Let the disaster happen though and you have a chance to look like a hero!
The vaccines were developed during the first Trump administration. Trump himself wanted credit for developing them. He mentioned Operation Warp Speed in some of his 2020 rallies, and got booed for it.
Trump's Base decided mRNA was bad, with influencers making bizarre predictions about the vaccinated bleeding out in the streets, which of course failed. But Trump's Base decided for Trump about this issue. Trump leads from behind on this one.
They would have made fighting flu so much easier (for the context current flu vaccines take a lot of time to be made each season and hence not very agile towards dominant strain and sometimes miss it a lot, mRNA potentially improves this).
There's what should be a glaringly obvious lesson about ends and means here but nobody will learn it.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.adg7327
and related papers. Is the propensity to generate IgG4 antibodies specific to mRNA vaccines? Is it a problem? It seems entirely plausible that an mRNA flu vaccine would look amazing for one season and less amazing years later. Or not.
The COVID vaccine trials were very focused on the efficacy of a 1-3 dose series, in people with no previous immunity, at preventing disease or reducing its severity over a period of weeks to months after the vaccine series. This is not at all the situation with influenza or the situation now with COVID.
Compare to vaccines like MMR or Varicella, which were, and still are, studied over a period of many years.
It definitely brings questions about repeated mRNA vaccinations (and mRNA therapies I guess then too?).
Good thing repeated boosters for COVID shouldn't affect other diseases if I understood the study correctly (since target protein is different). Can be an issue for flu vaccines for sure (or it's not since protein used slightly different year to year?).
Flu vaccine effectiveness has been trending slowly downwards for about a decade. I don't recall any established reasons for it, though.
Then COVID hit, and suddenly we decided to rush MRNA [1] vaccines into mass production without those protocols. Moreover, at one point they wanted to force [2] them on the population.
The thing that bothered me most is the government passed a law to prevent people from suing for damages if they're hurt by COVID vaccines [3]. If the vaccine really is safe and effective, why was the waiver necessary?
[1] If the made the COVID vaccine the same way they've been making them since polio, I'd be less uneasy -- if you made 25 vaccines with the process and they all worked okay, saying "it should be fine" for the 26th one is backed by some evidence.
But given MRNA vaccines were brand-new with the COVID ones, until then they'd made 0 vaccines with the process; saying "it should be fine" for the 1st one seems to be rather irresponsible.
[2] In my opinion, "you're being forced to do X" is a fair description of the situation if you have to show proof you did X if you want to get a job, get an education, or get on an airplane. Around the time of the first vaccines getting rolled out, these policies were being discussed very seriously.
[3] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-c...
I, actually, agree on this. It was hard balancing act of protecting the population (quite successfully I will note) vs lack of perfect certainty about safety. I've read there've been clinical trials of other mRNA vaccines in mid 2010s so there've been some research data available.
Now, on other hand, we have a lot of data to dig into and seemingly to prove safety of the vaccines.
> Moreover, at one point they wanted to force [2] them on the population.
Yeah, I think this wasn't a good idea. Especially after it was clear we're not getting full protection and covid turning to be endemic.
> If the vaccine really is safe and effective, why was the waiver necessary?
Balancing act mentioned above protecting suppliers, won't be surprised if it was part of negotiations between government and vaccine manufacturers.
I think we can see mRNA vaccine are mostly safe (and we'll get even better certainty about it as time passes) which is given how cool the technology is opens up a lot of opportunities.
Personally, I feel safer taking mRNA vaccines. (And definitely an apples-to-apples novel mRNA vs traditional vaccine!)
Simpler and consumed, so fewer chances for things to go wrong via adverse immune system reactions.
My experience actually looking at these groups is they did understand it better than most. The various studies people are pulling up in this thread today, showing more research is needed? They were sharing and talking about similar studies in 2021 and 2022 during the period everyone else was blindly repeating the "safe and effective" mantra.
Quick edit for an example of one of these earlier studies they were sharing: https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73
> But Trump's Base decided for Trump about this issue. Trump leads from behind on this one.
1. The base doesn't decide out of thin air, the USA audience have been primed for decades with `government = bad` (anything `social = bad` really). We have evidence of orchestrated anti covid campaigns on Twitter, but the soil was well prepared for it.2. Trump always leads from behind. He is allowed some personal space and he uses that for personal profiteering. He flip flops on all important issues, policy does not interest him and it is way too difficult for him anyways. He gives public performances when he thinks it buys him respect.
3. If the public stops focusing on Trump's drama, they could regain bandwidth to make a proper analysis. But they need the help of an oligarch owned press, staffed by people who, like the general public, have to unshackle some self-harming beliefs.
Because it's patently counterproductive -- modern medical science saves lives.
So what you really have is a bunch of people getting riled up about something because they don't currently need it, then making dumb choices at critical moments, then denying their actions caused consequences if they have bad luck.
A partner was a critical care nurse during COVID, and said she had people dying in beds who still denied COVID existed. Mind-boggling.
