The article you linked is a reckless oversimplifaction of the mRNA vaccine development process. In my opinion, it is dangerous towards an understanding of mRNA vaccines and how they will impact our future.
First, BioNTech (not Pfizer) had 10-15 years to research, develop and test vaccines against new zoogenic Corona viruses. There was literature regarding the modification of the spike protein even before SARS-CoV-2 hit. BioNTech had either SARS or MERS candidates years before the pandemic.
Second, we cannot compute "how it will fold" either.
Third, discussions on HN always, always leave out the hard and messy parts: Wet lab and patient studies.
I am a huge fan of mRNA vaccinations, but the understanding of their potential is hugely different between the "hacker world" (HN, Twitter computer scientist bubble, etc.) and the biology world.
I'm afraid I am not as confident as you in their HDD statistics. They used to make every mistake in the (statistics) book regarding their hazard ratio calculations. For example, once they came to the conclusion that a particular model of higher capacity had a higher reliability than the same model of lower capacity. My Cox hazard calculations showed that their hazard profiles were equal, but the higher capacity HDD were younger.
First, BioNTech (not Pfizer) had 10-15 years to research, develop and test vaccines against new zoogenic Corona viruses. There was literature regarding the modification of the spike protein even before SARS-CoV-2 hit. BioNTech had either SARS or MERS candidates years before the pandemic.
Second, we cannot compute "how it will fold" either.
Third, discussions on HN always, always leave out the hard and messy parts: Wet lab and patient studies.
I am a huge fan of mRNA vaccinations, but the understanding of their potential is hugely different between the "hacker world" (HN, Twitter computer scientist bubble, etc.) and the biology world.