[hunterb123]

The specific targeting makes it easier to allude the vaccine as only a small part of it has to mutate.

For example, natural immunity recognizes the entire coronavirus, not just the spike as the covid vaccine does. There was a study that natural immunity was more effective against the virus and variants because of this.

You could however have yearly subscription shots like we do now, just mRNA flavored that target the new strains, but there are hundreds.

I don't see the advantage mRNA would have over traditional vaccines for the flu, but for something like cancer or HIV it seems promising. Doing something your immune system can't do by itself.

[ceejayoz]

> The specific targeting makes it easier to allude the vaccine as only a small part of it has to mutate.

Nothing says an mRNA vaccine can't express more than one protein.

That said, I'm talking more about being able to target a portion of the virus that's more fragile than others - somewhere a mutation is likely to make the virus useless if a mutation occurs there.

(The ability to rapidly adjust for mutations is a bonus, too. I'm hoping we get to a regulatory regime eventually where they can tweak overnight and produce fairly locally.)

> There was a study that natural immunity was more effective against the virus and variants because of this.

There's information in the other direction now. https://news.yahoo.com/vaccine-confers-better-protection-tha...

[hunterb123]

> There's information in the other direction now. https://news.yahoo.com/vaccine-confers-better-protection-tha...

The way they conducted that study was terrible, read the qualifications and the limitations in the discussion at the bottom.

Personally the Israeli study looks a lot more sound.

[spurgu]

Here's an analysis going over the two: https://brownstone.org/articles/a-review-and-autopsy-of-two-...

[ceejayoz]

That's a heavily biased think tank. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Tucker#COVID-19_pandem...

[spurgu]

Sigh, what isn't biased these days? No need to poison the well, the article is clear and sound (to me at least) regardless of who wrote it and why. Do you have any arguments against it? Or your own better analysis of the two studies?

[spurgu]

It really annoys me how people disregard what "the other side" is saying just because it's them saying it. Just adds to the polarization. And it annoys me because I used to do the same.

[hunterb123]

> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

You may want to refute the points instead of attacking the source.

What did you take issue with in their analysis?

[spurgu]

Maybe this is a less biased source? Dr John Campbell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bamaEMftg4

[newaccount74]

> I'm hoping we get to a regulatory regime eventually where they can tweak overnight and produce fairly locally.

I don't think that's likely. Even if a scientist was able to adjust a vaccine overnight, you'd still need to do a clinical trial to verify that the vaccine doesn't accidentally target something that it shouldn't.

[stonemetal12]

>I don't see the advantage mRNA would have over traditional vaccines for the flu,

The current flu vaccine targeting isn't 100% reliable. If they can get better targeting for the mRNA vaccine it could be a win.

Eggs are used in the process for the traditional vaccine. Some people are allergic to eggs, so they can't take the traditional flu vaccine. For those people the mRNA version would be an option.

I would agree that it isn't an emergency, but there are benefits to it.

[dd36]

The studies I saw said the opposite. The vaccine is far more robust. Which is it?

[spurgu]

There's the CDC study and the Israeli one AFAIK, here's an analysis of the methodologies: https://brownstone.org/articles/a-review-and-autopsy-of-two-...