3 ms·
Those are all valid points but not enough to convince me that it isn't worth trying. Then again I'm not a virologist or anything close so it doesn't matter muc
by 01100011 5y ago
Those are all valid points but not enough to convince me that it isn't worth trying. Then again I'm not a virologist or anything close so it doesn't matter much what I think. I hope it's something leadership will consider though, and I hope the PR problem, for instance, isn't something they worry much about.
- gus_massa 5y agoUsing "live" virus is a problem. For example there are two versions of the polio vaccine. The injectable uses inactivated ("dead") virus, and the oral uses weakened("live") virus. Both are safe, but in the oral one the virus can go to another person and cause no problems, and then to another and cause no problems, and after like a year jumping hosts it can mutate and become dangerous. Now most of the the polio cases are caused by virus that mutated from the version of the vaccine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine#Vaccine-induced_polio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine#Vaccine-induced_... The number is much smaller that the number of cases before the vaccine, but it's concerning anyway. So they are trying to discontinue the use of the vaccine with the inactivated virus, but the other one is better when most of the population is not vaccinated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine#Schedule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine#Schedule So ... probably the authorization and test necessaries to use a new vaccine with and attenuated virus are more difficult than a vaccine with an inactivated virus (or a vector virus, of mRNA, that also can't spread).
- gus_massa 5y agoVery late fix: * So they are trying to discontinue the use of the vaccine with the weakened virus, but the it's better when most of the population is not vaccinated.