6 ms·

Maybe, but thats basically developing a new vaccine, and in the time it takes to test that out and make sure it's safe and effective, we'd already have other va

Maybe, but thats basically developing a new vaccine, and in the time it takes to test that out and make sure it's safe and effective, we'd already have other vaccines on the market that might be more likely to be effective. Theres also the risk of antibody dependent enhancement where a competing immune effect makes the disease worse if previously infected with a different strain as seen in the dengue family

djsumdog 6y ago
It's silly to think we're going to have a safe vaccine on the market any time soon. It'd probably be safer to give everyone coronavirus common cold viruses if it can build an immunity. ..and Immune Enhancement Syndrome one of the serious consequences of the SARS1 and MERS vaccines that never made it past their trials. There are a lot of factors to immunity beyond antibodies. Traditional vaccines are either close viruses in the animal world (horsepox for smallpox) or heat treated inactivated virus (flu). We know they produce anitbodies, but there are hundreds of other parts of our immune system (complement system, inane, etc.) that might interact and form memory as well. Vaccines come out of bad places; from eras where hundreds if not thousands of people were going blind, dying or getting paralyzed by disease. It was easier to just test things on people back then too, and a lot of them died (Chinese were inoculating people with actual smallpox 300 years before Jenner discovered making a vaccine from Cowpox/horsepox). In the 1970s, the Swing Flu vaccine was a disaster. Sure millions of people got the vaccine and were fine, but 3,000 people developed Guillain-Barre syndrome. Some still have trouble walking or smiling (see the 60 Minutes documentary from that era) Vaccines need a lot of testing. I do not understand why we're trusting the man who gave us Windows 95 to lead the Gates/Gavi alliance responsible for giving us a "safe" vaccine in less than a year. That's insane.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  The problem is that, at least in some populations, these viruses are only moderately less dangerous than COVID-19. There are recorded nursing home outbreaks (e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2095096/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2095096/) where a common cold coronavirus killed 5-8% of residents.
  - partyboat1586 6y ago
    Without wanting to sound disrespectful to those affected 5-8% is pretty good for a care home.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      It is, unfortunately, but it's probably bad enough that it's not something a government could deliberately do.
      - ithkuil 6y ago
        Would it make sense to skip those age groups? We still have social distancing in place; if we try to protect those people from sars-cov-2 they will also be protected by other milder variants we nurse in the wider population. On a similar note: when a vaccine gets developed, does it make more sense to vaccinate those age groups (on the grounds that it will protect the most vulnerables) or to vaccinate everybody else (on the grounds that the vaccines may not be 100% safe and thus it may be safer for those age groups to benefit from the herd immunity)?
        SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        I'd assume the goal of a population-wide infection program would be to end social distancing. Otherwise it's not clear what the point would be. Vaccine deployment won't eradicate the virus immediately, so the most at-risk populations will likely need to be personally vaccinated before they can safely stop social distancing.
        raxxorrax 6y ago
        You cannot deliberately infect people of any age group anyway. I would skip it and doesn't sound more convincing than measles parties.
        mola 6y ago
        The problem with measles parties is that measles cause long term damage and not the delibirate infection. If mild common cold can make you immune to covid19, delibirate infections may be a much more efficient way to achieve herd immunity than a propiatary vaccine.
- dehrmann 6y ago
  > It'd probably be safer to give everyone coronavirus common cold viruses if it can build an immunity. I'm still a little scared by the Moderna vaccine because the mechanism for RNA vaccines is so new, and this one's being rushed out. Give a choice between that an a month of common colds, I'd take the colds.
- mlyle 6y ago
