5 ms·

Yes this should really be called a vaccine. A vaccine is a preparation that stimulates the body's immune response against diseases. For example, a specific vacc

by jph 3y ago

Yes this should really be called a vaccine. A vaccine is a preparation that stimulates the body's immune response against diseases. For example, a specific vaccine injection (such as a flu shot) can boost the body's own immune system to help protect against a specific disease (such as the year's flu variant).

lumb63 3y ago
All previous vaccines were aimed at preventing infectious diseases. None of them are (primarily) indicated for preventing recurrence of a non-infectious disease. Whether it meets the technical definition or not, we can probably agree this is fundamentally different to all other vaccines. Also, since no other vaccines are custom to each patient, using the term “vaccine” could cause confusion. Do we really want to give people the idea that they can be “vaccinated against melanoma” when the reality is that they can receive a treatment to prevent their specific melanoma, which they have to have already had, from recurring? It seems laden with confusion. Personally, I’ll just call it immunotherapy.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  The idea that marketed vaccines are safe & effective has been well marketed and deeply planted in the minds of the public. It's easier to leverage that familiarity than it is to build awareness and trust for "immunotherapy".
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    Down voted by those who don't understand marketing, human behavior, read the Heath Brother's "Made to Stick", etc.? Love you HN but you're jumping the shark.
- jph 3y ago
  > All previous vaccines were aimed at preventing infectious diseases. This is a common misconception, and that's whythe U.S. CDC is now emphasizing that vaccines can do more to help people. The most important recent example is the world's widespread rollout of COVID vaccines. These are primarily aimed at better protection against severe illness, hospitalization, and death; these are not primarily aimed at preventing an individual from ever being infected by any COVID variant.
  - Auracle 3y ago
    Well that’s just plain revisionist history. Name another example. The flu vaccine, maybe? But that’s because they don’t know which strains to target. Both the CDC director at the time and Biden said the vaccine would prevent you from getting COVID. It’s insane we’re changing the definition of words because the COVID vaccines were kinda crappy and that would be bad politically. Not that the vaccine discussed here shouldn’t be called one - it absolutely is.
    - throwaway8877 3y ago
      No, covid vaccines were not kind of crappy, just the virus itself evolved so rapidly that the virus had evolved enough even before complete rollout of the vaccines. Yet even then the boosted vaccination was highly effective against the delta variant and still effective against omicron on the level par with flu vaccines. Omicron was just infectious on the level of measles and with very short incubation period giving the immune system very little time to ramp up the immune response.
      - Auracle 3y ago
        I'd argue that a vaccine that allowed the virus to evolve rapidly out of it because it's only targeting on small section of the virus is pretty crappy by definition. Don't get me wrong, it saved a lot of lives. Compared to every other vaccine we've all taken in our lives it's the absolute bottom of the barrel, and the fact that politically (and possibly for public health reasons) a good portion of politicians effectively lied about that made it so companies didn't feel like they should invest in making a better vaccine. I've had Covid twice and both times I was very sick - I'd love a better, more broad, vaccine. I'd argue it's definitely not as effective as flu vaccines vs omicron. On a good year the flu vaccine can prevent 50% of flu cases in those that take it. Everyone I know has gotten Covid, vaccinated or not.
owlboy 3y ago
Well, they could at least always say something like “…vaccine, but not like you are thinking. You, like billions of other people, have a misguided and frankly incomplete understanding of the word. …”

by jph 3y ago

lumb63 3y ago

All previous vaccines were aimed at preventing infectious diseases. None of them are (primarily) indicated for preventing recurrence of a non-infectious disease. Whether it meets the technical definition or not, we can probably agree this is fundamentally different to all other vaccines. Also, since no other vaccines are custom to each patient, using the term “vaccine” could cause confusion. Do we really want to give people the idea that they can be “vaccinated against melanoma” when the reality is that they can receive a treatment to prevent their specific melanoma, which they have to have already had, from recurring? It seems laden with confusion. Personally, I’ll just call it immunotherapy.

chiefalchemist 3y ago
The idea that marketed vaccines are safe & effective has been well marketed and deeply planted in the minds of the public. It's easier to leverage that familiarity than it is to build awareness and trust for "immunotherapy".
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  Down voted by those who don't understand marketing, human behavior, read the Heath Brother's "Made to Stick", etc.? Love you HN but you're jumping the shark.
jph 3y ago
> All previous vaccines were aimed at preventing infectious diseases. This is a common misconception, and that's whythe U.S. CDC is now emphasizing that vaccines can do more to help people. The most important recent example is the world's widespread rollout of COVID vaccines. These are primarily aimed at better protection against severe illness, hospitalization, and death; these are not primarily aimed at preventing an individual from ever being infected by any COVID variant.
- Auracle 3y ago
  Well that’s just plain revisionist history. Name another example. The flu vaccine, maybe? But that’s because they don’t know which strains to target. Both the CDC director at the time and Biden said the vaccine would prevent you from getting COVID. It’s insane we’re changing the definition of words because the COVID vaccines were kinda crappy and that would be bad politically. Not that the vaccine discussed here shouldn’t be called one - it absolutely is.
  - throwaway8877 3y ago
    No, covid vaccines were not kind of crappy, just the virus itself evolved so rapidly that the virus had evolved enough even before complete rollout of the vaccines. Yet even then the boosted vaccination was highly effective against the delta variant and still effective against omicron on the level par with flu vaccines. Omicron was just infectious on the level of measles and with very short incubation period giving the immune system very little time to ramp up the immune response.
    - Auracle 3y ago
      I'd argue that a vaccine that allowed the virus to evolve rapidly out of it because it's only targeting on small section of the virus is pretty crappy by definition. Don't get me wrong, it saved a lot of lives. Compared to every other vaccine we've all taken in our lives it's the absolute bottom of the barrel, and the fact that politically (and possibly for public health reasons) a good portion of politicians effectively lied about that made it so companies didn't feel like they should invest in making a better vaccine. I've had Covid twice and both times I was very sick - I'd love a better, more broad, vaccine. I'd argue it's definitely not as effective as flu vaccines vs omicron. On a good year the flu vaccine can prevent 50% of flu cases in those that take it. Everyone I know has gotten Covid, vaccinated or not.

owlboy 3y ago

Well, they could at least always say something like “…vaccine, but not like you are thinking. You, like billions of other people, have a misguided and frankly incomplete understanding of the word. …”