4 ms·

Asking because I have no idea - Will other mRNA vaccines have short-lived efficacy like the covid one does? Will you need an AIDS vaccine booster every six mont

Asking because I have no idea - Will other mRNA vaccines have short-lived efficacy like the covid one does? Will you need an AIDS vaccine booster every six months?

evgen 5y ago
This really depends on how quickly the virus in question mutates and what components of the virus the vaccine keys on for its protective features. HIV evolves quickly (it is a sloppy replicator and is a fast reproducer) but if the vaccine targets a pathway that all variants use it can end up being effective for a very long time, particularly if the pathway that the vaccine targets is one that is important in how the virus interacts with (or targets in the case of HIV) the immune system.
tialaramex 5y ago
The purpose of all vaccines (including those built with mRNA technology, many current day vaccines using a "killed" virus and even those using a different but related virus whole like the original "vaccination" with cow pox) is to teach your body's immune system about something so that it might react appropriately immediately when it sees that thing, or something very similar in the future. The effect of teaching the immune system to attack something is difficult to predict because it is a natural system and we don't entirely understand how it works, only enough to get better at teaching it new things. In some cases it's so good at destroying related things that it produces "sterilising immunity" - a vaccinated person can't get the disease at all, even if directly exposed to it, in other cases, as seems to have been the case for COVID-19, you get something useful but much less effective. AIUI There's no reason we know of why the platform (the mechanism by which we tell people's immune system about a new thing to be attacked) would influence how effective the defence put up subsequently is. The vaccine is not in your body when you're attacked weeks or months later by a virus, what's left is a "memory" of what should be identified as foreign and destroyed. So, it would be expected to depend on how AIDS works, and perhaps on exactly what the vaccine is teaching the immune system to attack, not on how the vaccine is manufactured. Think about the difference between identifying wanted bank robbers with a hand-drawn picture of their faces, versus a still from a CCTV camera. It might be harder or easier to recognise the CCTV still, but we wouldn't expect them to do more or less jail time when identified by one method versus the other.
- caf 5y ago
  One thing we do know, however, is that the immune system has fewer tools available at the mucosal membrane in the respiratory system (where the battle against SARS-COV-2 happens) than it does in the blood (where the battle against HIV happens).
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
virgilp 5y ago
My understanding is that "lifetime" is not related to the vaccine but to the virus itself (i.e. we can't make more long-term-efficient COVID-19 vaccines in any tech; but we might get full immunity to other diseases using mRNA tech)
walrus01 5y ago
I don't think it's quite accurate to say the existing mRNA vaccines are not effective, because the rate of hospitalization and rate of ICU admissions per capita for double-vaccinated people, vs unvaccinated people is really clear. The data is showing that the likelihood of severe illness in a delta or omicron-infected person who previously had both doses of vaccine is significantly less. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2786039 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2786039
- kerneloftruth 5y ago
  Not ineffective, but far less effective than what was promised and expected. They're helpful, it's true.
  - couchand 5y ago
    Promised?
    - kerneloftruth 5y ago
      Yes, that's what was promised. https://www.va.gov/pittsburgh-health-care/news-releases/va-research-shows-vaccines-more-than-95-effective-in-preventing-infection-in-high-risk-population/ https://www.va.gov/pittsburgh-health-care/news-releases/va-r... ...many more like that if you search.
      - couchand 5y ago
        My point is that the results from a study are not a promise, and any attempt to paint them as such is disingenuous at best.
        kerneloftruth 5y ago
        It was the information given to people, by the very experts they're taught to look to for truth, to convince them to get the vaccine. It's really more than a promise, in fact -- it's a statement that said "we have studied this, and are convinced that it's 95% effective". Further, the efficacy was not stated as a range, with a lower bound of 50% or less. Rather, we were told _it works_. The CDC director saying last Spring "if you've gotten both doses, you cannot catch Covid, and you cannot spread Covid" was not an intentional lie -- but it was a promise made very clearly, but unfortunately overly optimistic.

