[Goose]

That is beyond any knowledge or expertise I have. I have seen some suggestion from scientists on Twitter that whole inactivated virus may be better at stimulating a T-cell response. Notably, while this is the most common and well studied type of vaccine, the majority of coronavirus vaccine candidates seem to be of novel types, such as Moderna's mRNA vaccine. Perhaps because of manufacturing concerns? I'm not sure but it is a bit odd to me that so many vaccines are using approaches that have never been used before in a human vaccine, for something that we need to get right. We don't really know a lot about how good a nucleic acid vaccine would be at stimulating a T-cell response, because there are none yet.

More info on vaccine types-
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020...pment.html
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01221-y

I am not completely sure, but I think the emphasis and enthusiasm for mRNA vaccines is driven by the belief that they have a shorter development cycle than inactivated virus. We know from experience how long it takes for inactivated virus. Since no mRNA vaccines have yet been developed, it is easier to be (unrealistically) optimistic on the length of the development cycle. It also may be that the FDA has indicated an easier approval path due to perceived fewer safety concerns. That would probably not be public knowledge if true.

[Goose]

That is beyond any knowledge or expertise I have. I have seen some suggestion from scientists on Twitter that whole inactivated virus may be better at stimulating a T-cell response. Notably, while this is the most common and well studied type of vaccine, the majority of coronavirus vaccine candidates seem to be of novel types, such as Moderna's mRNA vaccine. Perhaps because of manufacturing concerns? I'm not sure but it is a bit odd to me that so many vaccines are using approaches that have never been used before in a human vaccine, for something that we need to get right. We don't really know a lot about how good a nucleic acid vaccine would be at stimulating a T-cell response, because there are none yet.

More info on vaccine types-
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020...pment.html
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01221-y

I am not completely sure, but I think the emphasis and enthusiasm for mRNA vaccines is driven by the belief that they have a shorter development cycle than inactivated virus. We know from experience how long it takes for inactivated virus. Since no mRNA vaccines have yet been developed, it is easier to be (unrealistically) optimistic on the length of the development cycle. It also may be that the FDA has indicated an easier approval path due to perceived fewer safety concerns. That would probably not be public knowledge if true.