Why are so many sceptical about a vaccine?

[larrygrylls]

There are currently in excess of 170 vaccines in development against SARS-COV-2 virus, 37 in human trials, 6 in phase 3 trials and one actually approved for limited use (to vaccinate the Chinese army).

Most immunologists expect we will have a vaccine by mid next year latest, and the U.K., at the forefront of vaccine development, has bought 90 million plus doses.

And yet, in thread after thread in this topic, people are saying that we should not continue to take precautions against Covid 19, as we will all ‘eventually get it anyway’.

Is this some form of status quo psychological bias that makes otherwise intelligent people not believe that one day (and not so far away) we will all get vaccinated and normal life will resume?!

www.gov.uk/government/news/millions-could-be-vaccinated-against-covid-19-as-uk-secures-strong-portfolio-of-promising-vaccines

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker.amp.html

@TheDailyCarbuncle

The whole thing hinges on a cost-benefit analysis, because rolling out a huge vaccination programme costs enormous amounts of money. There's very unlikely to be a financial justification for vaccinating large amounts of people from covid so even if there does turn out to be an effective vaccine (which is something of a long shot in itself) the question then will be whether they mass produce it, whether they offer it only to certain groups etc.

An interesting thing will be if governments use the vaccine as inoculation against the fear they themselves have infected their populations with. If governments feel that offering the vaccine will be their get-out clause then I can see some governments opting for it, even if it's not very effective (like the flu vaccine) as a way of releasing everyone from the ever-spiralling nonsense of lockdown. Of course, if the vaccine fails and a certain number of people get infected anyway, then the government can say 'oh well, we tried.'

It works for the flu, so it could probably work for covid and I'd be ok with it as a strategy.

Given young healthy people have died / been seriously I'll from Covid 19. Even our PM was seriously ill with it, and the cost of Lockdowns, temporary hospitals, the on going cost to the economy. The cost of Covid is enormous, and the vaccine will be a drop in the ocean compared to what else has been thrown at it. So I'm certain that vaccinating the whole population will be the aim.

Starting with medical staff, then teachers and armed forces, being before the rest of the population.

My logic for including armed forces is the opposite from the logical arguments that people have put forward for China doing their army first.
The army can't defend the rest of us if they call come down with Covid 19, and in barracks and places social distancing must be impossible.

Young people die and are seriously ill with infections all the time @Blackbear19. Contrary to what people seem to believe, being very ill or dying from an infection is not a rare thing - 11 million people of all ages die of infection every year. It's not necessarily a motivator to do anything about those infections, generally.

I'm not against a vaccine or anything - if there were an effective one, then great. I just don't think the idea of one being found and it being rolled out in a massive way within a year is in any way realistic.

@Blackbear19

I realise it’s all small print (if we get a vaccine, population-wise vaccination will be the aim) but I wouldn’t be putting armed forces that high on the list. Pretty far down:

1. Front-line medical staff
2. Vulnerable and elderly
3. Teachers
4. Other key workers
5. General population

I’d imagine 5 would have multiple subdivisions, and the armed forces would be either in 4 or 5. But armed forces tend to be younger and therefore less vulnerable to the virus. We need to prioritise health and education at first.

Anyway, doesn’t really matter. If we get a decent vaccine then I don’t really care.

@TheDailyCarbuncle

That’s really interesting, and thanks for replying.

I’m a doctor myself, and have friends across the medical specialties. And a few who work in governmental/public health positions. The general consensus points towards zero covid as being the best trajectory right now. But I fully accept the huge challenge it presents.

This Guardian article sums it up
Why We Might Not Get A Vaccine

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/22/why-we-might-not-get-a-coronavirus-vaccine

[quote PaddyF0dder]@TheDailyCarbuncle

That’s really interesting, and thanks for replying.

I’m a doctor myself, and have friends across the medical specialties. And a few who work in governmental/public health positions. The general consensus points towards zero covid as being the best trajectory right now. But I fully accept the huge challenge it presents.[/quote]
It'd be great if zero covid were possible. But I genuinely can't see how it's in any way even vaguely attainable. There are so many complicated factors involved. The main issue I have with it though is the pathological (and I don't use that word lightly) focus on one thing - covid - as though nothing else matters. The fallout from trying to achieve zero covid would be horrific, far beyond what covid could do if we all just gave up and spat at each other on the regular from tomorrow. You must be able to see that? How has one virus taken people's minds over so completely that this is not obvious?

[quote Flaxmeadow]This Guardian article sums it up
Why We Might Not Get A Vaccine

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/22/why-we-might-not-get-a-coronavirus-vaccine[/quote]
That article is from 2.5 months ago - in the lifespan of Covid-19, that is massive.

For instance, since it was written, we have had the results of the stage 1 trial of the Oxford vaccine, demonstrating that it does indeed produce an immune response in humans, both antibodies and T-cells.

And they’ve clarified that the monkeys were given vast doses of Covid via every available route, far more than would be encountered naturally - so it’s hardly surprising that some virus was found in their noses. But they didnt become ill

[quote Flaxmeadow]This Guardian article sums it up
Why We Might Not Get A Vaccine

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/22/why-we-might-not-get-a-coronavirus-vaccine[/quote]
That is from nearly 3 months ago things have moved on since then

That [article] is from nearly 3 months ago things have moved on since then

In what way have things moved on?

The article explains things still relevant now, whether it was 2 months ago or not

Statement by Fauci

www.cnbc.com/2020/08/07/coronavirus-vaccine-dr-fauci-says-chances-of-it-being-highly-effective-is-not-great.html

And we need him to be believed, as that's the counterweight to Trump's idiocy

@Flaxmeadow a lot of it isn't relevant. For a start, the Oxford vaccine is safe. It has been through stage 1 and 2 trials. It is now in stage 3 which is mass testing it in areas with high infection rates to see how effective it is. Obviously we don't know yet but I have high hopes for it. Even if it gives a few months immunity, it is something.

@scaevola

Statement by Fauci

www.cnbc.com/2020/08/07/coronavirus-vaccine-dr-fauci-says-chances-of-it-being-highly-effective-is-not-great.html

And we need him to be believed, as that's the counterweight to Trump's idiocy

I mean the flu vaccine has 20%-60% efficacy, but it’s still helpful.

The flu vaccine does not stop you getting the flu if this vaccine stops it going to the lungs etc then that is fine ...... i would not expect. Fully 100% working vaccine i don't think many are

The flu vaccine does not stop you getting the flu

That is, literally, what it does - but not for everyone who has it.

I mean the flu vaccine has 20%-60% efficacy, but it’s still helpful

Differenr reason

The flu vaccine is sometimes less effective because it contains highly effective immunisation against 3 or 4 strains which are predicted tombe the dominant strains in circulation in the coming flu season. It provides no protection against other strains, and the predictions can be wrong. Hence the lower overall figure, because it depends on the accuracy of the prediction, not the effectiveness against each strain.

I think a better comparison wouid be to other viruses, which are not expected to mutate. So for example, the MMR (2 doses) is 99% for measles and rubella and 88% for mumps (source NHS)

But yes, some protection is better than none when looking at whole population effect. But when looking at individuals and whether you can relax your individual infection control (hand hygiene, masks, distancing) it cannot be relied on if it's only moderately effective.

So it really is fingers crossed on effectiveness - something which we do not yet know and about which there is still considerable uncertainty amongst experts

If the R number for Corona is 3 (say), then 67% would be the critical number for vaccine effectiveness, as anything above 67% would bring R below 1 and COVID-19 would die out with no additional measures required.

A vaccine effectiveness of 50%, though, would bring r to 1.5, meaning additional precautions would still be required to bring r below 1.

Im

Even when the vaccine is rolled out, it won't do much to stop the above because the goalposts will get moved. Instead of "there won't be a vaccine," we will hear "The vaccine won't work" "The immunity won't last," "It's dangerous and is causing a whole bunch of vague health problems which I believe I am now suffering" "I am not having the vaccine and the government can't make me" etc.

Yes absolutely. We can see this happening already - the NHS death rates are tiny here now (under 20 per day) so now people have started going on about "long term effects" instead.

@Flaxmeadow a lot of it isn't relevant. For a start, the Oxford vaccine is safe. It has been through stage 1 and 2 trials. It is now in stage 3 which is mass testing it in areas with high infection rates to see how effective it is. Obviously we don't know yet but I have high hopes for it. Even if it gives a few months immunity, it is something.

No one can possibly know if it's safe, or effective, yet. We are only 6 months into this pandemic

Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to vaccination programmes, infact I cannot abide the anti vax brigade and mostly see them as dangerous cranks, but it's just too early to know

The article I linked still has relevance

[quote Flaxmeadow]**@Flaxmeadow a lot of it isn't relevant. For a start, the Oxford vaccine is safe. It has been through stage 1 and 2 trials. It is now in stage 3 which is mass testing it in areas with high infection rates to see how effective it is. Obviously we don't know yet but I have high hopes for it. Even if it gives a few months immunity, it is something.

No one can possibly know if it's safe, or effective, yet. We are only 6 months into this pandemic

Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to vaccination programmes, infact I cannot abide the anti vax brigade and mostly see them as dangerous cranks, but it's just too early to know

The article I linked still has relevance[/quote]
The Oxford vaccine is based on a deactivated adenovirus. The adenovirus vaccine has been used for decades and is perfectly safe and well established. It’s a completely old school technology.

The Oxford vaccine is based on a deactivated adenovirus. The adenovirus vaccine has been used for decades and is perfectly safe and well established. It’s a completely old school technology

I thought the only vaccine which used adenovirus as a vector was an animal one against rabies. What have I missed?

@SexTrainGlue

The Oxford vaccine is based on a deactivated adenovirus. The adenovirus vaccine has been used for decades and is perfectly safe and well established. It’s a completely old school technology

I thought the only vaccine which used adenovirus as a vector was an animal one against rabies. What have I missed?

Well there’s the vaccine against Ebola which was approved by China in 2017 (for emergency use only though). I think that’s the first of its kind.

But you are right, I was confusing the adenovirus vaccine with adenovirus as a vector. I’d assumed that the efficacy wasn’t guaranteed but safety wasn’t an issue. Happy to be corrected.