6 ms·

It is good preliminary news. The real question if this vaccine prevents you spreading the disease or effectively turns you into an asymptomatic spreader. There

It is good preliminary news. The real question if this vaccine prevents you spreading the disease or effectively turns you into an asymptomatic spreader. There also outstanding questions if this works well for elderly people, as vaccination are generally less effective if you are older. Basically news worth a small cheer, not an exuberant celebration quite yet.

major505 6y ago
and also, how much time one people will be imune, and if new doses will be needed to reinforce the response of the imune system. People are saying September as a date for the vaccine to be avaliable, but it seens to be still many questions to answer before that.
daviroo 6y ago
If everyone gets the vaccine then does the distinction matter? Genuine question not rhetorical.
- oxfordmale 6y ago
  Logistically you can't give everyone the vaccine at the same time. If immunity is only temporary (few months) front line hospital staff are likely going to get vaccinated before the rest of society.
- SaltyLemonZest 6y ago
  Even if it's made mandatory, which may not happen, manufacturing and distributing enough vaccines for everyone to get one will take years. Ideally we want to get everything back to normal once we have enough vaccines stocked up to strategically deploy in hot spots, but if the vaccine doesn't severely reduce the disease's spread that strategy won't be effective.
  - rimliu 6y ago
    a) It would take months not years. b) you don't need to have _everybody_ vaccinated.
    - Stupulous 6y ago
      If vaccinated persons still transmit the virus, I would think herd immunity is irrelevant. Am I incorrect there?
      - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
        I suppose technically, if you were actually just as contageous as a sick person for as long. Hard to believe that would be the case though.
      - aeyes 6y ago
        How can you transmit a virus which is not able to use your body to replicate itself?
- graeme 6y ago
  It would matter for those who can’t be vaccinated (the immuno compromised, very young children) or for those whom the vaccine might not be effective (very elderly with weak immune responses) It would also matter for eradicating the virus. If it keeps circulating, and vaccines only provide protection for less than a lifetime, then we will have to keep vaccinating just about everyone in the world indefinitely. Any place that falls into civil strife could also expect a virus outbreak eventually. It would still be great to have vaccine that merely made the virus without effect! But eradication would be better.
  - birken 6y ago
    There are a lot of diseases that everybody gets vaccinated for routinely and regularly. I thought the assumption was this was going to be one of those, it is just a (currently unknown) matter of how frequently you'd need to get it. Are any epidemiologists talking about possibly eliminating it completely? Seems like the toothpaste is out of the tube for that.
    - graeme 6y ago
      Yes. Devi Sridhar has mentioned it as a goal, fairly sure I have seen others. We have only eliminated one virus globally (smallpox) but plenty of others have been eliminated nationally. Then to travel to those countries from a country where the disease is endemic you generally need proof of vaccination. There are also many countries that have basically eliminated the virus at present. They’re not going to want to import the virus just because other countries failed. Once you have two things the probable future becomes clear: a vaccine, and very fast tests. Combined, they will make it fairly easy for a well governed country to eliminate the virus. Then, any entering traveler from an endemic country would require proof of vaccination and a quick test at customs to confirm. That would keep the virus out of eliminated countries. After that it would be a global effort to eradicate the virus country by country, just like we’ve been doing with other diseases such as polio. A key feature of sars-cov-2 is that it is not like the flu. Coronavirus spreads in clusters and this is containable.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    > then we will have to keep vaccinating just about everyone in the world indefinitely. Which is to say, it'll be like the seasonal flu and not a pandemic. Yeah, we can tolerate that.
grey-area 6y ago
The answer to your question is in the article. This is not an attenuated virus, nor is it variolation, it's a modified other virus (common cold) with some proteins added and does not cause an infection, it just stimulates antibodies. It has been heavily modified, first so it cannot cause infections in people and also to make it "look" more like coronavirus. Scientists did this by transferring the genetic instructions for the coronavirus's "spike protein" - the crucial tool it uses to invade our cells - to the vaccine they were developing.
- lnanek2 6y ago
  > It has been heavily modified, first so it cannot cause infections Amusingly, lives would probably be saved if they had kept the base virus used for vaccination infectious. It's just the common cold, and the side effects are currently only a headache and fever, so getting the vaccination virus secondhand would be better than getting coronavirus, and you'd be protected after.
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    Common colds can occasionally be serious for people who are severely immunocompromised in other ways.
- oxfordmale 6y ago
  The problem is not the vaccine, it is when you actual contract COVID-19 later on. If the vaccine sufficiently suppresses the symptoms, but doesn't actual prevent infection, there is a change you can spread the virus asymptomatically.
  - eoinbmorg 6y ago
    I see how that's important. On the other hand, it's not as big of a deal to spread the virus if everyone has protection from the symptomatic risks. We should still shelter in place, but even turning active cases into carries would reduce loss of life (presuming we continue regular testing so people can KNOW if they are a carrier)

major505 6y ago

and also, how much time one people will be imune, and if new doses will be needed to reinforce the response of the imune system. People are saying September as a date for the vaccine to be avaliable, but it seens to be still many questions to answer before that.

