Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.456 [SLACK_000670] · slack_pm:msg:04731

Date: 2021-01-26 17:24
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Robert F. Garry, Edward C. Holmes, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Kristian G. Andersen
Topics: Vaccines

Recipients on this medium are inferred from channel membership, not per-message addressing.

The Moderna paper yesterday (which looks more promising) they literally took the serum at the very peak (a week after the booster) so the data would look better. In this paper they wait a few weeks and see a more worrisome effect - similar to the observations from RSA. In any case - it sounds like Moderna is already working on an updated design, so that's the right thing to do - I just hope that work gets fast-tracked.

Extracted statements

Rule-extracted, not adjudicated. The grade says what may be done with each one; read the document above before relying on any of them.

Statement	Grade	Attribution	Stance
The Moderna paper yesterday (which looks more promising) they literally took the serum at the very peak (a week after the booster) so the data would look better.	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	asserts
In any case - it sounds like Moderna is already working on an updated design, so that's the right thing to do - I just hope that work gets fast-tracked.	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	asserts

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

The Moderna paper yesterday (which looks more promising) they literally took the serum at the very peak (a week after the booster) so the data would look better.

own voice, substantive

speaker_own

asserts

In any case - it sounds like Moderna is already working on an updated design, so that's the right thing to do - I just hope that work gets fast-tracked.

own voice, substantive

speaker_own

asserts

In context

A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.

2021-01-26 17:20 Kristian G. Andersen open

Here's the paper from David Ho - B.1.351 not looking good: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.25.428137v2.full.pdf
2021-01-26 17:22 Kristian G. Andersen open

How people can look at this data and conclude that "it'll be totally fine for vaccines - all good news", I simply don't understand. Either it's delusional or it's because we have now (yet again) turned to wishful thinking. There is little doubt in my mind we'll have to update the vaccine. Will B.1.351 kill them completely? Very likely not -however, there's going to be a hard hit to the efficacy because of this.
2021-01-26 17:22 Edward C. Holmes open

I thought not...
2021-01-26 17:23 Edward C. Holmes open

Fucker as you say...
2021-01-26 17:24 Kristian G. Andersen

The Moderna paper yesterday (which looks more promising) they literally took the serum at the very peak (a week after the booster) so the data would look better. In this paper they wait a few weeks and see a more worrisome effect - similar to the observations from RSA. In any case - it sounds like Moderna is already working on an updated design, so that's the right thing to do - I just hope that work gets fast-tracked.
2021-01-26 17:27 Robert F. Garry open

@Kristian Andersen Of course, I'll send when I get back to the office computer.
2021-01-26 17:36 Edward C. Holmes open

Indeed! Sounds like an update is needed ASAP.
2021-01-26 17:44 Kristian G. Andersen open

I don't necessarily think it needs to get into people ASAP, but the whole process absolutely needs to be started ASAP - it's not a simple "six week and we're done" process. Better have this ready to go over the summer.
2021-01-26 17:46 Edward C. Holmes open

Totally agree.

Full conversation →