3 ms·

No, both the vaccine receipient and third parties are at risk of getting a full-on paralytic polio infection from the oral polio vaccine. When this happens to t

by makomk 7y ago

No, both the vaccine receipient and third parties are at risk of getting a full-on paralytic polio infection from the oral polio vaccine. When this happens to the recepient it's called vaccine-associated paralytic polio. See for instance https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/vaccine-derived-poliovirus-faq.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/vaccine-derived-p... It's also worth paying attention to the precise distinction between vaccine-derived poliovirus, which is the problem this article was about, and VAPP. VDPD is basically equivalent to normal wild-type poliovirus in terms of its infectivity and effects, but only happens once the vaccine poliovirus has been circulating and mutating for a while and can be protected against via vaccination. VAPP is caused by vaccination and can affect the recipients or those around them, but unlike VDPD the people who suffer from it shouldn't pose any more danger to others than any other vaccine receipient.

zozbot234 7y ago
> No, both the vaccine receipient and third parties are at risk of getting a full-on paralytic polio infection from the oral polio vaccine. That seems like it would make the oral vaccine even worse, compared to the injected vaccine. Again, I'm not sure why they think reintroducing traditional type-2 OPV is a good idea if the injected form that won't cause vaccine-derived outbreaks is so easily available. (Of course nOPV is expected to be better than the former OPV, but it's yet to be available.)
- makomk 7y ago
  Part of the problem is that there wasn't enough supply of the inactivated vaccine, and arguably there still isn't and probably won't be for some time. See for example https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/220/10/1545/5432103 https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/220/10/1545/5432103 Also, while the inactivated vaccine protects receipients from the risks associated with polio infection, unlike the oral vaccine it may not be all that effective at preventing it from replicating in their bowel and then infecting others. I'm not exactly sure why the WHO rushed to pull type 2 from the oral vaccine before there was sufficient supply of the inactivated vaccine to replace it, but I get the impression that they didn't expect it would be necessary because they thought that type 2 virus would rapidly disappear once they did so.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by makomk 7y ago

zozbot234 7y ago

> No, both the vaccine receipient and third parties are at risk of getting a full-on paralytic polio infection from the oral polio vaccine. That seems like it would make the oral vaccine even worse, compared to the injected vaccine. Again, I'm not sure why they think reintroducing traditional type-2 OPV is a good idea if the injected form that won't cause vaccine-derived outbreaks is so easily available. (Of course nOPV is expected to be better than the former OPV, but it's yet to be available.)

makomk 7y ago
Part of the problem is that there wasn't enough supply of the inactivated vaccine, and arguably there still isn't and probably won't be for some time. See for example https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/220/10/1545/5432103 https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/220/10/1545/5432103 Also, while the inactivated vaccine protects receipients from the risks associated with polio infection, unlike the oral vaccine it may not be all that effective at preventing it from replicating in their bowel and then infecting others. I'm not exactly sure why the WHO rushed to pull type 2 from the oral vaccine before there was sufficient supply of the inactivated vaccine to replace it, but I get the impression that they didn't expect it would be necessary because they thought that type 2 virus would rapidly disappear once they did so.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]