> Patently counterproductive
Yes, but that is the gist. What you have got is the problem of the few who fear the numerous. Where you have power and wealth concentration, there will be a push to autocracy. Zero sum. Might makes right.It is an international phenomenon, where (political) organizations and people copy and sync each others playbooks. Look at the Brexit, look at Orban, look at the tariffs, look at expelling talent and science, look at the killing of the free enterprise.
Fundamentally, parasites don't care about the host. If the host dies, they jump on the next one. That is why the Kremlin focuses on Ukraine and the rest, while the USA starts to talk about Greenland and Canada.
For normal people it is too crazy to believe, so we don't believe it.
Agree, though I think the why/how is interesting.
In watching it play out in several countries: (1) wealth concentration builds resentment against a minority (wealthy/elites) by the majority (poor), (2) someone from the wealthy/elite hijacks the majority dissatisfaction by saying they'll "get" the minority, (3) democracy sweeps that someone into power, (4) turns out, anyone wealthy/elite doesn't really give a shit about egalitarianism, and enriches themselves
I mean, when Brits vote in Boris Johnson or Americans Trump, do they really expect either to compromise their own wealth for the good of the nation, when it comes to that?
I don't think we have effective language to talk about this stuff.
You saying "vaccine skepticism" (or the real boogey man, anti-vaxxer) could mean anything from person who thinks the Jews are injecting microchips into us all, all the way to a person who has gotten all sorts of vaccines except for specifically the mRNA ones.
Obviously, these two people are very different cases.
In a discussion about cars, someone could say they wouldn't buy a Ford, and nobody feels the compulsion to call them anti-car. (And they probably actually understand some details about the car beyond eli5 marketing materials. Perhaps that explains it).
We, as people, are much more sensitive to loss because of action over loss because of inaction. Doing nothing at the risk of getting sick sometime later doesn’t feel as risky as choosing to go take a product with risks, even though the risks are a million times lower than if you get sick. Taking a vaccine feels like you are doing something risky. It is distantly related to the trolley problem.
> The vaccines were developed during the first Trump administration. Trump himself wanted credit for developing them.
No. They were produced at scale during his administration to combat the pandemic, but were developed well before that, with support from a government actually funding vaccine R&D: > Moderna was also awarded a $25,000,000 grant by DARPA through a program
> Autonomous Diagnostics to Enable Prevention and Therapeutics: Prophylactic
> Options to Environmental and Contagious Threats (ADEPT-PROTECT). Its stated goal
> was to develop an mRNA vaccine with the capability to suppress a global pandemic
> within 60 days. (2013)
DARPA identified novel pathogens with pandemic potential as a key threat to the US (and everyone else), identified mRNA vaccine platforms as something that would allow more rapid responses to novel pathogens, and invested in it.
And then when exactly that happened -- there were mRNA vaccine platforms ready.
Can somebody just post a link to the double-blind, placebo-based safety study of mRNA vaccine (e.g. COVID-19), to put this to rest once and for all?
I guess mRNA vaccines are "woke" now (or maybe they always were, dunno).
More stupidity.
matthewdgreen•1d ago
krapp•1d ago
burnt-resistor•1d ago
leoh•1d ago
drannex•1d ago
--
The other problem with the cancellation: Budgets are likely already set, personnel hired, and roadmaps planned based on the expectation of secured funding and secured funding _sources_. Funding doesn't just mean cash being deposited, it usually on this level is additionally knowledge funding and sharing between organizations.
Cancelling funding, like this, also reduces input from the funder, the knowledge share, and expectations.
Now, you will have legions of [1]technicians, scientists, researchers, testers, legal, business, marketing, safety, regulation experts, engineers, hiring, and even HR,[/1] that are going to have to rework likely _months_ of planning and expectations.
One side is that now everything is in chaos and there are a lot of people that were part of this without a roadmap forward. Second side is that now you have a authority or expectations vacuum based on uncertainty and now there will be an internal 'war' between ideological camps and ideas on how to move forward, meaning loss of internal communication. The third part? Now, you have legions of *[^1] who are exhausted and feel like their time has been wasted and now are just frustrated.
This isn't even discussing that multi-year budgets and quotas have been set, and now to supplement the funding and knowledge drop, they will have to pull from other areas, causing a cascading effect.
mike_hearn•1d ago
Although this will be interpreted on the left as a partisan move (with the administration lying under duress or something), it's likely that they're telling the truth about why it was cancelled. Trump after all was a big supporter of the Moderna vaccines. But mRNA tech just doesn't work when normal safety standards are re-imposed. I wrote about the problem here a couple of weeks ago:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44003338
It's easy to forget that the COVID vaccines were an emergency measure. The way they were judged wasn't how pharma products are normally judged.
Izkata•1d ago
mike_hearn•1d ago
leoh•1d ago
Aloisius•1d ago
It looks like Moderna have enough capital available to meet their obligations for a while, but they do appear to be burning through it.
mike_hearn•21h ago