It’s been 2 days, 143 comments, and I’ve been called lots of bad names.
Here’s what I learned about protein based Novavax (NV) vs mRNA COVID vaccines. 1/
The pretty universally agreed on difference is that Novavax has fewer side effects.
If you have bad vaccine reactions, it is probably the better choice.
2/
There are other differences too. NV is protein based, so the immune response is antibody focused, while the mRNA is response is broader and produces both antibodies and CTLs.
3/
People that argue that NV is a significantly better tend to focus on antibody responses, which isn’t really a fair comparison because that is only one part of the mRNA response.
4/
There was also a lot of discussion about mRNA and IgG4 production, but I’m honestly uncertain how important this is.
When it comes to patient outcomes (regarding COVID infections), the two vaccines are pretty equivalent. This is the best paper I’ve seen on this, pointed out to me by @Daniel_E_Park. 6/ sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
The outcomes were very similar. Taken at face value, after 4 doses and 180 days, NV is a little better at preventing infection and mRNA is a little better at preventing severe disease (which is actually what you would expect if NV is antibody focused).
7/
@Daniel_E_Park and @michaelzlin both have good balanced discussions about the two vaccines (they both favor NV).
8/
Another difference is that mRNA producers can adapt quick. The LP.8 (offered by mRNA) is a little bit closer to the lineages currently circulating (and ones to likely come next), but the difference is minor. I wouldn’t focus too much on it. 9/
I personally prefer vaccines that provide a balanced immune response, but that is just a bias from my grad school days where we found that DNA vaccines beat the socks off of protein vaccines at protecting animals from IHNV. Not necessarily applicable to this.
10/
Take home. Novavax and mRNA vaccines both work well, but Novavax has fewer side effects for most. Make your own choice.
11/11
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It’s been 2 years since BA.2.86 first appeared (and I’m give the variant update to SAVE on Monday), so I thought I would do a little summary about this era of SARS-CoV-2 evolution. 1/
SARS-CoV-2 lineages come up with new constellations of mutations in 3 main ways. 1. Sequential acquisition of mutations during normal circulation. 2. Recombination. 3. Sweeping new lineages (almost certainly from persistent infections).
2/
BA.2.86 was one of the sweeping changes. When it first appeared in Israel I thought it was a persistent infection, most of which never spread. Then it appeared in Denmark too. 3/
Fact 1, it’s not just genetics.
@EricTopol spent years sequencing the genomes of the ‘wellderly’ (people over 80 that have never had a chronic illness) to find the genes associated with healthy aging.
Their conclusion – there wasn’t much there. It’s not just genetics.
2/
Fact 2, intake matters.
1. Drinking coffee has real health benefits (who knew?) 2. Drinking alcohol really doesn’t (bummer) 3. Ultra Processed Foods (UPFs) are REALLY bad for you. It goes well beyond being empty calories.
3/
This is cool. I was poking around at the Rhinovirus (common cold) data and realized that my perception about these viruses was completely wrong. 1/
Rhinoviruses (Rhino is Greek for nose) are picornaviruses in the enterovirus genus (same as polio). Enteros can be GI or respiratory (or both), but Rhinos are usually respiratory, and are the main cause of the common cold.
The first big improvement is that the output is more precise, and interactive. For each data point we tell you the date, the reads mapped, the total reads in each sample, and the reads/billion for each pathogen.
The heat map color is dictated by reads/billion.
2/
As before, we have a dropdown menu (now divided into categories) where you can do a city-to-city comparison of the different pathogens.