4 ms·

Does it not logically follow that if the dose can be precisely controlled, it could help your body start developing antibodies sooner?

skybrian 7y ago
That's the idea behind "variolation", which was used before there were vaccines. It's risky, since you might get infected anyway, or perhaps the dose isn't enough to work. Making strong guarantees that people will become immune and won't be infected is part of what makes coming up with a vaccine hard. It's apparently pretty easy and quick to come up with vaccine candidates.
- zajio1am 7y ago
  With variolation it was not lower dose, but different (mild) strain (cowpox), which offers cross-immunity to smallpox.
  - InDemoVeritas 7y ago
    It was a controlled infection with Smallpox, by scraping the skin with pus or scab powder from an infected person. Cowpox is what makes the smallpox vaccine.
    - zajio1am 7y ago
      You are right.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- bluGill 7y ago
  If we have a vaccine candidate that is safe, is there any reason not to give it in mass before knowing if it works? The only thing I can come up with is it takes longer to prove safety than effectiveness, but I don't much about this.
  - Majromax 7y ago
    > If we have a vaccine candidate that is safe, is there any reason not to give it in mass before knowing if it works? Yes. In some cases, the wrong kind of immune response can cause antibody-dependent enhancement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody-dependent_enhancement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody-dependent_enhancement), where the immune reaction enhances the severity of the virus. This is not terribly common, but alas this exact mechanism has been seen in earlier work on SARS.
    - AuryGlenz 7y ago
      Also, during the H1N1 scare a vaccine used in Europe caused some people to develop narcolepsy (though perhaps more would have gotten it from the virus itself without a vaccine). It can be hard to determine that something is “safe” quickly.
      - saalweachter 7y ago
        SARS-CoV-2 is also at a really awkward point in the fatality curve (with the best estimate of the IFR being around 1%) that you really want to do something, but you also can't really accept a significant chance of that something having a significant side effect.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
sjg007 7y ago
Dosing is a thing. There are high dose and low dose influenza vaccines for example. But even then immunity isn't guaranteed, you need neutralizing antibodies to develop as well. Lots of things have to go right to get a sustained safe and effective response which is why vaccines take so long to develop.

skybrian 7y ago

That's the idea behind "variolation", which was used before there were vaccines. It's risky, since you might get infected anyway, or perhaps the dose isn't enough to work. Making strong guarantees that people will become immune and won't be infected is part of what makes coming up with a vaccine hard. It's apparently pretty easy and quick to come up with vaccine candidates.

zajio1am 7y ago
With variolation it was not lower dose, but different (mild) strain (cowpox), which offers cross-immunity to smallpox.
- InDemoVeritas 7y ago
  It was a controlled infection with Smallpox, by scraping the skin with pus or scab powder from an infected person. Cowpox is what makes the smallpox vaccine.
  - zajio1am 7y ago
    You are right.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
bluGill 7y ago
If we have a vaccine candidate that is safe, is there any reason not to give it in mass before knowing if it works? The only thing I can come up with is it takes longer to prove safety than effectiveness, but I don't much about this.
- Majromax 7y ago
  > If we have a vaccine candidate that is safe, is there any reason not to give it in mass before knowing if it works? Yes. In some cases, the wrong kind of immune response can cause antibody-dependent enhancement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody-dependent_enhancement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody-dependent_enhancement), where the immune reaction enhances the severity of the virus. This is not terribly common, but alas this exact mechanism has been seen in earlier work on SARS.
  - AuryGlenz 7y ago
    Also, during the H1N1 scare a vaccine used in Europe caused some people to develop narcolepsy (though perhaps more would have gotten it from the virus itself without a vaccine). It can be hard to determine that something is “safe” quickly.
    - saalweachter 7y ago
      SARS-CoV-2 is also at a really awkward point in the fatality curve (with the best estimate of the IFR being around 1%) that you really want to do something, but you also can't really accept a significant chance of that something having a significant side effect.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

sjg007 7y ago

Dosing is a thing. There are high dose and low dose influenza vaccines for example. But even then immunity isn't guaranteed, you need neutralizing antibodies to develop as well. Lots of things have to go right to get a sustained safe and effective response which is why vaccines take so long to develop.