likelihood of tomorrows sunrise.
ok for the vaccine but what do you know about tomorrow's sunrise that I don't.
Re: (Score:2)
The most beautiful sunrise is always the next one.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree; What SOME of the people at the Capitol did on 1/6 crossed over the line from protest to rioting (or if you prefer domestic terrorism). People who commit crimes should be held accountable. What is galling is he double standard. What SOME of the BLMers did is every bit as much terrorism by the same definitions in they attack government buildings and disrupted government operations, obstructed justice and more - for political cause. Yet few on the left are willing to apply the T word or S word. I woul
Re: (Score:3)
"Their experts" are not villains. They are research scientists.
And any recomendation thats going to be taken seriously will have to be backed by a serious research paper. The go to sample sizes for these things seems to be 30-40K people (Which makes these things some of the most well tested medicines in memory).
So any serious recomendation of a third shot isn't going to come from marketing droids, but from research papers published and peer reviewed in proper respected medical journals.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The "sample of 8" thing isn't a paper thats going to lead to policy. Its the much larger follow up studies that do. These tiny sample studies are more put out there to say "Hey, this is interesting, we should follow this up and see if it plays out on a larger scale".
The media tends to jump on them, because the tiny studies ones are more likely to have other scientists jump on and say "Woah, slow down cowboy, this needs more study", and thats drama you can sell newspapers with.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. In fact, the only way that vaccine manufacturers get to remain immune to lawsuits is via continuous monitoring of their vaccines and provision of all data to regulators, which then have the right to pull a vaccine off the market if the risk profile appears to be too high. Their incentives absolutely align with public health.
(Of course, in this case, public health also happens to align with their bottom line, as there's a massive public health crisis right now ready to throw billions upon billions of
Re: (Score:2)
One has to wonder how they managed to test this in such a short period of time when it takes years for other medicines.
Could it be because the standard test cycle is padded to maintain the market value of older medications and out of fears of predatory trial lawyers? Suddenly there's a global emergency, and we discover that we really can do medically adequate testing in a much shorter time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
i was personally willing and decided in december to wait until december 2021 to see who sprouted wings or a third leg or maybe turned into some kind of walking dead or triffids . So far i have concluded most people have turned into triffids but someone tells me they have always been like that (i dont get out much anymore) , so i was hoping to pick only the one where you can grow wings so i can fly to mars myself until its
Re: (Score:2)
I have more than a few friends and acquaintances who are skeptical of the rapid vaccine development and rollout ...
Neither the rollout nor the development was quick. No idea when Moderna was founded (you can google that for yourself), but BioNtech was founded 22008, with the sole sole to develop anti Corona vaccines. So: a development time fo roughly 12 years
Neither Mondena nor BioNtrech nor those other small newcomers can be counted as "big Pharma" while keeping an honest face.
Re: wow sample of 8.. (Score:2)
Big Pharma doesn't refer to some arbitrary large pharmaceutical company. It refers to the industry as a whole and its outsized influence from lobbyists who write the laws regulating these companies. Moderna and BioNTech benefit from these laws almost as much as Pfizer.
Re: (Score:2)
And from which particular law would BioNtech "benefit"?
The law that forces them to test vaccines before "selling" them?
Re:wow sample of 8 - drug companies hate vaccines (Score:2)
You do know that drug companies hate vaccines? The economics of a vaccine are terrible. You go to all that expense (research/development plus trials with 10s of thousands of participants isn't cheap) and then each user only gets 1 (or maybe 2) doses of the vaccine.
Compare that with something like blood pressure medication. Do the same research/development/trials expense and now each user is buying that drug from you daily for the rest of their life.
Drug companies are by no means blameless but I'd tone do
Huh, interesting (Score:5, Funny)
In the context of this information, how feasible is it that *one* cootie shot could immunize you against *all* girls?
I suppose it's only after you get older that you realize that girls are a continuum of differential forms, so it probably seemed more reasonable earlier on. I'm still not sure exactly what said vaccination is supposed to protect you from, though.
Re:Huh, interesting (Score:5, Funny)
Well, I'm gay, and I already came down with the 'spergers. At this point, there's no reason for me to take it.
Or... no reason not to take it. Hmm...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Political appointees are not the best and brightest, they are those who most effectively served the political campaign of politicians as directed by the corporations that employed them
Sounds an affaul like like socialism.
