Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ResistantAmerican17

(3,777 posts)
Wed Apr 15, 2020, 06:52 AM Apr 2020

A Question about a COVID-19 vaccination (Years Away?)

I will be more than happy to delete this post if it contains incorrect information. In doing research about vaccines, I came across a lot of things I didn’t understand. Translational RNA, amino acid and peptide formation and a whole lot more. One thing that I did read loud and clear was that the Ebola vaccine was developed, approved, and administered in, and I quote, “record time”—- 5 years. The rationale is that since they will be giving people COVID-19, albeit an attenuated dose, they have to be certain they don’t kill you with it.
When we are told that a vaccine may be discovered by September, is it possible that people assume that it will be ready to be deployed, not just ready to begin trials?
Anyone smarter than me, please correct me.

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A Question about a COVID-19 vaccination (Years Away?) (Original Post) ResistantAmerican17 Apr 2020 OP
This message was self-deleted by its author Sherman A1 Apr 2020 #1
Any streamlining of the process assumes the initial vaccines in clinical trials (several NOW) WILL hlthe2b Apr 2020 #2
Vaccines are already in trials DrToast Apr 2020 #3
they will be giving people COVID-19, albeit an attenuated dose Blues Heron Apr 2020 #4
Not my intention... ResistantAmerican17 Apr 2020 #5
Ebola was almost half a century ago FBaggins Apr 2020 #6
The Ebola vaccine was new Igel Apr 2020 #7
FDA approval Dec 2019. Somewhat ironic.nt Phoenix61 Apr 2020 #9
What was said upstream about safety and streamlining is likely true. Igel Apr 2020 #8
Thanks for that !!! I wish I knew that much about something ResistantAmerican17 Apr 2020 #10

Response to ResistantAmerican17 (Original post)

hlthe2b

(101,714 posts)
2. Any streamlining of the process assumes the initial vaccines in clinical trials (several NOW) WILL
Wed Apr 15, 2020, 07:02 AM
Apr 2020

be both safe and effective. Given we really do not have anywhere near the full understanding of the immune response yet with the exception of a short term trial in macaque monkeys, this is one big gamble.

More concerning is some as yet not-fully validated data from India that a detected major virus mutation at the ACE-2 receptor site (which all the vaccines are targeting) may render these early vaccines all meaningless and useless.

Hope for a vaccine in 18 months, deployable in 24, but KNOW that that is a long-shot requiring everything to go nearly "perfectly."

Blues Heron

(5,898 posts)
4. they will be giving people COVID-19, albeit an attenuated dose
Wed Apr 15, 2020, 07:32 AM
Apr 2020

That's only one method of vaccination, I think there are newer ways to generate an immune response. Your statement plays into the anti-vaxxers out there.

FBaggins

(26,696 posts)
6. Ebola was almost half a century ago
Wed Apr 15, 2020, 07:53 AM
Apr 2020

Technology in the area has advanced substantially.

Also... a great deal of work that was initially done for other coronaviruses was adapted to this one (giving them a head start)

Igel

(35,191 posts)
8. What was said upstream about safety and streamlining is likely true.
Wed Apr 15, 2020, 10:14 AM
Apr 2020

But professionals usually won't say it because then that's "the time" and if they blow it people who weren't paying attention and didn't understand accuse them of lying. And other have their hopes dashed.


A few things.

1. The immune response is complicated. Ultimately, your body has to ID something from the virus that's outside the cell that it can target. Some chemical or part of a chemical. Usually it's part of a protein. Then it will produce things that bind to that stick onto and bind to the protein. Those are antibodies.

Researchers have identified a bunch of sites on the virus they think are winners. Some because it's like SARS a few years back. But what they really want (and may have one by now) is to extract human antibodies and see what the human immune system thought was important. Sometimes the human body figures out what works. Sometimes, like with autoimmune diseases and allergies, it gets it wrong.

2. Some antibodies are pretty pointless, others are gold. The useless ones are good for saying if you've been exposed, but the site they bind to and block does nothing or at beast slows the virus down. Yippee. What's needed is a site where, if an antibody sticks there, the virus is kept from functioning--maybe it can't attach to the cell, maybe it can't inject its contents. That gives the body the opportunity to treat the disabled virions as waste and dispose of them.

That's the issue: The antibodies people make, do they suppress or merely identify the virus?

Antibody production wanes with age and with response. If you're barely sick, you might not have any antibodies. If it's a weak illness, you might get antibody protection that fades. You have it this year, but in 2022 you're not protected any more. Nobody knows if COVID antibody protection is long-lasting and if the protection depends on how sick you get. So all those asymptomatic folk might get no protection. Those with nothing but sniffles might still be susceptible again in 3 months. Nobody knows.

But with age your response weakens. Even with the flu vaccine, it's less effective if you're over 70 than if you're 20. That's life. And aging.

3. There are different kinds of vaccines.

One kind uses the virus that's been crippled, but still alive. Live vaccine. It can't make you (really) sick. It's not so common a technique. If they mess up, they're just infecting you. It gives, usually, a stronger response. Safety is a real big issue.

Dead virus uses dead virus. Dead vaccine. It triggers a weaker response. Safety's less of an issue.

Moderna is trying a novel vaccine. It's called an mRNA vaccine, and it doesn't provide the information necessary for the immune system. It provides the information for the body to produce the bits that provide the information for the immune system. Think of it this way: You have a police force and you want them to be able to identify PCP. But you don't want to make and ship PCP samples for them to identify. So you send in the information and let each police department make its own PCP, which it then uses to train the officers.

The good thing about mRNA vaccines is that they're apparently much faster to move into production, and much easier to scale up to producing huge quantities. On the other hand, this would be the first such vaccine and while it should work there might be things people miss.

4. Given that we don't know if the body's antibodies will be strongly present and long-lived or not when people get sick, it's an even bigger guess as to whether a vaccine will produce the needed response. Maybe, maybe not.

One fix for "maybe not" is repeated doses, which is what we have with some childhood vaccines. Dose now, come back in 6 months for your second dose. Or, like with tentanus, booster dose every 5 years. Nobody knows.


Remember--it took a long time for Ebola. HIV still doesn't have a good vaccine, as far as I'm aware. Neither do a lot of bacterial diseases. And the flu, while we have a lot of vaccines, all it takes is for the site the antibodies target to mutate but still be functional and suddenly protection fails. Viruses are nasty pieces of work. The human genome contains a lot of pieces of various viruses, some truly ancient and shared with other mammals, some more recent. After all, the virus' genetic code is inside living cells, and if the cell doesn't die it can accidentally include that when it makes copies of the DNA.

(I still hate biology.)

ResistantAmerican17

(3,777 posts)
10. Thanks for that !!! I wish I knew that much about something
Wed Apr 15, 2020, 11:18 AM
Apr 2020

I hated. And moreover, that I could explain it as clearly. FWIW, I also read that the index Ebola patient died last year. Thoughtful informative replies are what makes this site my home page!

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A Question about a COVID-...