Do You Think There Will Be An Available Vaccine By The End of The Year?

[JustCurious]

10-large is not nearly enough for anyone brave enough to take one step forward.

That's funny because I have the opposite view, 10 grand is way more than is necessary. There will probably be some who would volunteer for free.

 

[JustCurious]

Not sure why it’s relevant whether a bunch of non scientists “think” a vaccine will be developed in a given period of time.

Google "the wisdom of crowds."

 

[Winemaker]

I know of no present vaccine that stops any skin disease; the lungs are teated as skin as they are exposed to ambient air at each breath. I am skeptical of a vaccine and it has been a while since I slept in a Holiday Inn Express.

 

[harllee]

I know of no present vaccine that stops any skin disease; the lungs are teated as skin as they are exposed to ambient air at each breath. I am skeptical of a vaccine and it has been a while since I slept in a Holiday Inn Express.

But we have a very effective vaccine for Shingles (and for measles and chicken pox)and those viruses certainly affect the skin. I think there will be a Covid 19 vaccine eventually but who knows how long. In the meantime I am hoping for antivirals.

 

[Independent]

That's funny because I have the opposite view, 10 grand is way more than is necessary. There will probably be some who would volunteer for free.

I agree. (I'd think the gov't would provide insurance in case of a bad result.) I'm sure we'd start with younger people.

I'm guessing a death rate for people aged 25-34 is about 0.5 per 1,000 infections. It's even lower for people who don't have known additional risk factors. Serious illness might be 5 per 1,000 (pure guess). That's for un-vaccinated people.

We'd be asking people to take a vaccine which is likely to be effective, then get infected with a controlled dose of virus. The reward is knowing they are advancing the fight against the disease, and being the first to get a vaccine. I think there would be takers.

----
Note: I got the 0.5 by combining https://elemental.medium.com/its-not-just-sick-old-people-who-die-from-covid-19-bc9251989bc8 and this https://covidtracking.com/data/us-daily for May 10, and the US population by age.

I made the assumption that the number of infections is 5x the number of confirmed cases, and that all age groups are equally likely to be infected.

 

[kcowan]

I thought we were waiting for approval from on high?

I find flu shots to be a crap shoot for we in the target demographic. I don't take it because what works up north is unlikely to work in Mexico.

Statistically, 18 months minimum even with all the efforts and possibly some unfortunate side effects along the way.

 

[Independent]

Is there any value in speculating about this? (other than normal human curiousity)

I think so. I'm making decisions about how much risk I'm willing to take - how much of what I enjoy I'm willing to give up to "stay safe".

I'm 72 and my wife is 71 and a cancer survivor. If a vaccine is just around the corner, I can decide hold my breath (so to speak) until it gets here.
But, if it is 5 years away, I'll decide to go ahead an live normally and take my chance with the disease.

 

[Spock]

But we have a very effective vaccine for Shingles (and for measles and chicken pox)and those viruses certainly affect the skin. I think there will be a Covid 19 vaccine eventually but who knows how long. In the meantime I am hoping for antivirals.

Virus effects on the skin are not the issue. Its the initial attack/infection site that matters. All the viruses you mention are active in the blood stream where a vaccine can get them. Corona virus attacks through the lungs, it reaches the blood stream by accident (gross over simplification).
The lungs behave more like your skin... you use hand sanitizer on your skin, not a vaccine.

 

[harllee]

Virus effects on the skin are not the issue. Its the initial attack/infection site that matters. All the viruses you mention are active in the blood stream where a vaccine can get them. Corona virus attacks through the lungs, it reaches the blood stream by accident (gross over simplification).
The lungs behave more like your skin... you use hand sanitizer on your skin, not a vaccine.

Pneumonia attacks the lungs and I have had vaccines against that--how does that work?

 

[Spock]

Pneumonia attacks the lungs and I have had vaccines against that--how does that work?

"I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV (the Internet)"

From what I've glanced, the pneumococcal vaccine is actually aimed at a bacteria, not a virus. And again, its not about where the symptoms appear, its about where the virus can be faught.

One note from a google medical degree is that pneumonia vaccines are incredibly over cautious unless one has severe risks. The primary way to avoid pneumonia is by getting a flu shot and other immunizations.

 

[Independent]

Virus effects on the skin are not the issue. Its the initial attack/infection site that matters. All the viruses you mention are active in the blood stream where a vaccine can get them. Corona virus attacks through the lungs, it reaches the blood stream by accident (gross over simplification).
The lungs behave more like your skin... you use hand sanitizer on your skin, not a vaccine.

Viruses don't get into our bodies through our skin because we have a layer of dead skin cells on top of the living skin cells. The analogy to our lungs breaks down there.

(I had a very persistent case of athletes' foot that worked its way deeper into the skin. I eventually took something by mouth to get rid of it from the inside out.)

That said, I have seen an individual who appeared credible who said that the fact that the virus initially attacks surface cells makes a vaccine more difficult.

But, he didn't answer my obvious question. The great majority of people who get covid-19 see a typical progression of infectious disease. They get symptoms, the symptoms get worse for a while, then they peak and get better spontaneously. After the infection, blood tests find antibodies that are unique to this particular virus.

How did they get healthy?

I don't have any explanation for these routine recoveries other than our bodies mount a typical immune response and eventually overwhelm the virus particles with superior numbers. Maybe the fact that it enters through surface cells rather than directly into the blood delays the response a little, but it works eventually.

It's plausible that a vaccine that primes the immune system with the targeted antibodies and cells that make these antibodies would speed up our response to the virus.

 

[Spock]

Viruses don't get into our bodies through our skin because we have a layer of dead skin cells on top of the living skin cells. The analogy to our lungs breaks down there.

(I had a very persistent case of athletes' foot that worked its way deeper into the skin. I eventually took something by mouth to get rid of it from the inside out.)

That said, I have seen an individual who appeared credible who said that the fact that the virus initially attacks surface cells makes a vaccine more difficult.

But, he didn't answer my obvious question. The great majority of people who get covid-19 see a typical progression of infectious disease. They get symptoms, the symptoms get worse for a while, then they peak and get better spontaneously. After the infection, blood tests find antibodies that are unique to this particular virus.

How did they get healthy?

I don't have any explanation for these routine recoveries other than our bodies mount a typical immune response and eventually overwhelm the virus particles with superior numbers. Maybe the fact that it enters through surface cells rather than directly into the blood delays the response a little, but it works eventually.

It's plausible that a vaccine that primes the immune system with the targeted antibodies and cells that make these antibodies would speed up our response to the virus.

As has been noted.. "nobody knows nothin" about this virus, so this goes under speculation more than information: but the early data suggested that certain blood types and genetic makeups were more resistant/had better outcomes than others. IIRC those who had more ACE2 proteins on their lung cells were bigger targets and those with blood type O were harder targets.

that could all be baloney... but I'm sure that different people will have different odds of contracting and their bodies will have different odds of fighting it once they contract it. One size does not fit all.

 

[bjorn2bwild]

As has been noted.. "nobody knows nothin" about this virus, so this goes under speculation more than information: but the early data suggested that certain blood types and genetic makeups were more resistant/had better outcomes than others. IIRC those who had more ACE2 proteins on their lung cells were bigger targets and those with blood type O were harder targets.

that could all be baloney... but I'm sure that different people will have different odds of contracting and their bodies will have different odds of fighting it once they contract it. One size does not fit all.

The Naked Scientist has an interesting podcast on the potential role of ACE/ACE2 (WRT) SARS Cov-2. A few quotes and a link. The podcast can be read in transcript form if preferred -----

ACE2 is the entry gate for the coronavirus - but its day job involves blood pressure......There's a system of hormones in our bodies that controls blood pressure called the renin-angiotensin system. The crucial parts, for this story, are: a hormone called angiotensin; and some enzymes that convert it, aka angiotensin converting enzymes - A C E. This is what ACE2 stands for......
It's one of the most fundamental systems for our basic physiology and there are two enzymes which regulate this: ACE and ACE2. ACE constricting blood vessels, and ACE2 the opposite - it opens the blood vessels and keeps us healthy, keeps multiple of our organs healthy............
ACE2 is the door into our body for the viruses. The virus can only live if it enters our cells in our body, and to enter the cells in our body it needs a gate. ACE2 is the central entry gate for the first and now the second SARS coronavirus.....
There’s a crucial distinction between ACE2, the star of our show; and ACE, as in ACE inhibitors. They’re both in the same system, and both first and foremost seem to affect blood pressure, but in opposite ways. Let's look now at ACE......
We all have two ACE genes and we can have one of two flavours. One's known as the I or insertion variant, which has got a tiny little extra chunk of DNA in it. And one's called the deletion or D variant, which has that little bit missing....
The I version of the gene is much more common in long distance runners. Now the D version is much more common in power lifters and rowers for instance......We were doing some work with mountaineers. These people climb of course very high and there the higher you go, the less oxygen there is. And we found that the I version of the gene was very, very much more common, much, much more common even than in marathon runners. Having those same genes massively influenced your chance of surviving from severe lung injury........ If we look at the distribution of the I and D versions of the ACE gene around the world, the places that have much more I versions of the gene do seem to have less severe disease with coronavirus.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/podcasts/naked-genetics/ace2-coronavirus-gateway

 

[Nemo2]

^
From Wiki:

It has been speculated that part of the Sherpas' climbing ability is the result of a genetic adaptation to living in high altitudes. Some of these adaptations include unique hemoglobin-binding capacity and doubled nitric oxide production.

 

[harllee]

I saw a disturbing bit of information on the news about people with diabetes--10% of patients who are hospitalized with COVID 19 and who are diabetic die. I wonder if it has something to do with diabetes itself or the fact that many people with diabetes are overweight. No one in my family has diabetes and we are all pretty thin but I do have several good friends with diabetes.

 

[JustVisitingThisPlanet]

The question should be 'Do you think there should be an available vaccine released by end of year before getting proper trials'. It will be very risky to public health to emergency release a vaccine w/out proper trial process given unknown side effects, which usually takes much longer unless the active ingredient is an existing drug already approved with known side effect. Especially important for longer trials if planing to hit 100s of millions of doses out of the gate.

 

[Independent]

As has been noted.. "nobody knows nothin" about this virus, so this goes under speculation more than information: but the early data suggested that certain blood types and genetic makeups were more resistant/had better outcomes than others. IIRC those who had more ACE2 proteins on their lung cells were bigger targets and those with blood type O were harder targets.

that could all be baloney... but I'm sure that different people will have different odds of contracting and their bodies will have different odds of fighting it once they contract it. One size does not fit all.

I agree with that. The range of responses seems awfully large.

I was just commenting on the idea that we might not get a vaccine because the virus enters through surface cells.

 

[Independent]

That's funny because I have the opposite view, 10 grand is way more than is necessary. There will probably be some who would volunteer for free.

https://1daysooner.org/

This site has 27,716 volunteers. Even if most back out when the time comes, I think there will still be thousands who are willing.

 

[RAE]

The question should be 'Do you think there should be an available vaccine released by end of year before getting proper trials'. It will be very risky to public health to emergency release a vaccine w/out proper trial process given unknown side effects, which usually takes much longer unless the active ingredient is an existing drug already approved with known side effect. Especially important for longer trials if planing to hit 100s of millions of doses out of the gate.

+1. This is one reason why I do not plan to get any vaccine developed for this virus anytime soon. Any vaccine developed and distributed for wide use after just a year or so is going to be inherently risky. A year is simply not enough time to test for both effectiveness and potential side effects, as you say. Further, Dr. Fauci mentioned today that there are serious concerns about the "durability" of vaccines that try to target any of the coronaviruses. It may not be possible to develop a coronavirus vaccine that affords protection for more than 3-4 months. So, there are lots of potential problems/pitfalls with trying to develop a vaccine for this virus.

 

[camfused]

The great Fauci has spoken:

The US should have 100 million doses of one candidate Covid-19 vaccine by the end of the year, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and a member of the White House coronavirus task force, said Tuesday.

Then, by the beginning of 2021, we hope to have a couple hundred million doses.

Source: CNN

 

[JustVisitingThisPlanet]

+1. This is one reason why I do not plan to get any vaccine developed for this virus anytime soon. Any vaccine developed and distributed for wide use after just a year or so is going to be inherently risky. A year is simply not enough time to test for both effectiveness and potential side effects, as you say. Further, Dr. Fauci mentioned today that there are serious concerns about the "durability" of vaccines that try to target any of the coronaviruses. It may not be possible to develop a coronavirus vaccine that affords protection for more than 3-4 months. So, there are lots of potential problems/pitfalls with trying to develop a vaccine for this virus.

Yeah I'm not an anti-vaxer (and take flu shots) but will not be taking the first couple waves of COVID vax if released within next year. Will wait to hear about side effects.

An existing drug fine tuned for COVID treatment (already known side effects) might be better than rushing a new vaccine too quickly.

 

[Independent]

It may not be possible to develop a coronavirus vaccine that affords protection for more than 3-4 months. So, there are lots of potential problems/pitfalls with trying to develop a vaccine for this virus.

Depends on what you mean by "protection". It could mean real immunity for 3-4 months, then slowly decreasing protection so that infections that might have meant a miserable week in bed are replaced by a mild chest cold. And, infections that might have killed me are turned into a couple days of fever.

I'd take that. So I need a booster at six months, I can handle that. I already get a flu shot every 12 months.

 

[ls99]

Voted NO. Not likely to have one that I would accept.
While past performace is not predictive of future, AFIK there has not been a successful Coronavirus vaccine.

 

[mpeirce]

All the viruses you mention are active in the blood stream where a vaccine can get them. Corona virus attacks through the lungs, it reaches the blood stream by accident (gross over simplification).

Um, I don't think you understand how vaccines work.

Vaccines have no direct influence on a virus. There is no vaccine to virus interaction at all.

Basically, vaccines introduce either a dead virus or a weakened virus (neither of which will produce the full-on disease) into your body where your immune system thinks this is an actual virus attacking you. The immune system produces an antibody that can destroy the virus.

 

[Spock]

Um, I don't think you understand how vaccines work.

Vaccines have no direct influence on a virus. There is no vaccine to virus interaction at all.

Basically, vaccines introduce either a dead virus or a weakened virus (neither of which will produce the full-on disease) into your body where your immune system thinks this is an actual virus attacking you. The immune system produces an antibody that can destroy the virus.

So I should have used "where the antibodies can reach them" vs. "where the vaccine can reach them".
The bottom line is this:

According to Ian Frazer of the University of Queensland - who was involved in the creation of the HPV vaccine, coronaviruses are particularly difficult to create safe vaccines before because the virus infects the upper respiratory tract, which our immune system isn't particularly adept at protecting.

There are several reasons why our upper respiratory tract is a hard area to target a vaccine.
"It's a separate immune system, if you like, which isn't easily accessible by vaccine technology," Professor Frazer told the Health Report.
Despite your upper respiratory tract feeling very much like it's insideyour body, it's effectively considered an external surface for the purposes of immunisation.
"It's a bit like trying to get a vaccine to kill a virus on the surface of your skin." -ABC News
​

In other words, because the upper respiratory tract is effectively "outside" of the body, and the outer layer of (epithelial) cells in the tract is our natural barrier to viruses, it's difficult to produce an immune response which can reach them.