Pfizer's coronavirus vaccine is more than 90% effective, early data suggests

[admin]

The data is not yet published and the study is ongoing. But if this number holds up, it far exceeds public health experts' expectations.

Pfizer's coronavirus vaccine is more than 90% effective, early data suggests : Read more

 

[Sharona Pius]

I think it's a bit early to call an effective vaccine. I do hope it's effective enough to save lives, but the Coronavirus has already undergone some significant mutations.
In Denmark, veterinary workers culled 17 million mink to try and halt a mutated strain that jumped from animals to humans. It was traced back to mink farms.
"The animals were carrying a new strain of the virus, possibly vaccine-resistant, and infected several hundred people "

The vaccine may be 90% effective for the particular strain of COVID-19, the question is, how will they affect a mutated form of this virus.
I don't know. It just doesn't add up. Highly unlikely that it will make any real impact.... sorry.

 

[Chem721]

Highly unlikely that it will make any real impact.... sorry.

It is too early to make a call on any mutations impacting the effectiveness of the vaccines under development. It must be known where the mutation(s) have occurred, and what if any impact they have on antibody binding affinity. Of course it also depends on the extent such virus mutants can spread. If they are eliminated by local mitigation, there is no serious threat. That is why they are killing off so many mink. These variants aren't even close to a mass European presence, much less a global one.

Any spread would also depend on how infectious any mutant form is. Any mutants arising on mink farms will have to compete with other strains which already occur in much greater numbers. That they might replace existing strains and threaten a vaccine is far from certain.

In short, the less infective a mutant form, the less likely it will be highly represented in the global pool of strains infecting people. This story from the mink farms is far from definitive. More data is required before any hard conclusions can be drawn. But it is one reason to eliminate the virus asap, as the more it mutates, the less effective any or all vaccines will become. Which is why any vaccine may only be good for a year or two.

 

[dr abduljabbar]

there are more than 16NSPs:1-16 and (nonstructural proteins) and Envelope Protein as well : virus liberatorORF19: and mystery protein s (10) and NUCLEOCAPSID PROTEIN N and many more such as the PROTEASE so the question is which from all of these structures is stable and included in the vaccine to promote protection by vaccination.which is the most valid piece is inthe vaccine thanks

 

[Chem721]

the question is which from all of these structures is stable and included in the vaccine

The Chinese are reportedly using an inactivated form of the virus and apparently have used it on hundreds of thousands of people. This would certainly have the potential to "offer" all external viral antigens to the immune system to form antibodies. If they are neutralizing antibodies without significant ADE, this would likely be ideal.

However, most vaccines have concentrated on the spike protein only, since it has the receptor binding domain. Interfering with this protein has the highest potential for success, or so it would seem. But other viral surface antigens could also elicit neutralizing immunity with less risk for evasion by viral mutations since multiple mutations on various proteins would have to appear on the same virion for it to evade antibody-binding and likely elimination.

It must be remembered that all who have survived viral infection were exposed to all those external proteins, and not just the spike. Clearly the intact virus offers some form of "lasting" immunity. The biggest questions which remain are effectiveness, adverse reactions for any vaccines under development, and longevity of immunity.