3 ms·

Of course it's correct. If the immune system can't learn immunity from the full virus itself, virus fragments or a weakened relative won't suffice either. As f

Of course it's correct. If the immune system can't learn immunity from the full virus itself, virus fragments or a weakened relative won't suffice either. As for developing a novel type of vaccine? Developing any vaccine within an acceptable timeframe would be a minor miracle. To expect a breakthrough like that is plain delusional.

jlokier 6y ago
> If the immune system can't learn immunity from the full virus itself, virus fragments or a weakened relative won't suffice either. There are currently some 8-10 different kinds of vaccine for COVID-19 in development right now, and only two of those are based on virus fragments or weakened relatives. It possible to induce temporary immunity, which would be adequate as a vaccine during pandemic, although annoying because we'd have to keep taking boosters. The history of this goes back >100 years, it is hardly "breakthrough" level. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_induction_of_immunity#Temporarily_induced_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_induction_of_immuni... Some R&D is towards gene-editing or other means of RNA/DNA transcription to cause the body to produce passive immunity antibodies continuously, rather than one-off infusion. That would be breakthrough level, but it's not so implausible that "we might as well give up and accept the inevitable now" and let millions die and millions more suffer the disabilities. If these fail, regular antibody infusions or other therepeutics may be required. Not a vaccine, but similar in practical effect while being more expensive. We might as well give up if the US insurance system is in charge of that.