The Pfizer SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine

Diagram of immune responses to the virus

Pfizer released some data in a press release indicating that the company's SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is about 90% effective in reducing infections in the tested patients so far. Additional data will be generated in the ongoing clinical trial, so the final efficacy data could be different than what was released. The data has not been subject to peer review, so this is only preliminary.

The Pfizer vaccine is injected as shown in part b of the figure above. The protection from this vaccine is believed to come from the immune response in the lungs, but not in the nose and upper airway. 

A paper summarizing SARS-Cov-2 vaccines under development make the following observations:

1. It is likely that two doses of a vaccine will be required, with booster doses potentially necessary at later time points; in this case, at least 16 billion doses will be needed to meet the global demand. 
2. For SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates, there have so far been no signals of enhanced disease in animal models or in humans; however, such a safety signal would certainly derail the development of a vaccine candidate and would negatively affect vaccine development in general.
3. Participants in the 100 μg group did not receive a booster dose due to tolerability profiles of the 100 μg dose post-prime and the 30 μg dose post-boost.
4. At 14 days post-boost, titres reached 1:180 and 1:437, respectively. Convalescent serum was also tested and reached titres of 1:94. However, it is unknown how representative these sera were.
5. Systemic adverse events after the prime dose seemed to be dose-dependent and included fever—especially in the 100 μg group, for which it was seen in 50% of individuals—fatigue, headache and chills.

What is not yet known is how long immunity will last and how well immunity will protect people in different age groups. Data from one group of older individuals (65–85 years) indicated that the immune response and antibody titres were lower compared to that in younger individuals. The vaccine uses a genetically modified RNA variant of the spike protein that covers the surface of the virus. That protein is what the virus uses to enter human cells. Because RNA in the vaccine is used to generate the immune response in vaccinated people, it has to be stored on dry ice (-78.5ᵒ C, or -109.3ᵒ F). That will create significant logistics complications in manufacturing, distributing and storing the vaccine. RNA is a very unstable molecule due to the ubiquitous presence of enzymes that rapidly break it down. That is why the vaccine needs to be solidly frozen on dry ice. 

The side effects seem to be generally more pronounced for the vaccine compared to most flu vaccines. That makes the vaccine generally less pleasant for most people compared to flu vaccines.

The vaccine works as shown below. The vaccine is injected into muscle and some of the RNV enters into cells where the RNA is translated into the spike protein. The body them mounts an immune response against the spike protein.

 

For context, traditional vaccine development generally takes about 10-15 years. Given the urgency of the threat, development time for SARS-CoV-2 is shooting for a about 10-18 months, assuming something does not go seriously wrong during the development and regulatory review period. Given that accelerated development schedule, the risk of failure to detect a serious side-effect increases, especially a side-effect that takes years to manifest itself.

Fighting in the War on Truth and Reason

It is clearer than ever that going forward the liberal-conservative and urban-rural political-culture wars will probably remain bitter, and deeply polarizing and distrust generating. With Trump effectively out of the way[1], one can see in radical right conservative rhetoric the same dark free speech (DFS) arguments and reasoning that were used before. If one is to effectively spot and rebut the lies, emotional manipulation and flawed reasoning, it helps to consider some of the most common and most effective DFS tactics. Three of the more common fallacies are summarized below.

Straw man fallacy

The strawman argument is a an easy way to make a weak DFS position look stronger than it is. Straw man avoids directly dealing with opposing views. Instead this fallacy substitutes a weaker argument that is more easily rebutted. That generates a false appearance of a weak DFS argument rebutting a stronger original argument. Examples of the straw man include:

 

“The Senator thinks we can solve all our ecological problems by driving a Prius.”

“The Senator thinks the environment is such a wreck that no one’s car choice or driving habits would make the slightest difference.”

False dilemma fallacy 

This fallacy is also called the “black-and-white fallacy,” “either-or fallacy” or “false dichotomy.” This line of reasoning fails by limiting the options to two when there are in fact more options to choose from. It’s not a fallacy if there actually are only two options. This fallacy is often an emotional manipulation ploy intended to polarize the audience by making one side look good and honest, while demonizing the other. Examples include:

“Either we go to war, or we appear weak.”

“Either you are pro-NRA or you oppose the 2nd Amendment and/or want to take all of our guns away.”

“Either we shelter in place, strictly observe social distancing and wear masks on those rare occasions when we have to venture out (in which case, we obviously don’t care a whit about the economy), or we reopen our businesses and start to resume “normal” life (in which case, we obviously don’t care a whit about people or safety or the common good).”

“Either we let every immigrant into our country, or we close the borders for everyone.”

