🐈 Community
» Forums » Coffee Break » COVID-19 Vaccine
Page options
resultsassoc
Member

COVID-19 Vaccine

There are multiple efforts underway to create a vaccine against the disease. This will address a recent effort by China to create a recombinant viral vaccine that is modified to produce antibodies to COVID-19 and drop them in the host, which will copy them and deeat COVID-19.

 

The chose mediated virus is adenovirus, which presents several major problems. First, the adenovirus is still infectious and causes illness on its own. This is fighting fire eith fire.Second, there are some fifty-odd , or more, adenoviruses. The most common ones act just like most rhinoiruses and corona viruses, causing respiratory infection. Not an improvement. Some adenoviruses cause conjunctivitis, others cause gastroenteritis, yet others cause very high fever. And, almost all of them target primarily young children. An adenovirus-mediated vaccine will cause us to broaden the number of vulnerable people, rarely a good idea.

 

We know a lot about corona viruses but very little about adenoviruses, which appear similar under a microscope. A vaccine was developed for the adenovirus and sold to the US military, which found the disease rampant among young men in their initial training. The vaccine has not been manufactured since 1994, and the last doses were shipped in 1996. Before infecting a population with another virus, I recommend we learn at least as much about the adenovirus as we know about corona viruses. That will take close to a decade. Then, COVID-19 is thought to be seasonal; Adenovirus is present year-round.

 

Recombinant viruses are agreed by virologists to be the most lethal for use in germ warfare. China will do what it wishes, and I haven't read their research results. Still, a combined COVID-19 and Adenovirus pandemic wouldn't be good news.

 

NEXT: How Vaccines Work

ACCEPTED SOLUTION

re: "How realistic that really is, I have no idea."

 

Let's put it this way:

I would love to see something available as soon as possible.

But don't hold your breath.

 

I work primarily in the biomedical research industry, including vaccine development. Sorry... but it is very difficult thing to do.

View solution in original post

19 REPLIES 19
11f7a755
Member


Bill H wrote:

 

NEXT: How Vaccines Work


Respectfully Bill... please, I BEG you: No!

 

I had to order a  paper of June issue from Journal of Molecular Biology  just to decipher your message.

Just for that, I'll write the next article in Esperanto, in which I have native fluency.

Just for you, Zeesham:

 

Vakcinoj funkcias deĉenigante la imunosistemon por krei specialigitajn ĉelojn kiuj atakas la viruson, aŭ parton de la viruso, aŭ protektantaj la enirpunkton, kiun la viruso uzas por infekti individuajn ĉelojn. Iuj vakcinoj funkcias kontraŭ bakterioj. Vakcinoj foje inkluzivas malfortigitajn versiojn de la ĝermo, foje inkluzivas mortajn versiojn de la ĝermo (tiuj ofte postulas multoblajn dozojn, kiel kun polio), foje inkluzivas malfortigitajn versiojn de venenoj faritaj de la ĝermo, kaj foje inkluzivas parton de la ĝermo. La korpo lernas kiel fari la ĉelojn, kiuj atakas kaj venkas la ĝermojn.

 

English (the above is the Esperanto version)

 

Vaccines function by triggering the immune system to create specialized cells that attack the virus, or part of the virus, or that protect the point of entry the virus uses to infect individual cells. Some vaccines work against bacteria. Vaccines sometimes include weakened versions of the germ, sometimes include dead versions of the germ (these often require multiple doses, such as with polio), sometimes include weakened versions of poisons made by the germ, and sometimes include a part of the germ. The body learns how to make the cells that attack and defeat the germs.


Zeeshan M wrote:

Bill H wrote:

 

NEXT: How Vaccines Work


Respectfully Bill... please, I BEG you: No!

 

I had to order a  paper of June issue from Journal of Molecular Biology  just to decipher your message.


It is hardly Bill's fault that you did not understand the text. And respectfully, beginning a sentence with "respectfully", does not make it such. 

 

 


Martina P wrote:

Zeeshan M wrote:

Bill H wrote:

 

NEXT: How Vaccines Work


Respectfully Bill... please, I BEG you: No!

 

I had to order a  paper of June issue from Journal of Molecular Biology  just to decipher your message.


It is hardly Bill's fault that you did not understand the text. And respectfully, beginning a sentence with "respectfully", does not make it such. 


_____________________________________________________________________

 

I didn't find that post disrespectful - just a plea not to ram further doom-and-gloom information down our throats when trying to come to terms with the pandemic has been bad enough.  

The original post was prompted by  a lot of press coverage of China's work on a vaccine. Using a mediated virus is only one of many ways to create  vaccine; in this case, the virus used is itself a problem.

 

No intention for doom and gloom. The Chinese vaccine effort is worth pursuing, just not worth much hype or hope. There are other, much more promising, efforts underway in the Americas, Europe and Australia. I'm not following any work done in Asia, except for the Chinese work on a mediated-virus vaccine.

 

Rather than doom and gloom, I've been preaching a positive message since January. The virus is generally not dangerous to those under 65; we always had all the hospital and ICU beds, plus ventilators, we needed. We knew a lot about how to deal with the virus before the first case: encourage people to go outdoors, quarantine old people and those with chronic heart, lung and/or kidney conditions, and the immune-suppressed. Quarantine means strictly limiting outside contact with them. There are new treatments and vaccines under investigation; we're going to be fine.

Thank you for your work and your time, sir 😉

 

 

 


Bill H wrote:

we always had all the hospital and ICU beds, plus ventilators, we needed. 


Please, Not this again.

"We" as in your little bubble and your local hospital or "we" as in "everywhere?"

I can assure you that there are a endless places all over the world, including in the USA, where there are and were not enough ICU beds or ventilators. That statement is easily verified as an absolute untruth.

 


Bill H wrote:

The virus is generally not dangerous to those under 65.


That is not what my doctor friends tell me. I mean real ones. You know, the type that is out there with an actual medical licence, treating real patients.

 

Just because it doesn't outright kill a high percentage of the "lower" risk groups doesn't mean it's not dangerous. The real damage done to those who haven't died from it remains to be seen, but already doctors (the real ones) are seeing cardiovascular issuess, neurological issues and more.  

 

In my state, the average age of patients who require hospitalization is dropping.  In other words, more and more younger people are getting sicker.

I read recently that British company is already making a vaccine. 

It still has to pass testing first but such is their confidence that the vaccine will pass that they have gone ahead with production regardless. It is been mooted that it could be available as early as September. (How realistic that really is, I have no idea).

Fingers crossed. 

re: "How realistic that really is, I have no idea."

 

Let's put it this way:

I would love to see something available as soon as possible.

But don't hold your breath.

 

I work primarily in the biomedical research industry, including vaccine development. Sorry... but it is very difficult thing to do.

Mary, "In my state, the average age of patients who require hospitalization is dropping. In other words, more and more younger people are getting sicker." Maybe. There are multiple other possible explanations. Some starting points: hospitals have been going broke because of the lockdowns, and laying off medical professionals; "hospitalized" and "requiring hospitalization" are not the same thing; except in a few states, we've realized we have to protect the elderly and there is now increased testing of young people; corona, rhino and influenza viruses plus a number of others all cause respiratory diseases, and there is no uniform reporting set of criteria for diagnosis. Distribution of mild and serious cases for each age demographic remains unchanged, as well as infection fatality rate.

 

Preston, "I work primarily in the biomedical research industry, including vaccine development. Sorry... but it is very difficult thing to do." Correct. Convalescent (serum antibody) therapy is mostly working and fairly widespread, which means that if we can develop a vaccine that triggers creation of virus-specific antibodies we'll be in good shape. We may never have a single agreed vaccine, rather a number of vaccines that work differently. This is what the Director of the US National Institutes of Health is predicting. An attenuated virus vaccine may be too risky to administer to high-risk individuals, so whether it works better than the alternatives may not be the primary factor. A killed-virus vaccine would be safer, even if less effective.

The OP does not have a monoply on this thread nor does he know more than anyone else about the pandemic: 

Here is a snippet from CNN news today: 

 

17 min ago

Younger people with Covid-19 is a "smoldering fire" that will hit vulnerable populations, expert says

From CNN's Gisela Crespo

Younger people testing positive for Covid-19 at a higher rate is a "smoldering fire" that will hit vulnerable populations, said Erin Bromage, a CNN medical analyst and a biology professor at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth.

Bromage said health experts didn't focus on younger people at the beginning of the pandemic because the priority was the older population and those with underlying health conditions who required hospitalization.

"We're now seeing what is really happening, which is those 18- to 44-year-olds are being affected at a really high rate. Their social networks, their employment, is allowing them to mix at a higher rate, and we're seeing the infection rate – especially in Texas, Florida and Arizona – just skyrocketing in that demographic," she said while speaking today on CNN’s “New Day,”

Bromage explained that while younger people with Covid-19 are not "as prone to severe disease as the elderly," they will still put this population at risk. 

"It's just that smoldering fire – but as more of them get infected, the chance of them interacting with the vulnerable population increases and hits that vulnerable population, and then the inferno just begins," Bromage told CNN's John Berman. "That's when we end up with lots of sickness and lots of disease."

 

And while it is true, that (for the moment) young people will probably survive the virus, more vulnerable sectors of the community will be affected. Also with the virus permutating all the time, what is to stop it finding that young people make particularly juicy hosts. 

 

Anybody is allowed an opinion. and anybody is allowed to question, even if they have no medical background whatsoever (not even a course in microbiology). 

 

Google is an incomparably useful information tool, and I certainly have no hesitation using it to this end or even when I don't speak another language - Esperanto - for example. 

 

 


Jamie F wrote:

I read recently that British company is already making a vaccine. 

It still has to pass testing first but such is their confidence that the vaccine will pass that they have gone ahead with production regardless. It is been mooted that it could be available as early as September. (How realistic that really is, I have no idea).

Fingers crossed. 


It is true that vaccine research—virtually everywhere, I believe—has been fast-tracked toward production without the full complement of usual safeguards to measure efficacy and effectiveness against risk.

Petra,

 

You're out of your league here. You are using language suitable to a political campaign ad intended to demean your opponent, not a reasoned discussion of a vaccine for COVID19. I'm not running against you for any position; if you feel we're in some sort of competition, you're on your own.

 

"We" refers to the US. The US had all of what was needed. It is possible that in a country of 330M people, in which both Germany and Italy could be lost from view, there were a few cases where something was mis-directed. That's different from not having what was needed. There are places where there are insufficient ventilators, such as Mali, which has about five for a populationn of five million. There are places where there is little reporting, such as central Asia as well as most of Africa and Latin America.

 

I'm sure you have friends who are physicians treating patients. If you want to use them to discredit what I'm writing, please give me their addresses. I see no point in exchanging information with thtem through you. If you believe I'm disseminating disinformation to the detriment of users of the forum, please report me. I'm aware of few other frequent contributors who are able to follow the literature. Your Masters in Microbiology from Google University doesn't qualify.

 

Your final pargraph reminds me of "scientific" lists of side effects of medications, warning that some are extremely dangerous when, in fact, they're among the most benign in the world. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ shows that two percent of active cases are serious or critical globally, and 98% are mild. If you believe that proves your point that I'm not qualified to write about this, go for it.


Bill H wrote:

Petra,

 

You're out of your league here. You are using language suitable to a political campaign ad intended to demean your opponent, not a reasoned discussion of a vaccine for COVID19. I'm not running against you for any position; if you feel we're in some sort of competition, you're on your own.

 

"We" refers to the US. The US had all of what was needed. It is possible that in a country of 330M people, in which both Germany and Italy could be lost from view, there were a few cases where something was mis-directed. That's different from not having what was needed. There are places where there are insufficient ventilators, such as Mali, which has about five for a populationn of five million. There are places where there is little reporting, such as central Asia as well as most of Africa and Latin America.

 

I'm sure you have friends who are physicians treating patients. If you want to use them to discredit what I'm writing, please give me their addresses. I see no point in exchanging information with thtem through you. If you believe I'm disseminating disinformation to the detriment of users of the forum, please report me. I'm aware of few other frequent contributors who are able to follow the literature. Your Masters in Microbiology from Google University doesn't qualify.

 

Your final pargraph reminds me of "scientific" lists of side effects of medications, warning that some are extremely dangerous when, in fact, they're among the most benign in the world. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ shows that two percent of active cases are serious or critical globally, and 98% are mild. If you believe that proves your point that I'm not qualified to write about this, go for it.


TL;DR

 

One only needs to follow the news reported by varied and reputable sources, and be in touch with friends and associates across the U.S. and abroad, to know that most of what you've been spouting about Covid-19 is utter nonsense and that it's an utter waste of time and attention to engage in discussion about it.

 

Entertain yourself if you must.

 

As a medical researcher who has published in numerous peer-reviewed journals and is quite able to follow and understand medical and scientific research, all I can say is I'm glad you're not the leading scientific mind working on this problem. Additionally the crisis happening right now is more than merely a virus with mo vaccine, but the socioeconomic and sociopolitical implications of the pandemic and the development of a vaccine or treatment, and you're analysis of what is so and what is or will happen is oversimplified and faulty. Ignoring or invalidating what others have experienced during this crisis does not make it any less true. It just means you will never be able to understand the totality of this issues or contribute to a real discussion about them. You're basically just shouting at the air, wanting to appear informed, and thinking that having read a bit makes you informed. I don't have time to write more than I have already to educate you on why you're not as informed as you think you are.

My hope is that you'll do a little more reading beyond epidemiology journals and get a fuller picture of what the medical community and society at large is facing. And maybe next time you want to have a discussion, try to remember what discussion means.


Bill H wrote:

The virus is generally not dangerous to those under 65; we always had all the hospital and ICU beds, plus ventilators, we needed. We knew a lot about how to deal with the virus before the first case: encourage people to go outdoors, quarantine old people and those with chronic heart, lung and/or kidney conditions, and the immune-suppressed. Quarantine means strictly limiting outside contact with them. There are new treatments and vaccines under investigation; we're going to be fine.


Thanks, Bill, for pointing out your lack of expertise, lack of knowledge, and willingness to retail propaganda in preference to facts in the present crisis. It puts the rest of your posts in perspective.

kochubei_valeria
Community Manager
Community Manager

Hi All,

 

This thread has been closed from further posts as it was determined to be inappropriate and contrary to the purposes of this forum.

 

Thanks.

~ Valeria
Upwork
Upcoming Events
Dec 13
Succeeding with Clients Talent Toolbox
Dec 21
Virtual Community Hour Community Hour