[hamburglar1]

Is there a comprehensive white-paper anywhere with sample sizes and error bars? Otherwise this seems like an anecdote.

"The sera were collected from subjects 3 weeks after receiving the second dose or one month after receiving the third dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine"

How do we know this study isn't just measuring the effect of that additional week? Also how many subjects was this sera pulled from? Are the subjects materially similar between the second and third dose groups?

Not exactly surprising the people selling the third dose conclude that it is needed. It's like when the waiter recommends the most expensive option.

[mafuy]

I have no idea why you believe a third dose is just marketing. It is plainly obvious that immunity decreases over time, as is the case for all vaccines against flus and similar.

A booster is the normal way to handle it. If there were a way to avoid it, at least one of the many companies working on this would have created it. And one for the regular flu, too, while they are at it, which has not happened in decades.

[hamburglar1]

I didn't say it was just marketing - I was asking for additional data to shed light on how robust (or frail) this result is. I don't think there is enough in this press release.

edit: (maybe you meant to comment on that other comment on this...)

[the_doctah]

That reminds me, I need to get my Polio booster

[phkahler]

>> Is there a comprehensive white-paper anywhere with sample sizes and error bars? Otherwise this seems like an anecdote.

It's marketing. When the vaccine effectiveness is waning the solution seems to be more of it

If it only took 2 days to create the vaccine, why do they not have an updated one? Is there another in development that targets more than just the spike protein? Why is the entire defense that vaccine?

[pseudalopex]

> When the vaccine effectiveness is waning the solution seems to be more of it

Yes. That's the definition of a booster.

> If it only took 2 days to create the vaccine, why do they not have an updated one?

The article said they started clinical trials with a delta vaccine. But they found the original vaccine was effective.

[marcosdumay]

> If it only took 2 days to create the vaccine, why do they not have an updated one?

There's a deafening silence every time somebody asks this.

From what I've been able to see, it's because regulatory bodies won't accept an update vaccine without 8 months of testing, and the manufacturers are doing the testing, but at those delays there isn't really any point.

Why regulatory bodies won't accept updated vaccines is the more interesting question.

[tremon]

The regulator is only tasked with approving the manufacturer's end results, I don't think they audit the production facilities or the design process. If the production process were fully transparent and the manufacturer could prove it didn't change anything except for "this one input tweak here", the approval process could likely be further streamlined -- but I don't think the authority of the regulator stretches that far, and manufacturers will likely claim trade secrets on their internal processes.

Besides, I don't expect the anti-vax crowd to be very forgiving about mistakes or unforeseen consequences of an updated vaccine. I'm perfectly happy with the regulator having very strict controls for what gets approved for rapid rollout to the entire population.

[hamburglar1]

FDA absolutely reviews stated design processes and audits against these. See 21CFR211 - The perspective here is that even if we are actually pretty confident that it is just "one little tweak here", a one-letter change could have wide ranging affects when interacting with the human body.

[marcosdumay]

If all you want is transparency, most governments are perfectly capable of demanding it.

[swader999]

Consider this ^^^ and the fact that it takes additional months just to distribute it. Then add in the fact that the virus has a very high and successful mutation rate and can persist in and out of animal reservoirs. Mass vaccination is mentally unsound but profitable.