nAbs don't last forever, for any infectious virus. That's what T-Cells and B-Cells are for. This vaccine showed a T-Cell response, which means it SHOULD last long enough. T-Cells from SARS survivors have lasted 11+ years. But we won't know until 2-3 years from now. We can't wait that long. I say ship it to production now, and do a v2.0 release later.
This is a very dangerous approach and would just add fuel to the antivax fire. Even if drugs/vaccines are effective that does not mean that they do not come with severe side effects. Imagine injecting the whole population with Thalidomide...
>This is a very dangerous approach and would just add fuel to the antivax fire.
I still haven't wrapped my head around antivax...
I mean, isn't that the product of poor education and lack of mandatory vaccination programs?
Where I'm from, you can't even sign-up children in school if they don't have the proper mandatory vaccinations - and school is mandatory, which makes it impossible to evade.
If they don't get the parents because they didn't take their child for vaccines (which is almost impossible because you're assigned a family doctor and he would flag it), they will get them when they'll sign them up for school. If they don't sign them up, social services all over them by then.
I know there are antivax people here, but they basically just avoid taking flu shot, all the rest they had to have them at some point. Hell if they cut themselves and need stitches, they will get a tetanus shot.
> I still haven't wrapped my head around antivax...
It's a tough one in some ways, but more gets down to how you define what an antivaxer is.
I have a friend who will never have another flu shot and be weary of this vaccine - WHY, well he had his first ever flu jab a few years back, which had bad side effects for him and he lost hearing due to it in one ear. Hence, he's very weary of such vaccines now and yet, some people would label him an antivaxer! I don't think he is as he is basing his opinion on self education and more so, experience as well as he don't push his choice decisions onto others.
See medicines and vaccines have side effects, most people won't get any, some will get a few and a very few will have adverse effects.
My worry is those who have had bad experiences and maybe more prone to side effects in some medicines due to genetics etc, get labeled as antivaxers and their very real personal experience is overlooked and they are viewed as crackpots when talking to medical advisers in the future, let alone society.
But then for me an antivaxer is somebody who actively promotes the non-use for everybody period and run with that. Now I don't know anybody like that, but can see how some may of come about via a few edge cases and propergating that onto the whole. That is a case of needing education.
If some people want to make an informed choice about individual vaccines based upon their medical concerns that are real and not anxieties - well, that's how it should work. Though if they actively promote their choice onto others, well, that's not right and what I would class as an antivaxer.
Me, I sent email to to the research folks offering to be a human lab rat if it helped speed up vaccine development, not that i'd call myself a provaxer - just case of the maths made sense and as spoke said - the lives of the many outway the lives of the few. Besides I'm still here :-). But I can respect an informed choice made by some, as long as they don't feel the right to impose that free choice of theirs onto others.
There are a very low number of antivaxers. Oddly enough, a lot of Measles outbreaks happen in strict religious communities with private schools that wouldn't be subject to vaccination laws in public schools anyway.
The media has totally blown antivaxers out of proportion. On top of that, there are many people who are very much for MMR, Polio and most of our standard vaccinations, but are weary of newer vaccines like HPV (and get thrown in with all antivaxers).
Some vaccines aren't very effective. I was turning in my vaccination records for school once and I was missing my 3rd Hep B shot. You have to have 3 of those in a few months, and if you miss one, you have to start over. A biologist I knew said it only had a 60% take rate, and was one of the most common vaccines that had to be taken again for hospital staff (who are given antibody tests to see which vaccines they need).
And on top of all of that, look at what happens when a vaccine is rushed. In the 1970s, 60 Minutes did a documentary on the rush to make a Swing Flu vaccine. Millions were vaccinated with no ill effects, but there were healthy adults that did have long term, permanent neurological damage:
I had to stop getting flu shots because they'd make the entire side of my body on the injection arm, hurt for days. I'd get extreme fatigue and soreness. It wasn't as bad as the flu of course, but it was painful enough I decided to stop getting them. I had an asshole friend tell me it was psychosomatic (all in my head). I get all my other shots (including Typhoid and Meningitis when travelling abroad) and had no adverse reaction.
So I make an active choice that I'm not going to do flu vaccines.
This entire situation is dangerous because we're talking about personal autonomy vs some ideological concept of communal good; and we're not discussing it with the delicate discussion and nuance it deserves. You can throw around terms like "antivax" and "antiscience" and it's a religious statement at that point, because you're not addressing the very real ethical concerns people have.
Hep B is effective and the effectiveness window is being extended as time goes on. When I took Hep A/B vaccine I was told that it would last for 10 years. Right now the estimate is at 30 years.
There are a variety of anti-vax philosophies. At one extreme is the people who thinks that all vaccines are harmful. I don't actually know anyone in that camp. I do know people who believe that we have many well-proven vaccines, but we give them too early, and prefer to wait for their infants to become toddlers. I know other people who are fine with the schedule, but oppose mandatory vaccinations because of the details in the legislation that has been proposed - much of the legislation includes a blanket statement of "and any other future vaccines" which opens to door to a corrupt government mandating new drugs for reasons other than health. That last camp isn't against vaccines at all, they just want some controls around the process of how a new vaccine is added to the list.
In Poland, where I am from, there is both obligatory vaccination programme and schooling; yet the antivaxers are plentiful. The obligation to vaccinate rests on the parents (+requires their approval from what I understand) and their current GP so if they are creative they can avoid vaccination of their kids.
This also affects recommended vaccinations, like HPV. In Denmark, media coverage of alleged side effects led to a substantial drop (or delay) in vaccination against HPV (Hansen et. al, 2018).
I think they mean don't block the release for not knowing whether it confers long-term immunity. I don't think they mean to remove all conditions (like safety) for blocking the release.
They were talking about long term protection. Realistically it only needs to last a year or so. After all the flu vaccine is only valid for a year because it evolves so quickly.
As for safety, that's the entire point of these three phases of trials. seeing if its effective is a nice bonus, but in reality to see if there are any problems like there were with the dengue fever jab.
> I say ship it to production now, and do a v2.0 release later.
I commented on that part. And yes, it seems to be safe in healthy subjects (Phase I). The OP wants to move from Phase I to production immediately. I take an exception to that approach and I agree with you that there is a point in doing the three phases. The later of which actually focus on effectiveness as well.
Shipping something that's not effective is counterproductive. Being vaccinated would affect people's behaviour, if you told them that they should not change their behaviour back to pre c19, you would be just faced with questions on what's the point of vaccination.
Obviously nobody will force you to get the vaccine. A lot of people will be ready to take the minimal amount of risk. I assume you are not forced to work from home while taking care of kids at the same time :)
It is not about me; and I actually think that if there is a safe and effective vaccine that vaccination should be obligatory.
This was just a Phase I (healthy subjects) and most of drugs/vaccines are successful at this stage.
Drugs are not software, you cannot ship a broken product and then fix it. Even if it is safe, but not effective, it would do more harm than no vaccination, as vaccinated people would change their behaviour.