Red herring fallacy

A red herring fallacy can be difficult to spot because it’s not always clear how different topics relate. A side topic may be used in a relevant way, or in an irrelevant way. There are usually several factors or lines on reasoning involved in political disagreements. Various subtopics can be entangled in issues. The red herring is a DFS attempt to divert the attention away from the relevant issue by raising another, usually irrelevant issue. It is an intentional distraction tactic to move the argument or a question to a different issue that is easier to respond to. Clarifying how one part of the conversation is relevant to the core topic helps spot and rebut red herrings. When one spots a red herring, one can rebut it by saying it is irrelevant to the topic being discussed, and/or by explaining why it is fallacious. If the persoming trying to use the red herring refuses to stay on point, one can allow the change of topic, insist on going back to the original argument, or just disengage from the discussion.

Red herrings by Trump include:

“I don't know Putin, have no deals in Russia, and the haters are going crazy - yet Obama can make a deal with Iran, #1 in terror, no problem!” 

“It’s locker room talk, and it’s one of those things. I will knock the hell out of ISIS. We’re going to defeat ISIS. ISIS happened a number of years ago in a vacuum that was left because of bad judgment. And I will tell you, I will take care of ISIS.”

Example in the media:

Reporter: “It’s been two years since your policies were implemented, and so far they have failed to reduce unemployment rates.” 

Politician: “I have been working hard ever since I came into office, and I’m happy to say that I met with many business leaders throughout the country, who all say that they are glad to see that our hard work is paying off.”

Footnote: 

1. That assumes the supreme court or GOP state legislatures do not intervene to re-elect Trump. The odds of that seem to be so low that it is not a realistic possibility. Nonetheless, the odds of successful intervention for Trump are not zero, but pretty close. 

“Joe [DiMaggio] Biden… a nation turns its [lonely] divided eyes to you”

We, here in the United States, are still very much a politically divided country. The close 2020 presidential election this last week has proven that out as an objective fact.

Currently, there are lots of celebrations …and… protests, and understandably so.  Both sides are experiencing their respective highs and lows. But once the emotional dust settles (hopefully by Inauguration Day), is it possible that there will be enough bipartisan compromise to move forward in any kind of positive/constructive way?  Surely there are plenty of issues we can all agree on as a society. This leads me to wonder about some things… 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Question 1: In a show of patriotic reconciliation, should the new Biden Administration invite several prominent, influential, maybe centrist-type Republicans into its fold (to include governors, senators, congress people, ex-office holders, military types) as well as into Biden’s Cabinet selections, all in a gesture, an effort, to “pull the county together?”  Isn’t this the only way a divided, polarized country can heal and find a way to work together?  If NO, fine.  You’re done with this question.  If YES, who do you think should be on this bipartisan list?  In other words, who do you foresee as those Republican icons? (E,g., Tom Ridge, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Bill Weld, Christine Todd Whitman, Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Jeff Flake, Will Hurd, Colin Powell, James Mattis, Michael Steele, etc.)

[your Republican icon list here]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Question 2: Is a bipartisan (Dem/Repub/Ind) Biden Administration a bad / dangerous / frivolous / reckless / foolish / giving away of newfound Democratic power / (what have you) idea?  If YES, fine.  You’re done with this question.  If NO, list the pros and cons of a bipartisan Biden Administration.

[your pros versus cons list here] 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Question 3: Is hope for a Biden bipartisan government just more pie-in-the-sky, liberal idealism?  And the “real” hard-to-digest truth is we are so divided in our values that there is no way we could ever reconcile our major differences.  Regardless of your answer here, isn't it true that stubbornly clinging to our steadfast differences may give each side a momentary “feels good” triumph over the other, but to what end does this lead?  What is the end game with this non-bipartisan tactic? 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Question 4: Has Dark Free Speech and social media manipulation gone on for too long, to the point where we as a society can no longer think “straight,” “honestly,” “unbiasedly,” etc., about political reality?  Has that condition reached a point of no return?  Are our respective bubbles so strong that there is not enough collective interest in seeking out objective truths, if such truths threaten our subjective truths; that feelings are now able to trump facts?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Question 5: Other than bipartisan reconciliation through a politically diverse administration, can you think of a better way… or ANY way really... to bring a divided country together?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Answer any or all questions of your choosing.  And thanks for thinking about it, posting, and recommending. :)

 

Why are people conservative or liberal?

 When looking at how closely divided the nation is on politics I thought it can't be that 70 million are just stupid.  So why?

How is Susan Rice's kid a conservative?  Can't be the environment he was raised in. 

So....

This article likely will get a discussion going some.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/10/can-your-genes-predict-whether-youll-be-a-conservative-or-a-liberal/280677/

Now this is just a conversation starter.  7 year old article from a magazine.  

This type of mind provided societies with an evolutionary advantage or else it would not be here.    Same with liberal minds. It's not 80 to 20.  So how is it so even today?   

Knowing this might help us understand that we can't change how they think.  Maybe we need to move the discussion to other issues?  The conservative mind will always be conservative.  If we change the issues we can move society forward on to other things.  

Millions today are dancing in the streets.  They get it.  70 million are at home wondering why the best president ever lost.  

I always say Nature and Nurture.

Thoughts folks?