daviroo 6y ago

If everyone gets the vaccine then does the distinction matter? Genuine question not rhetorical.

oxfordmale 6y ago
Logistically you can't give everyone the vaccine at the same time. If immunity is only temporary (few months) front line hospital staff are likely going to get vaccinated before the rest of society.
SaltyLemonZest 6y ago
Even if it's made mandatory, which may not happen, manufacturing and distributing enough vaccines for everyone to get one will take years. Ideally we want to get everything back to normal once we have enough vaccines stocked up to strategically deploy in hot spots, but if the vaccine doesn't severely reduce the disease's spread that strategy won't be effective.
- rimliu 6y ago
  a) It would take months not years. b) you don't need to have _everybody_ vaccinated.
  - Stupulous 6y ago
    If vaccinated persons still transmit the virus, I would think herd immunity is irrelevant. Am I incorrect there?
    - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
      I suppose technically, if you were actually just as contageous as a sick person for as long. Hard to believe that would be the case though.
    - aeyes 6y ago
      How can you transmit a virus which is not able to use your body to replicate itself?
graeme 6y ago
It would matter for those who can’t be vaccinated (the immuno compromised, very young children) or for those whom the vaccine might not be effective (very elderly with weak immune responses) It would also matter for eradicating the virus. If it keeps circulating, and vaccines only provide protection for less than a lifetime, then we will have to keep vaccinating just about everyone in the world indefinitely. Any place that falls into civil strife could also expect a virus outbreak eventually. It would still be great to have vaccine that merely made the virus without effect! But eradication would be better.
- birken 6y ago
  There are a lot of diseases that everybody gets vaccinated for routinely and regularly. I thought the assumption was this was going to be one of those, it is just a (currently unknown) matter of how frequently you'd need to get it. Are any epidemiologists talking about possibly eliminating it completely? Seems like the toothpaste is out of the tube for that.
  - graeme 6y ago
    Yes. Devi Sridhar has mentioned it as a goal, fairly sure I have seen others. We have only eliminated one virus globally (smallpox) but plenty of others have been eliminated nationally. Then to travel to those countries from a country where the disease is endemic you generally need proof of vaccination. There are also many countries that have basically eliminated the virus at present. They’re not going to want to import the virus just because other countries failed. Once you have two things the probable future becomes clear: a vaccine, and very fast tests. Combined, they will make it fairly easy for a well governed country to eliminate the virus. Then, any entering traveler from an endemic country would require proof of vaccination and a quick test at customs to confirm. That would keep the virus out of eliminated countries. After that it would be a global effort to eradicate the virus country by country, just like we’ve been doing with other diseases such as polio. A key feature of sars-cov-2 is that it is not like the flu. Coronavirus spreads in clusters and this is containable.
- newacct583 6y ago
  > then we will have to keep vaccinating just about everyone in the world indefinitely. Which is to say, it'll be like the seasonal flu and not a pandemic. Yeah, we can tolerate that.

grey-area 6y ago

The answer to your question is in the article. This is not an attenuated virus, nor is it variolation, it's a modified other virus (common cold) with some proteins added and does not cause an infection, it just stimulates antibodies. It has been heavily modified, first so it cannot cause infections in people and also to make it "look" more like coronavirus. Scientists did this by transferring the genetic instructions for the coronavirus's "spike protein" - the crucial tool it uses to invade our cells - to the vaccine they were developing.

lnanek2 6y ago
> It has been heavily modified, first so it cannot cause infections Amusingly, lives would probably be saved if they had kept the base virus used for vaccination infectious. It's just the common cold, and the side effects are currently only a headache and fever, so getting the vaccination virus secondhand would be better than getting coronavirus, and you'd be protected after.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  Common colds can occasionally be serious for people who are severely immunocompromised in other ways.
oxfordmale 6y ago
The problem is not the vaccine, it is when you actual contract COVID-19 later on. If the vaccine sufficiently suppresses the symptoms, but doesn't actual prevent infection, there is a change you can spread the virus asymptomatically.
- eoinbmorg 6y ago
  I see how that's important. On the other hand, it's not as big of a deal to spread the virus if everyone has protection from the symptomatic risks. We should still shelter in place, but even turning active cases into carries would reduce loss of life (presuming we continue regular testing so people can KNOW if they are a carrier)