6 ms·
It essentially means we need a vaccine to create immunity at scale, and will need to have fairly strict measures in place until that can happen.
by Blahah 7y ago
It essentially means we need a vaccine to create immunity at scale, and will need to have fairly strict measures in place until that can happen.
- the_af 7y agoI don't understand how a vaccine would work if prior exposure to the virus doesn't prevent re-infection :/ Honest question, no snark intended.
- mjw1007 7y agoNaively, if immunity from prior exposure lasts for a few months, then we might reasonably hope for a vaccine whose effects last for a few months. I suppose if that happened people would get revaccinated frequently.
- the_af 7y agoOk, but according to the article the man tested positive on Feb 14, then got cleared on March 2 (in Tokyo), returned home and relapsed very few days later. If there are no mistakes in the resting (or reporting), that's not even a few months of immunity...
- jshevek 7y agoWell I think it wouldn't be an 'inactivated' or 'attenuated' vaccine, but we have other vaccine types designed to trick the body into developing the readiness for an immune response. I don't know if they could work for this type of disease. Edit: I glanced at vaccines on Wikipedia, read the following on conjugate vaccines. Maybe we will develop a new technology to do something similar with viruses, training the immune system to recognize the virus by linking it to a toxin? >Conjugate—certain bacteria have polysaccharide outer coats that are poorly immunogenic. By linking these outer coats to proteins (e.g., toxins), the immune system can be led to recognize the polysaccharide as if it were a protein antigen. This approach is used in the Haemophilus influenzae type B vaccine.[41]
- the_af 7y agoInteresting, and thanks for replying. I realize I know very little about vaccines beyond the elementary-school-level basics (even though my brother is an immunologist... maybe I should ask him).
- ac29 7y agoThis is a single case in an elderly person. He may have poor immune system function - that doesn't mean a vaccine wouldn't be effective in the rest of the population.
- the_af 7y agoYes, I understand this. I also understand this may be a mistake in testing for this specific individual. I was wondering about the effectiveness of vaccines in the hypothetical scenario posited by the OP, "what if you can be reinfected after cured?".
- jshevek 7y agoIf prior exposure to the virus itself won't give a person immunity, I would expect it would be much more difficult to create a vaccine to grant immunity. I wonder if the 18 month vaccine timeline I have heard mention would be affected.
- Blahah 7y agoWe have never successfully created a vaccine against a coronavirus before, so this is new territory. On the other hand, we have new tools like the RNA vaccine being produced by Moderna which doesn't work like a traditional vaccine and so might be more effective. Ultimately we won't know until we try.
- jacobwilliamroy 7y agoNano machines! Buy a proprietary immune system and let a single corporation control your health for the rest of your life!
- tempestn 7y agoAnother alternative to immunity at scale would be to have sufficiently strict measures to reduce R0 to below 1, so the virus dies out. China appears to have managed this. If it could be done near globally, it's possible the remaining outbreaks could be contained.