Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

66% effectiveness in one shot is better than 50% - 1/2 shots where there is not enough vaccines to go around.

In some places people are not getting both shots of vaccines. FDA approved two different shots of 2 shot vaccines.

At this time they should just immunize everybody with one shot at least.




Would a partial or half immunized population not end up culturing a more resistant strain?


This isn't like antibiotics. The 66% is how many people are provided some level of immunity, just reducing the infectible population; it doesn't directly cause issues for the virus the way an antibiotic interferes with the functioning of a bacterium. It might culture a strain that's better at infecting folks for whom the vaccine doesn't prove effective, if there's a common factor there and the virus can use it.

It is not yet known if any of the vaccines completely prevent infection; there are concerns the vaccinated might still be able to be asymptomatic carriers.


Yeah I guess I was asking if having only partial-immunity effectively acts as a filter or creates pressure so that rarer mutated strains make it through and are given a pathway to infection/reproduction.

From your response: "It might culture a strain that's better at infecting folks for whom the vaccine doesn't prove effective, if there's a common factor there and the virus can use it." it sounds like the answer is yes.


It might make it through, but in that case it would be better adapted for those the vaccine didn't work on; this could actually make it less infectious for those the vaccine would work on, so it's questionable whether it would be any better or worse overall.


Or could it end up culturing a more mild strain? More like a common cold?


Worth pointing out that two of the viruses[0][1] responsible for the Common Cold share the same exact Family (in fact, the exact Genus[2]) as SARS-CoV-2 [3].

This isn't to say that the progression is certainly in this direction (better evidence of that dates back to 2009 [4]), but hey, there's hope that that's the direction.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_coronavirus_HKU1

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_coronavirus_OC43

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betacoronavirus

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndr...

[4] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pandemic-payoff/


Have any trials been done to determine the efficacy of just 1 shot for the double dose vaccines?


Yes they have data for results of 1 shot of 2 shot vaccines.

Moderna has 80% in single shot I believe but it degrades over time so there is a second shot.

The 66% that does not degrade and can be kept in room temperature is not bad at all. Most vaccines are not 90%. Most flu vaccine don't cover all different types but they still protect people as they get some sort of immunity to major types A,B etc.


Not yet, but you can kinda see it from the data. For Pfizer it was 60-70 after one dose already, iirc


That's only if you include all infections within the two week window between shots. If you look at the tail end (ie, after the shot has time to be effective) it seems more like 90.


The issue with this is that it's the SECOND shot that gives you your long term immunity. If you only get one shot your immunity is allegedly going to wane somewhat quickly.

edit: for pfizer & moderna.


Where did you see that part? Any reason why the 2nd one makes it last that much longer?


That is typically how the second shot works. We don't actually know.

It is possible the second shot isn't needed at all. It is possible that the first shot works for 45 days and then stops working completely. Experts doubt both of these extremes, but cannot actually say they are false because they don't know.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: