3 ms·

I wonder how realistic it is to expect a vaccine in 3 months, given that we don't have a vaccine for MERS 8 years later (and not really one for SARS either)? Is

I wonder how realistic it is to expect a vaccine in 3 months, given that we don't have a vaccine for MERS 8 years later (and not really one for SARS either)? Is it just a question of allocating resources and shifting priorities?

hanniabu 7y ago
I read they have a few SARS vaccines, but non that have gone through human trials yet. Side not: I'm always concerned when we're put in a situation like this where we're pressured to put out a vaccine quickly because it opens the door for a less than optimal solution to become a mainstay. For example since it's an emergency you may put forward a solution, have it go through human trials, find some side effect, but given the current circumstance say that it's "good enough" and give it the green light of approval. Now I understand that in such an urgent circumstance that this may be justified, but after the urgency is over it's my understanding that this solution that may or may not be approved under regular circumstances will remain approved.
- mrfusion 7y ago
  Why should a given vaccine have more side effects than existing vaccines? It’s just broken up pieces of the virus. If produced properly and rendered inert Why should it trigger major side effects?
  - vikramkr 7y ago
    Because biology is complicated and it's never that simple. You could trigger too strong an immune response, no response at all, or you could end up with a situation like on dengue where the vaccine makes the disease worse (https://www.statnews.com/2019/05/01/fda-dengue-vaccine-restrictions/ https://www.statnews.com/2019/05/01/fda-dengue-vaccine-restr...)
_npmx 7y ago
This is an interesting question, and I can confidently say the technology exists to have some quantity of human vaccine within 3 months. Will it be enough to have an impact? Probably not. We're talking about needing millions of doses. But if the companies in the space can succeed at at least showing the turn-around-time for some quantity of working vaccine is possible, then it becomes an engineering problem and not a scientific problem. Then you just need to marshal resources and you could be at a place where bulk vaccine could be produced in that short window of time. This 2019-nCoV marks an inflection point for humanity IMHO where sequencing costs, data transmissions, and vaccine technology are all good enough to actually accomplish a real-time vaccine. The science is here, now it's just turning a bigger crank.
mhb 7y ago
...the chances for a more rapid response come down to the biologics: a vaccine, or treatment with (say) monoclonal antibodies. (Update: here’s an overview at Biocentury on what’s going on). Extremely fortunate and rapid development of either of those would still be on the scale of many months... https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/01/27/coronavirus https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/01/27/co... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22169593 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22169593

hanniabu 7y ago

I read they have a few SARS vaccines, but non that have gone through human trials yet. Side not: I'm always concerned when we're put in a situation like this where we're pressured to put out a vaccine quickly because it opens the door for a less than optimal solution to become a mainstay. For example since it's an emergency you may put forward a solution, have it go through human trials, find some side effect, but given the current circumstance say that it's "good enough" and give it the green light of approval. Now I understand that in such an urgent circumstance that this may be justified, but after the urgency is over it's my understanding that this solution that may or may not be approved under regular circumstances will remain approved.

mrfusion 7y ago
Why should a given vaccine have more side effects than existing vaccines? It’s just broken up pieces of the virus. If produced properly and rendered inert Why should it trigger major side effects?
- vikramkr 7y ago
  Because biology is complicated and it's never that simple. You could trigger too strong an immune response, no response at all, or you could end up with a situation like on dengue where the vaccine makes the disease worse (https://www.statnews.com/2019/05/01/fda-dengue-vaccine-restrictions/ https://www.statnews.com/2019/05/01/fda-dengue-vaccine-restr...)

_npmx 7y ago

This is an interesting question, and I can confidently say the technology exists to have some quantity of human vaccine within 3 months. Will it be enough to have an impact? Probably not. We're talking about needing millions of doses. But if the companies in the space can succeed at at least showing the turn-around-time for some quantity of working vaccine is possible, then it becomes an engineering problem and not a scientific problem. Then you just need to marshal resources and you could be at a place where bulk vaccine could be produced in that short window of time. This 2019-nCoV marks an inflection point for humanity IMHO where sequencing costs, data transmissions, and vaccine technology are all good enough to actually accomplish a real-time vaccine. The science is here, now it's just turning a bigger crank.

mhb 7y ago

...the chances for a more rapid response come down to the biologics: a vaccine, or treatment with (say) monoclonal antibodies. (Update: here’s an overview at Biocentury on what’s going on). Extremely fortunate and rapid development of either of those would still be on the scale of many months... https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/01/27/coronavirus https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/01/27/co... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22169593 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22169593