  > It's silly to think we're going to have a safe vaccine on the market any time soon. It'd probably be safer to give everyone coronavirus common cold viruses if it can build an immunity. I'd say that there's a 70% chance that there's millions of doses available for North America by late January of a >50% efficacy vaccine with a high production rate from that point. There are so many different vaccine efforts now, and so many of them producing at risk. Some will work. It's just a question of how high the efficacy is and the duration of protection. > ..and Immune Enhancement Syndrome one of the serious consequences of the SARS1 and MERS vaccines that never made it past their trials. A lot of us were worried about antibody dependent enhancement. But we've had basically no evidence that this is a significant concern: successful treatment with convalescent plasma, successful challenge tests with vaccines in animal models, successful monoclonal antibody therapies in animal tests, etc, all point the other way. > Sure millions of people got the vaccine and were fine, but 3,000 people developed Guillain-Barre syndrome. And this wasn't a good trade, because the vaccine probably saved a lot fewer than 3,000 lives. But at this point, you'd save a whole lot of lives even with a vaccine that bad. (And we're not going quite that quick that time around and we have somewhat better tools to prevent bad outcomes). > I do not understand why we're trusting the man who gave us Windows 95 to lead the Gates/Gavi alliance responsible for giving us a "safe" vaccine in less than a year. ??? Now you've gone completely off the rails. Gavi's primary role is as a purchaser of vaccines and not in development. The couple dozen vaccine development efforts worldwide are what we can expect to yield a vaccine.
  - mola 6y ago
    Vaccines of a new untested technology that manipulates rna that are rushed to market. Yeah, good last resort, not first.
    - mlyle 6y ago
      The mRNA vaccines are just a couple of the dozen+ credible vaccine efforts. They may win the race, they may not..
      - raducu 6y ago
- numpad0 6y ago
  > give everyone coronavirus common cold viruses if it can build an immunity. > Edward Jenner, FRS FRCPE[1] (17 May 1749 – 26 January 1823) was an English physician and scientist who was the pioneer of smallpox vaccine, the world's first vaccine.[2][3] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Jenner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Jenner
- snowwrestler 6y ago
  It's not like we stopped vaccine development in the 1970s. The HPV vaccine came out in 2006 and by all evidence so far is very safe.
  - rotterdamdev 6y ago
    New research suggests it's more harm than good, with all the side effects, and your chance to get HPV if you do not live a promiscuous life.
- vikramkr 6y ago
  giving everyone a cold virus is a vaccine by definition. It's a biological preparation to provide active acquired immunity. Trying to make up artificial distinctions between this and that doesn't make giving everyone the cold not a vaccine or any safer - the procedure doesn't care what you name it, a vaccine is a vaccine and a vaccine must be tested b for safety and efficacy
coronadisaster 6y ago
I didnt know there was a date set for an upcoming covid-19 vaccine
- BeatLeJuce 6y ago
  There isn't, but some of the proposed vaccines are entering (or very close to entering) phase 3, while this proposed inocculation by common corona viruses would have to start at phase 1, thus being much slower.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
anoncake 6y ago
Not really. There is no need to develop a vaccine, the unmodified common cold virus is harmless enough. And we know its effects.
- alkonaut 6y ago
  Doctors can’t do that ethically, but people could spread it among themselves. It’s the chickenpox-party solution. I don’t think it’s practical though given how easy it is to confuse another Coronavirus for Covid symptoms.
- makomk 6y ago
  Infection with at least some of those "common cold" human coronaviruses seems to have much the same effects on kids and the elderly (and maybe everyone else too) as Covid-19. At least part of the reason we're not seeing a huge pandemic of those is that lots of people already have immunity, but that also makes infecting people with them less useful - the people who already have immunity to those aren't likely to develop new immunity, and the people who don't presumably won't necessarily develop immunity that crosses over to Covid-19. (Unfortunately, since common cold research is a lot less big, glamourous and high-profile than Covid-19, I don't think we know a huge amount for sure about the other human coronaviruses - and what we do know isn't exactly front-page headline news.)
  - tossAfterUsing 6y ago
    I read earlier in the year... early in the news about the outbreak, a skeptical view that suggested the reason for this 'epidemic' had something to do with the relatively new ability to apply fast genetic testing to a 'fairly common cold' edit to remove the phrases: "pandemic" & "new normal"
- vikramkr 6y ago
  Deploying a coronavirus to immunize against covid is a vaccine by definition and deciding to not call it a vaccine as a matter of syntax doesn't make the ADE risk go away

