Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Comparison of Vaccines
I found this April 2021 comparison of the 9 vaccines approved somewhere in the world. to be interesting.  It also describes the different kinds (not just brands) of vaccines.
COVID-19 Vaccines: Current Understanding on Immunogenicity, Safety, and Further Considerations

Viral vectors
Inactivated virus
Recombinant protein

This comparison doesn't mention the GlaxoSmithKline vaccine CoVLP+AS03 by name, nor did it mention Virus-Like Particle (VLP) vaccines.
found this interesting--important to offer choices to overcome hesitancy

This board is obviously getting pretty quiet.
Personally, I felt the claims of "get whatever vaccine you are offered" was "paternalistic" (as the opinion piece put it) and obviously not in the best interest of each individual, when the J&J vaccine received EUA. J&J's one-dose efficacy against infection was no better than the efficacy of one-dose of the mRNA vaccines. Its full-course efficacy against infection was considerably less. The argument was that its efficacy against major illness was sufficiently high that it could be offered.

I felt that the CDC or FDA could have pointed out that a single dose of either mRNA was at least as good and that people could choose to stop after a single dose, or to delay the 2nd dose.

The single-dose feature for J&J didn't need to be. J&J could have (maybe they did?) conducted a study of a two-dose regime. Likewise, the mRNA vaccines had most of the data for a single-dose recommendation. They could have gone for that.

I suspect marketing played into the companies' positions. The mRNA companies made more profit (and those getting the vaccines got better outcomes) with a two-dose regimen. Why offer a single-dose regimen? J&J was late to the game. They probably wouldn't get much of the market share with yet another two-dose regimen. So, they chose to try to get the population that wanted a single-dose regimen. I believe the CDC/FDA was complicit by the way they didn't say that the single-dose regimen was inferior to the two-dose vaccines. If their feeling was that a single-dose regimen would get more people vaccinated, with an overall reduction in illness & death, that's a good thing.

Notice that we're not seeing a 4th vaccine in the approval process. Who would their customers be?

While the article has "Data from Washington, DC, in May 2021 found that 80% of new COVID-19 cases were in Black individuals, although they make up only about 45% of the population", I will note that in Santa Clara County, when you look at the races, the African-American population has slight fewer cases than one would expect based on their percent of the population. Indeed, that is true for California as well (5% of cases; 6% of population). To characterize the imbalance among population, I'd expect that economic situation has a higher correlation than race. (Things like education, industry, religion, political preference, geographic location may also correlate with inequity of case rates.)

This opinion piece didn't try to investigate or quantitize the reasons for inequities in cases or vaccination rates; it just offered possibilities without prioritization of which are most widespread and which are more easily overcome.
I totally agree on "marketing" playing a big role in the 1 versus 2 dose approach that the various companies pursued, and also in the lack of emergence of a 4th vaccine.  I hypothesize J&J may have been trying to differentiate themselves as more convenient.   And in fairness, for some regions of the world that may be a great approach.

THis focuses on the role of T-cells.  I think early on I remember BC posting something about this that gave me optimism on Astra Zeneca
Without data behind his claim, the CEO may just be blowing smoke trying to keep Britain from dropping AZ, or it may be real (but why didn't he have data???).

In the US, IIRC, the antibody response at 6 months for the mRNA vaccines was on the order of the J&J vaccine initially. But I'm not sure I Remember Correctly, so confirm that before quoting me.

I enjoyed this read.  Merry CHristmas!
The referenced paper is
SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination elicits a robust and persistent T follicular helper cell response in humans

The article misrepresents the paper somewhat when it says: "these cells last for up to six months after vaccination"
The paper says "S-specific TFH persist at nearly constant frequencies for at least six months."

Quote:Indirect evidence has existed for some time that robust CD4+ T cell responses are required for the generation of high-titer neutralizing antibody responses following COVID-19 infection or mRNA vaccination. This includes data showing a lack of seroconversion in individuals with uncontrolled HIV and extremely low CD4+ T cell counts during vaccination (Touizer et al., 2021) as well as several reports that have demonstrated a lack of seroconversion to the standard two-dose BNT162b2 regimen in individuals subjected to T cell-focused immunosuppressive regimens following solid organ transplantation (Kamar et al., 2021). Our current results provide strong and direct evidence that a high-magnitude, antigen-specific CD4+ T cell response in the draining lymph nodes is present during the development of high-titer neutralizing antibody responses in the setting of COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: