So if I was explaining this to some one, is the following correct?
Innovative techniques such as genetic vaccines (e.g. mRNA) don’t have a history of safe use.
However, their design is such that they circumvent most known vaccine side effects.
Therefore our chief concern is unknown side effects. Trial protocols are such that they should have identified unknown side effects, other than those that occur extremely infrequently (which could be the case with any drug or vaccine).
That’s an excellent summary. The only thing I would add is that absolute safety is a negative and therefore can never be conclusively demonstrated.
As @Boscopup pointed out, efficacy endpoints are numbers, not times.
That was something I had misunderstood, but it makes sense.
It seems the one theoretical gap is a side effect that is frequent, but does not become apparent until time has passed.
How come we aren’t worried about that possibility? Is it because:
And thanks for answering all these questions, I appreciate it.
Recombinant vaccines contain purified proteins, not whole viruses.
They have already vaccinated tens of thousands of people, and the side effects in those trials are comparable to other vaccinations for stuff like seasonal flu.
There is ample information out there for other vaccines, yet the anti-vaxxers still claim they are unsafe. No amount of information will change the minds of some people.
All of the above. Also, the vaccine is a part of the virus, so if the vaccine causes extremely rare long term problems then so too will the actual infection. If no one takes the vaccine then chances are they will be exposed to the same risks at some point anyway once they are infected.
I was merely providing one example.
I’m well aware of that. I’ve done enough protein purification to know that proteins are never 100% pure.
And many recombinant protein vaccines are still accompanied by adjuvants, are they not? Adjuvants are a major source of side effects.
And even for one I found without adjuvants:
Each 0.5 mL dose of Flublok Quadrivalent may also contain residual amounts of baculovirus and Spodoptera frugiperda cell proteins (≤ 19 mcg), baculovirus and cellular DNA (≤ 10 ng), and Triton X-100 (≤ 100 mcg).
Any proteins contaminating an mRNA vaccine should be thoroughly denatured during purification of the RNA, which cannot be done in (virtually all) recombinant protein purifications.
But if they vaccinate the controls, the quality of the study will be greatly reduced.
The absolute level of risk is not relevant. We already know that the risk relative to the risk of infection is negligible.
Same here.
I wouldn’t be surprised if some lack adjuvant. All I was saying is that we can’t making sweeping claims about vaccines because of how different they are.
That reads like a CYA statement. I highly doubt there is any measurable baculovirus material in the vaccine, although there is probably small amounts of cellular material from the host cell line. They also probably use nucleases to clear out the cell lysates, so very little intact DNA is going to make it into the final prep. In general, a recombinant vaccine is very different than a whole virus vaccine.
For those interested, here’s the safety and efficacy data for the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine, published in the NEJM
See figure 3 for the efficacy. 95% efficacy! Wowow.
Looking at the data, maybe it is better just to give everyone one dose faster than everybody two doses slower.
This is something I have been wondering about… My wife and I had done antibody tests to see if any of us had contracted Covid.
My wife turned out positive, I.e she had the disease at some point in the past. She must have been asymptomatic or with mild symptoms like cold. She never got seriously sick.
The following points make the decision difficult -
The most effective solution would be a good treatment protocol for those who get seriously sick. Of course, this wouldn’t be nearly as profitable as a large scale vaccination project.
Of course, this wouldn’t be nearly as profitable as a large scale vaccination project
You’re kidding right?
Having to continually treat people with expensive covid medications would be more “profitable” than a one and done vaccine.
Eg remdesivir is about $2340 USD per five day course
https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/us-purchasing-global-supply-of-covid-19-drug-raise
The Pfizer vaccine is $19.50 per dose.
Also, do you know how much it costs per patient per day in ICU? And covid patients in ICU usually stay for a long time comparatively speaking - they can occupy ICU beds for weeks.
Do the math and see… 50-60% percent of a country’s population needs to be vaccinated for it be effective. And the vaccination programme will have to be repeated once every three months or so every time this disease is in season.
A very minuscule part of the population (a fraction of a percent) contracts Covid -19 and gets seriously sick ( a large portion are asymptomatic).
There is quite some evidence covid can cause long term cardiac, pulmonary and brain complications due to tissue damage which you have excluded from the calculations.
And even if just 1% of covid cases require ICU theres $10000+ dollars per ICU patient right there.
Without vaccinations, a majority of people will end up getting covid before herd immunity.
Plus, we do not know yet if covid is like influenza, requiring different vaccinations for different strains.
This is true. But the number in terms of percentage is not known. Also, its not clear if the organ failure is a direct result of covid or involves a combination of different medical conditions.
Yes… but what’s the point you are making? Because of the lower numbers, this is an ideal disease for insurance to cover.
Besides, a large chunk of these are hospital fees and dont go to pharma companies.
Not necessarily. From antibody studies, i have not come across any case where the no: of people infected is more that 50%. Usually, its observed to be 20-30% of the population in its peak.
Is there a reason, it should be different?
If its anything like influenza, then we are looking at vaccination every season. I find it intrigueing that very few people die from the flu in India even though practically no one takes the flu vaccine, while approx. a 100,000 people die very year in the US.
This is wrongheaded. The most effective solution would be to stop the virus from spreading at all, and this applies generally to all disease-causing agents.
This is no longer possible… it’s already a pandemic.
It’s highly unlikely that any vaccination programme will eradicate this virus.
This is wrong. Complications like organ failure are not directly caused by the Covid-19 virus. When the host immune system puts up an excessive response to the virus, the characteristics clinical features of severe Covid-19 illness like organ failure emerge.
You seem to forget that SARS-CoV-2 is very infectious and spreads rapidly within a community.
Are you sure you understand the studies you read? Cite one or more and let’s see if they support your claim.
Does your country do enough influenza testing for the entire population of Indians?
Seriously? Small pox was a pandemic disease, but vaccination programs contributed largely to its worldwide eradication.
Mass vaccinations programs could seal the fate of Covid-19 similarly.