........says it's very close to having a releasable vaccine: September?
Post Reply
1 of 1
Oxford University........
2,525 Views |
12 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by plain_o_llama
Everyone is going to have to consider risks with these fast tracked vaccines
For those who are high risk it's a no brainer. For everyone else, not so much
For those who are high risk it's a no brainer. For everyone else, not so much
I'm definitely not signing up for a vaccine that gets released in less than a year.
I've seen a lot of hesitation for early vaccines - someone care to explain what the danger is?
Kick-R said:
I've seen a lot of hesitation for early vaccines - someone care to explain what the danger is?
Autism[/Jenny McCarthy]
Kick-R said:
I've seen a lot of hesitation for early vaccines - someone care to explain what the danger is?
Much of the time spend developing a vaccine is spent determining safety.
Messing with the immune system is tricky business
Kick-R said:
I've seen a lot of hesitation for early vaccines - someone care to explain what the danger is?
I saw on the news that if a vaccine is not tested thoroughly enough it could backfire and make the virus even more deadly when you are exposed to it.
Don't ask me how that works but a mentor of mine used to say never be the first or last to try something and this seems like something I would want to wait and see a little bit before getting it.
Sarduakar said:Kick-R said:
I've seen a lot of hesitation for early vaccines - someone care to explain what the danger is?
Autism[/Jenny McCarthy]
No, not an anti vaccine thing at all
Theres a reason it takes 5-10 years for vaccines.
Quote:
But after the skin-deep injection, researchers must hold a device over the spot that gives a little electrical zap. The synthetic DNA is large when it comes to penetrating human cells, and the pulse helps the vaccine more easily penetrate and get to work, Broderick said.
aggie-beta said:Kick-R said:
I've seen a lot of hesitation for early vaccines - someone care to explain what the danger is?
I saw on the news that if a vaccine is not tested thoroughly enough it could backfire and make the virus even more deadly when you are exposed to it.
Don't ask me how that works but a mentor of mine used to say never be the first or last to try something and this seems like something I would want to wait and see a little bit before getting it.
I say that too and my analogy is updating your computer back in the 90s. I'd wait as long as possible and let the other guy help work out the kinks
aggie-beta said:Kick-R said:
I've seen a lot of hesitation for early vaccines - someone care to explain what the danger is?
I saw on the news that if a vaccine is not tested thoroughly enough it could backfire and make the virus even more deadly when you are exposed to it.
Don't ask me how that works but a mentor of mine used to say never be the first or last to try something and this seems like something I would want to wait and see a little bit before getting it.
And then...killer zombies!
I Am Legend
^^ came here to post that. It's fiction but if we screw up a vaccine it might become non-fiction.
This article offers an overview of some of the challenges associated with vaccine development
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2005630
The idea that unsuccessful vaccines can make future infection worse for some is from experience.
Second, preclinical experience with vaccine candidates for SARS and the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) have raised concerns about exacerbating lung disease, either directly or as a result of antibody-dependent enhancement. Such an adverse effect may be associated with a type 2 helper T-cell (Th2) response. Hence, testing in a suitable animal model and rigorous safety monitoring in clinical trials will be critical. (It is still too early to define good animal models; rhesus macaques appear quite promising, as do hamsters and ferrets [unpublished data].) If adjuvants are required to generate a sufficient immune response or for dose sparing, those triggering a Th1 response and demonstrating a high neutralizing-antibody response are theoretically more likely to be protective and avoid the risk of immunopathology. However, data and careful regulatory review will be needed.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2005630
The idea that unsuccessful vaccines can make future infection worse for some is from experience.
Second, preclinical experience with vaccine candidates for SARS and the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) have raised concerns about exacerbating lung disease, either directly or as a result of antibody-dependent enhancement. Such an adverse effect may be associated with a type 2 helper T-cell (Th2) response. Hence, testing in a suitable animal model and rigorous safety monitoring in clinical trials will be critical. (It is still too early to define good animal models; rhesus macaques appear quite promising, as do hamsters and ferrets [unpublished data].) If adjuvants are required to generate a sufficient immune response or for dose sparing, those triggering a Th1 response and demonstrating a high neutralizing-antibody response are theoretically more likely to be protective and avoid the risk of immunopathology. However, data and careful regulatory review will be needed.
Featured Stories
See All
44:52
3h ago
1.9k
The Loochador Podcast: Spring practice starts on Friday
by Billy Liucci
McMillan's vision comes to fruition with NCAA Tournament inclusion
by Olin Buchanan
Baseball Thoughts: Different questions pop up during Norman trip
by Ryan Brauninger
Five in Five: Offseason intel as spring ball begins
by Billy Liucci
Former A&M wideout Christian Kirk signs with San Francisco
by Richard Zane