6 fold reduction in antibodies (Score:5, Insightful)
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2... [nytimes.com]
The variant found in Britain had no effect on the levels of neutralizing antibodies — the type that can disable the virus — produced after vaccination. But with the form from South Africa, there was a sixfold reduction in those levels. Even so, the company said, those antibodies “remain above levels that are expected to be protective.”
This seems to contradict the experts to some extent. They have been saying that it will take the virus years to mutate to evade the vaccines (and the antibodies the vaccine induces and the antibodies natural infection induces) but here is a mutation that is closer to doing that after just a year. There has been a lot of news lately saying that the larger the pool of infected people the more mutations occur. So it appears that mutation rate is proportional to the number of people infected and since there are large numbers of people infected the mutation rate is higher than expected. I suspect the experts based their mutation expectations on experience with past coronaviruses but those did not spread as far or as fast because some people had at least partial immunity from past infections. There have also been multiple independent mutations that appear to cause faster spread in less than a year and there are recent hints that the UK variant may be slightly more deadly. None of this is certain, and since mutations are random there is a large element of chance involved. However if the likelyhood of bad mutations rises with number of infections, bad mutations may be occurring much sooner than the experts predicted. It's good that Moderna is working on modifications to their vaccine now.
Re:6 fold reduction in antibodies (Score:5, Informative)
Thankfully, modification to both mRNA and adenovirus vaccines is fast and easy. The only real time limits are to conduct the studies on the effectiveness of their new variants vs. new strains. I can't imagine that the virus could possibly outmutate them, especially once we start to drive down its population, and thus its rate of mutation.
Big question for me is whether it will get established in any wildlife reservoirs that are sufficiently large enough for it to survive for protracted periods (small reservoirs are insufficient, as it'll infect said "herd" until herd immunity develops).
Re:6 fold reduction in antibodies (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:6 fold reduction in antibodies (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If you have enough actual antibodies, then the virus has no chance to infect you. Unfortunately the antibodies go away with time, but the white blood cells remain. So if you get infected having trained white blood cells but no antibodies, antibody creation will start immediately
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the reason they are only claiming to reduce severity is that COVID is known to sometimes produce asymptomatic infections which are hard to detect, making it hard to know if the treated group actually had less infections.
We can suspect and hope that it either completely prevents a fair number of infections of shortens them significantly, but we can't prove it.
Re: (Score:3)
They do not claim to prevent you from getting infected and passing the disease on to others.
False. Getting sick is a brute force way for your body to handle and attempt to expel a virus it can't control. When your immune system knows how to handle a virus then antibodies are generated quickly and viruses are eliminated efficiently without getting sick as such, without covering it in phlegm and ejecting it from your nose and mouth, and without attempting to burn it out of your body (very oversimplified explanation). As such if you have a vaccination that dramatically reduces your symptoms it's beca
animal reservoirs (Score:3, Interesting)
It's already done. (Score:2)
Big question for me is whether it will get established in any wildlife reservoirs that are sufficiently large enough for it to survive for protracted periods
There's already a large reservoir.
The problem is that numerous coronoviruses already exists in bats, and there's been studies on the country side in China detecting that farmer getting infected from bat keeps happening every now and then.The only luck that we have is that most of these incidents don't result in a virus that can easily spread in humans and that this virus mutates a bit slower than influenza (lower error rate during copy + lack's influenza "shuffle the multi-segments around" mecanism of recom
Re: (Score:2)
Thankfully, modification to both mRNA and adenovirus vaccines is fast and easy.
It is easy to modify both of them, but in case of the adenovirus-based vaccines, you have the vector issue, i.e. if you use the same strain as before, you can induce an immune response to the vector instead of the target protein, so efficacy of the vaccine can be very low, and you need another trial to determine it. On the other hand, mRNA vaccines do not have this problem, and they can quickly adopted to a new variant, and we can expect to have the same efficiency as before.
Re:6 fold reduction in antibodies (Score:5, Informative)
Re:6 fold reduction in antibodies (Score:5, Interesting)
No mod points, but right on. I wish someone had made this point when "herd immunity" was the talking point against taking fast, aggressive, inconvenient action to stop its spread -- that during a global pandemic, "herd immunity" for humans also works as a great "incubation pool" for virus mutations.