djsumdog 6y ago

It's silly to think we're going to have a safe vaccine on the market any time soon. It'd probably be safer to give everyone coronavirus common cold viruses if it can build an immunity. ..and Immune Enhancement Syndrome one of the serious consequences of the SARS1 and MERS vaccines that never made it past their trials. There are a lot of factors to immunity beyond antibodies. Traditional vaccines are either close viruses in the animal world (horsepox for smallpox) or heat treated inactivated virus (flu). We know they produce anitbodies, but there are hundreds of other parts of our immune system (complement system, inane, etc.) that might interact and form memory as well. Vaccines come out of bad places; from eras where hundreds if not thousands of people were going blind, dying or getting paralyzed by disease. It was easier to just test things on people back then too, and a lot of them died (Chinese were inoculating people with actual smallpox 300 years before Jenner discovered making a vaccine from Cowpox/horsepox). In the 1970s, the Swing Flu vaccine was a disaster. Sure millions of people got the vaccine and were fine, but 3,000 people developed Guillain-Barre syndrome. Some still have trouble walking or smiling (see the 60 Minutes documentary from that era) Vaccines need a lot of testing. I do not understand why we're trusting the man who gave us Windows 95 to lead the Gates/Gavi alliance responsible for giving us a "safe" vaccine in less than a year. That's insane.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
The problem is that, at least in some populations, these viruses are only moderately less dangerous than COVID-19. There are recorded nursing home outbreaks (e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2095096/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2095096/) where a common cold coronavirus killed 5-8% of residents.
- partyboat1586 6y ago
  Without wanting to sound disrespectful to those affected 5-8% is pretty good for a care home.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    It is, unfortunately, but it's probably bad enough that it's not something a government could deliberately do.
    - ithkuil 6y ago
      Would it make sense to skip those age groups? We still have social distancing in place; if we try to protect those people from sars-cov-2 they will also be protected by other milder variants we nurse in the wider population. On a similar note: when a vaccine gets developed, does it make more sense to vaccinate those age groups (on the grounds that it will protect the most vulnerables) or to vaccinate everybody else (on the grounds that the vaccines may not be 100% safe and thus it may be safer for those age groups to benefit from the herd immunity)?
      - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        I'd assume the goal of a population-wide infection program would be to end social distancing. Otherwise it's not clear what the point would be. Vaccine deployment won't eradicate the virus immediately, so the most at-risk populations will likely need to be personally vaccinated before they can safely stop social distancing.
      - raxxorrax 6y ago
        You cannot deliberately infect people of any age group anyway. I would skip it and doesn't sound more convincing than measles parties.
        mola 6y ago
        The problem with measles parties is that measles cause long term damage and not the delibirate infection. If mild common cold can make you immune to covid19, delibirate infections may be a much more efficient way to achieve herd immunity than a propiatary vaccine.
dehrmann 6y ago
> It'd probably be safer to give everyone coronavirus common cold viruses if it can build an immunity. I'm still a little scared by the Moderna vaccine because the mechanism for RNA vaccines is so new, and this one's being rushed out. Give a choice between that an a month of common colds, I'd take the colds.
mlyle 6y ago
> It's silly to think we're going to have a safe vaccine on the market any time soon. It'd probably be safer to give everyone coronavirus common cold viruses if it can build an immunity. I'd say that there's a 70% chance that there's millions of doses available for North America by late January of a >50% efficacy vaccine with a high production rate from that point. There are so many different vaccine efforts now, and so many of them producing at risk. Some will work. It's just a question of how high the efficacy is and the duration of protection. > ..and Immune Enhancement Syndrome one of the serious consequences of the SARS1 and MERS vaccines that never made it past their trials. A lot of us were worried about antibody dependent enhancement. But we've had basically no evidence that this is a significant concern: successful treatment with convalescent plasma, successful challenge tests with vaccines in animal models, successful monoclonal antibody therapies in animal tests, etc, all point the other way. > Sure millions of people got the vaccine and were fine, but 3,000 people developed Guillain-Barre syndrome. And this wasn't a good trade, because the vaccine probably saved a lot fewer than 3,000 lives. But at this point, you'd save a whole lot of lives even with a vaccine that bad. (And we're not going quite that quick that time around and we have somewhat better tools to prevent bad outcomes). > I do not understand why we're trusting the man who gave us Windows 95 to lead the Gates/Gavi alliance responsible for giving us a "safe" vaccine in less than a year. ??? Now you've gone completely off the rails. Gavi's primary role is as a purchaser of vaccines and not in development. The couple dozen vaccine development efforts worldwide are what we can expect to yield a vaccine.
- mola 6y ago
  Vaccines of a new untested technology that manipulates rna that are rushed to market. Yeah, good last resort, not first.
  - mlyle 6y ago
    The mRNA vaccines are just a couple of the dozen+ credible vaccine efforts. They may win the race, they may not..
    - raducu 6y ago
numpad0 6y ago
> give everyone coronavirus common cold viruses if it can build an immunity. > Edward Jenner, FRS FRCPE[1] (17 May 1749 – 26 January 1823) was an English physician and scientist who was the pioneer of smallpox vaccine, the world's first vaccine.[2][3] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Jenner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Jenner
snowwrestler 6y ago
It's not like we stopped vaccine development in the 1970s. The HPV vaccine came out in 2006 and by all evidence so far is very safe.
- rotterdamdev 6y ago
  New research suggests it's more harm than good, with all the side effects, and your chance to get HPV if you do not live a promiscuous life.
vikramkr 6y ago
giving everyone a cold virus is a vaccine by definition. It's a biological preparation to provide active acquired immunity. Trying to make up artificial distinctions between this and that doesn't make giving everyone the cold not a vaccine or any safer - the procedure doesn't care what you name it, a vaccine is a vaccine and a vaccine must be tested b for safety and efficacy