Asking because I have no idea - Will other mRNA vaccines have short-lived efficacy like the covid one does? Will you need an AIDS vaccine booster every six months?

evgen 5y ago

This really depends on how quickly the virus in question mutates and what components of the virus the vaccine keys on for its protective features. HIV evolves quickly (it is a sloppy replicator and is a fast reproducer) but if the vaccine targets a pathway that all variants use it can end up being effective for a very long time, particularly if the pathway that the vaccine targets is one that is important in how the virus interacts with (or targets in the case of HIV) the immune system.

tialaramex 5y ago

The purpose of all vaccines (including those built with mRNA technology, many current day vaccines using a "killed" virus and even those using a different but related virus whole like the original "vaccination" with cow pox) is to teach your body's immune system about something so that it might react appropriately immediately when it sees that thing, or something very similar in the future. The effect of teaching the immune system to attack something is difficult to predict because it is a natural system and we don't entirely understand how it works, only enough to get better at teaching it new things. In some cases it's so good at destroying related things that it produces "sterilising immunity" - a vaccinated person can't get the disease at all, even if directly exposed to it, in other cases, as seems to have been the case for COVID-19, you get something useful but much less effective. AIUI There's no reason we know of why the platform (the mechanism by which we tell people's immune system about a new thing to be attacked) would influence how effective the defence put up subsequently is. The vaccine is not in your body when you're attacked weeks or months later by a virus, what's left is a "memory" of what should be identified as foreign and destroyed. So, it would be expected to depend on how AIDS works, and perhaps on exactly what the vaccine is teaching the immune system to attack, not on how the vaccine is manufactured. Think about the difference between identifying wanted bank robbers with a hand-drawn picture of their faces, versus a still from a CCTV camera. It might be harder or easier to recognise the CCTV still, but we wouldn't expect them to do more or less jail time when identified by one method versus the other.

caf 5y ago
One thing we do know, however, is that the immune system has fewer tools available at the mucosal membrane in the respiratory system (where the battle against SARS-COV-2 happens) than it does in the blood (where the battle against HIV happens).

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

virgilp 5y ago

My understanding is that "lifetime" is not related to the vaccine but to the virus itself (i.e. we can't make more long-term-efficient COVID-19 vaccines in any tech; but we might get full immunity to other diseases using mRNA tech)

walrus01 5y ago

I don't think it's quite accurate to say the existing mRNA vaccines are not effective, because the rate of hospitalization and rate of ICU admissions per capita for double-vaccinated people, vs unvaccinated people is really clear. The data is showing that the likelihood of severe illness in a delta or omicron-infected person who previously had both doses of vaccine is significantly less. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2786039 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2786039

kerneloftruth 5y ago
Not ineffective, but far less effective than what was promised and expected. They're helpful, it's true.
- couchand 5y ago
  Promised?
  - kerneloftruth 5y ago
    Yes, that's what was promised. https://www.va.gov/pittsburgh-health-care/news-releases/va-research-shows-vaccines-more-than-95-effective-in-preventing-infection-in-high-risk-population/ https://www.va.gov/pittsburgh-health-care/news-releases/va-r... ...many more like that if you search.
    - couchand 5y ago
      My point is that the results from a study are not a promise, and any attempt to paint them as such is disingenuous at best.
      - kerneloftruth 5y ago
        It was the information given to people, by the very experts they're taught to look to for truth, to convince them to get the vaccine. It's really more than a promise, in fact -- it's a statement that said "we have studied this, and are convinced that it's 95% effective". Further, the efficacy was not stated as a range, with a lower bound of 50% or less. Rather, we were told _it works_. The CDC director saying last Spring "if you've gotten both doses, you cannot catch Covid, and you cannot spread Covid" was not an intentional lie -- but it was a promise made very clearly, but unfortunately overly optimistic.