"Hey fellow viruses, go ahead and try something different! We've already got a huge viral load to work with in this body, and word has it that these organisms are giving us pretty much free reign to spread to other ones, so knock yourselves out!"
Re: (Score:2)
Free rein. It's about horses, not kings....
Re: 6 fold reduction in antibodies (Score:2)
Like a king, once you grant free reign, it's much harder to take back.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:6 fold reduction in antibodies (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a combination of two things: high prevalence in a population, and selection pressure favoring mutations that are able to infect others even when social distancing and mask wearing is observed.
Think about it like bacterial resistance to antibiotics. The total number of mutations per unit of time is proportional to the bacterial load. The more bacteria, the higher the probability that there will be a random mutation that improves fitness. Now, consider what happens when antibiotics are introduced: if the antibacterial effect is not complete, then the antibiotic is merely selecting for those mutations that result in the bacteria being able to better evade it, until that strain becomes dominant, at which point a second- or third-line therapy is needed. This is sometimes why combination therapies are used--you're hitting the bacteria with multiple agents, achieving the reduction of bacterial load to the point where mutation rate is not high enough to develop resistance, and at the same time, making it more improbable for mutations to be able to evade those agents.
So when we think about how the novel coronavirus is mutating, it is obvious that it is not simply that more people are getting infected; it is that they are getting infected despite circumstances that are intended to limit transmission. That is not to say we should stop social distancing or wearing masks or practicing hygiene; rather it is a reminder that these practices are not the end-all and be-all to stopping the virus. Distancing is not a magic bullet. It is a temporary change in our behavior that, if not adhered to diligently, only confers partial protection, just like improper antibiotic use. And the solution to ending this pandemic is the same: combination therapies, or in this case, combination tactics. Highly effective vaccines, new formulations of vaccines to address mutations, social distancing, mask wearing, proper hygiene, economic relief, restrictions on travel, contact tracing, isolation/quarantine measures, increased testing, viral genome sequencing--all of these need to be done, and done well, in order for the pandemic to stop. Half-assed approaches at best only buy a little more time and at worst are ineffective, create resentment, and cause further noncompliance.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a temporary change in our behavior that, if not adhered to diligently, only confers partial protection, just like improper antibiotic use.
Even if adhered to diligently, it still only offers partial protection. But it's still better to have some protection than no protection...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The (imperfect) analogy I had used earlier is about thinking of the global human population like one giant host, and each individual human is like a cell of that host. When I speak of "diligent" mask use and social distancing practices, I am not talking about the individual risk of infection despite adherence. Rather, I am talking about the proportion of the population with proper and consistent compliance that is required to substantially reduce transmission in that population. "Partial protection" ther
Re: 6 fold reduction in antibodies (Score:2)
That is correct. But the science says less people get infected, AND infections are less severe due to reduced viral load, so anyone refusing to wear a mask for other than valid medical reasons is at best extremely selfish.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose that's the difference between mechanical cleaning and using chemicals that kill bacteria in place.
Re: 6 fold reduction in antibodies (Score:2)
I think it's because you're not killing them, just removing them. There's limited selective pressure.
Re: (Score:2)
Handwashing does both. Soap's mechanism of action is twofold: first, it is made of fatty acids which causes bacterial cell lysis by chemically reacting with the cell membrane (which is a lipid bilayer), bursting it open. Second, it has excellent ability to emulsify oils in water--in other words, it removes dirt and grease by attaching itself to both and allowing grime to be washed away by mechanical action. It's why, if you get oil on your hands, just rinsing with water is not going to do much. Our skin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
there was a sixfold reduction in those levels. Even so, the company said, those antibodies âoeremain above levels that are expected to be protective.â
This seems to contradict the experts to some extent. They have been saying that it will take the virus years to mutate to evade the vaccines (and the antibodies the vaccine induces and the antibodies natural infection induces) but here is a mutation that is closer to doing that after just a year.
I don't have the biology to know if any of that matters. It may well be that any mutation results in a pretty significant drop in antibody response but that does not mean a mutation that will result in antibody response to low to prevent infection is actually at all likely.
To use a car analogy. Lets say I plan to drive 100miles, and have a full tank of gas. Anything I put on the roof rack of the vehicle causes more air resistance and significantly reduces fuel economy, but there is nothing I can put up ther
Re: (Score:2)
This seems to contradict the experts to some extent.