coronadisaster 6y ago

I didnt know there was a date set for an upcoming covid-19 vaccine

BeatLeJuce 6y ago
There isn't, but some of the proposed vaccines are entering (or very close to entering) phase 3, while this proposed inocculation by common corona viruses would have to start at phase 1, thus being much slower.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

anoncake 6y ago

Not really. There is no need to develop a vaccine, the unmodified common cold virus is harmless enough. And we know its effects.

alkonaut 6y ago
Doctors can’t do that ethically, but people could spread it among themselves. It’s the chickenpox-party solution. I don’t think it’s practical though given how easy it is to confuse another Coronavirus for Covid symptoms.
makomk 6y ago
Infection with at least some of those "common cold" human coronaviruses seems to have much the same effects on kids and the elderly (and maybe everyone else too) as Covid-19. At least part of the reason we're not seeing a huge pandemic of those is that lots of people already have immunity, but that also makes infecting people with them less useful - the people who already have immunity to those aren't likely to develop new immunity, and the people who don't presumably won't necessarily develop immunity that crosses over to Covid-19. (Unfortunately, since common cold research is a lot less big, glamourous and high-profile than Covid-19, I don't think we know a huge amount for sure about the other human coronaviruses - and what we do know isn't exactly front-page headline news.)
- tossAfterUsing 6y ago
  I read earlier in the year... early in the news about the outbreak, a skeptical view that suggested the reason for this 'epidemic' had something to do with the relatively new ability to apply fast genetic testing to a 'fairly common cold' edit to remove the phrases: "pandemic" & "new normal"
vikramkr 6y ago
Deploying a coronavirus to immunize against covid is a vaccine by definition and deciding to not call it a vaccine as a matter of syntax doesn't make the ADE risk go away