09-29-2020, 07:41 AM
First, here is the the thread reader link (the entire 100+ tweets in the thread in a single place):
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/13103...01250.html
I don't draw the same conclusion as you do. The Pfizer vaccine is the one that is probably most likely to give an early readout (the Pfizer CEO has talked about preliminary data being ready by the end of October). It is also one of the two, that the thread author would take himself (based on the data to date). If you read the Nature review, he notes:
So, you are looking at vaccines that he believes (based on the data that has been generated to date, and with all the caveats that come with that), will have "sufficient efficacy", the Pfizer one (as well as the ones from AZ and Moderna) may well clear that bar. However, he believes that they will be more reactogenic than subsequent vaccines and thus cause more interferon-related side effects (fevers, fatigue, headache, esp), but he notes that "These site effects are unpleasant but usually transient and not too concerning (they might be problematic in kids, more about that later)." Subsequent vaccines may cause fewer side effects, but may or may not be better.
The other thing about the Pfizer (and Moderna) vaccines are mRNA vaccines, and thus will need a cold chain until they are administered. This will make them challenging to distribute, but that doesn't mean he believes they will be less effective.
Based on his assessment, however, the protein based vaccines will have the best combination of low reactogenicity and high immunogenicity. That would mean the Novavax vaccine amongst the vaccines in Phase 3.
None of this means that someone (especially a high-risk individual) couldn't take an early approved vaccine, and then take a more effective vaccine if one were to come out later.
BC
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/13103...01250.html
I don't draw the same conclusion as you do. The Pfizer vaccine is the one that is probably most likely to give an early readout (the Pfizer CEO has talked about preliminary data being ready by the end of October). It is also one of the two, that the thread author would take himself (based on the data to date). If you read the Nature review, he notes:
Quote:It is highly likely that the AstraZeneca, Moderna and Pfizer vaccine candidates, which are along the furthest in the US and Europe, all show sufficient efficacy and will be licensed if sufficiently safe. However, it may also be that these vaccines will later on be replaced by vaccines that show similar efficacy but have reac- togenicity profiles that are more tolerable.
So, you are looking at vaccines that he believes (based on the data that has been generated to date, and with all the caveats that come with that), will have "sufficient efficacy", the Pfizer one (as well as the ones from AZ and Moderna) may well clear that bar. However, he believes that they will be more reactogenic than subsequent vaccines and thus cause more interferon-related side effects (fevers, fatigue, headache, esp), but he notes that "These site effects are unpleasant but usually transient and not too concerning (they might be problematic in kids, more about that later)." Subsequent vaccines may cause fewer side effects, but may or may not be better.
The other thing about the Pfizer (and Moderna) vaccines are mRNA vaccines, and thus will need a cold chain until they are administered. This will make them challenging to distribute, but that doesn't mean he believes they will be less effective.
Based on his assessment, however, the protein based vaccines will have the best combination of low reactogenicity and high immunogenicity. That would mean the Novavax vaccine amongst the vaccines in Phase 3.
None of this means that someone (especially a high-risk individual) couldn't take an early approved vaccine, and then take a more effective vaccine if one were to come out later.
BC