No it doesn't. Evolution is a game of statistics, experts know that. Trying to explain it in simple terms results in some convolution of the message. Just because a HDD has a MTTF of 1000000 hours and the odds of winning the lottery are 1/50000000 doesn't mean you're contradicted tomorrow by your HDD failing and you suddenly finding yourself with the ability to buy them in the thousands.
It may contradict the dumb media presentation of what experts may have said to a few writers with an Arts degree.
Re: (Score:2)
A few points on this:
Mutations:
Mutations are a fact of life for all living beings. Viruses, due to many reasons (generation rate in hours, infecting millions of cells, ...), have a very fast mutation rate. That is just what goes on.
The problem is not mutations, but rather mutations that are selected for, and change behaviour. That is, evading immune system, more infectiousness, more virulence, and so on ...
Mutation Rate:
HIV is the fastest mutating human infecting virus. That is why a vaccine is near impossi
Yay! Good news for once (Score:4, Interesting)
If it had been revealed that the existing vaccines were not effective, then the just-ride-it-out crowd would have made a perhaps legitimate argument that containment can't keep up with mutations, and that we might as well go about ordinary life and let nature take it's course.
But vaccine-resistant mutations can still pop up in the future and give us hell down the road. It's a race between medical technology and evolution.
I suspect we'll have to change many aspects of life to be ready for such future infections. For example, more doors and fixtures that don't need physical touching to activate, more e-cash transactions, more rotating telecommuting (perhaps mandated by law), etc.
Re:Yay! Good news for once (Score:5, Insightful)
The flip side is that the mRNA tech theoretically allows the vaccine to be rapidly modified as required.
Re: (Score:2)
On the flip flip side, any such modification needs to go through many months of testing, so the process is not as fast as you may think.
Re: (Score:1)
"Theoretically" makes me a bit nervous.
Re: (Score:1)
might as well go about ordinary life
Do it and if I die then ... *shrug* I have nothing to live for anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
But vaccine-resistant mutations can still pop up in the future and give us hell down the road. It's a race between medical technology and evolution.
The virus evolution has good reason to create vaccine-resistant mutations, but no reason to create damage to the body. A vaccine-resistant mutation is also at advantage if it is less infectious in the absence of a vaccine. So there is a good chance of getting a virus that evades vaccines, but may be less infectious and less harmful.
Re:Yay! Good news for once (Score:4, Insightful)
The virus evolution has good reason to create vaccine-resistant mutations, but no reason to create damage to the body. A vaccine-resistant mutation is also at advantage if it is less infectious in the absence of a vaccine. So there is a good chance of getting a virus that evades vaccines, but may be less infectious and less harmful.
Viruses don't reason. Any possible mutation is plausible so long as it doesn't increase mortality rate before transmission.
Re: (Score:1)
Neither do many politicians involved.
Re: (Score:1)
Being heavily infectious is how it spreads itself.
A virus doesn't reason, and a death rate of 3% is too low to change its profile much within a few years. 3% is not enough selection pressure unless we are talking decades or longer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If you touch your nose or mouth, and then touch a doorknob, and somebody else touches that same knob and then also touches their own face or mouth, the risk of "surface transmission" is quite high.
It looks like it's going to become resistant (Score:4, Informative)
See the original press release here from Moderna:
https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-retains-neutralizing-activity-against
They measured a six-fold reduction in neutralising titers against the new variant. While the level was still high enough to offer protection against this new variant, it does suggest that it would not be that hard for the virus to mutate towards evading vaccine protection. And what they are doing in the UK - semi-immunising large swathes of the population who have weak/impaired immune systems, while there are large amounts of virus still in circulation - is pretty much prime conditions with which to select for a vaccine resistant candidate.
Anyway, we might get lucky, but we probably won't know until after the summer (the current lockdown and improving weather will knock infections back until then) as to whether the vaccination program is enough to keep hospitalisations down.
Re: It looks like it's going to become resistant (Score:2)
Sounds like a PR statement. I bet the investors report goes something more like:
Fortunately, even though our current product line doesn't work, we can iterate at low cost and then sell the new versions of the product at regular price.
Re: It looks like it's going to become resistant (Score:2)
PR is usually true.
Quinine (Score:1, Offtopic)
I just drink a glass of gin and tonic every day hoping to load myself with enough quinine for the time when covid strikes. I am not sure if this actually works at all, but if I was wrong, at least I was getting high all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Common Colds? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)