3 ms·

Every time you tell a doctor to go to work treating COVID patients, you're doing a challenge trial, except he has no chance of being vaccinated, and the risk he

Every time you tell a doctor to go to work treating COVID patients, you're doing a challenge trial, except he has no chance of being vaccinated, and the risk he's taking doesn't contribute to the most important thing for the world, which is a working COVID vaccine. We are allowing "essential" workers to be exposed to COVID. Who could be more of an essential worker than a vaccine trial participant right now?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mattkrause 7y ago
This is exactly why you wouldn’t need a challenge trial: lots of people are already regularly exposed to the virus. Immunize some of them and see if the infection rate is lower in that group vs a control.
- claudeganon 7y ago
  Except failed vaccines can induce a response that makes you more susceptible to the disease and with worse symptoms. It’s called antibody-dependent enhancement: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12725690/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12725690/ Just about the last people you’d want to risk that kind of vaccine trial on are healthcare workers, who are already in short supply.
  - mattkrause 7y ago
    I didn’t say healthcare workers. I said that there’s plenty of incidental exposure already: healthcare workers, yes, but also nearly everyone who’s leaving the home too. It is literally a pandemic! This point is actually made in the article itself: they want to get it done while and where there’s community transmission to avoid the ethical fraught ness of a challenge trial. For similar reasons, challenge trials also weren’t done for AIDS PrEP, since there were groups with enough lifestyle exposure to power a study.
  - lbeltrame 7y ago
    Sinovac (which is testing an attenuated vaccine) published some data on a preprint[1] claiming it does not cause ADE. [1] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.17.046375v1 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.17.046375v1

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

mattkrause 7y ago

This is exactly why you wouldn’t need a challenge trial: lots of people are already regularly exposed to the virus. Immunize some of them and see if the infection rate is lower in that group vs a control.

claudeganon 7y ago
Except failed vaccines can induce a response that makes you more susceptible to the disease and with worse symptoms. It’s called antibody-dependent enhancement: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12725690/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12725690/ Just about the last people you’d want to risk that kind of vaccine trial on are healthcare workers, who are already in short supply.
- mattkrause 7y ago
  I didn’t say healthcare workers. I said that there’s plenty of incidental exposure already: healthcare workers, yes, but also nearly everyone who’s leaving the home too. It is literally a pandemic! This point is actually made in the article itself: they want to get it done while and where there’s community transmission to avoid the ethical fraught ness of a challenge trial. For similar reasons, challenge trials also weren’t done for AIDS PrEP, since there were groups with enough lifestyle exposure to power a study.
- lbeltrame 7y ago
  Sinovac (which is testing an attenuated vaccine) published some data on a preprint[1] claiming it does not cause ADE. [1] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.17.046375v1 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.17.046375v1