Next crop of COVID-19 vaccine developers take more traditional route

[trulydelicious]

The handful of drugmakers dominating the global coronavirus vaccine race are pushing the boundaries of vaccine technology. The next crop under development feature more conventional, proven designs

uk.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-vaccine-next/next-crop-of-covid-19-vaccine-developers-take-more-traditional-route-idUKKBN27E0GD

I’ve been mulling over several aspects regarding Covid vaccines and would be interested to know others’ opinions on the following:

1. Why did established labs with access to ample funding (e.g. Pfizer/GSK/AstraZeneca) not begin by attempting to use traditional vaccine technology? In my view this would have somewhat prevented much of the controversy and reticence around Covid vaccines. It could also have improved uptake, contributing perhaps to end the pandemic sooner, which is what most of us wish for

2. Do you think governments around the world should have granted immunity from liability to pharmaceutical companies only if they had set out to develop potentially lower risk bog standard vaccines? i.e. if labs wanted to release during the pandemic a vaccine with new technology and seize the opportunity to mass test them, they could do so, but it would be at their own risk (after all, if they are eventually successful, they could use the patent and template for other products and they would be the ones reaping the benefits)

3. For those yet unwilling to have these new vaccines, would you wait until more traditional vaccines come onto the market and reassess then?

1. because the type of vaccine your link is describing has never before been made to work for a corona virus, so it was not obvious it would be faster or better to develop. Different companies are working in this area and have also been the recipients of huge funding and going to the top of the queue for regulatory issues

Please note that AZ is also trialling prophylactic antibody combinations. They have been doing more than just the Oxford trial with its very new approach)

2. no

3. I am not unwilling to have the Pfizer (and potential the Oxford/AZ one, assuming it is approved)

1. I think don't think vaccine developers were thinking about 'vaccine reticence' to a new type of vaccine when they started. They just wanted to develop an effective vaccine as quickly as possible (maybe even with an eye on a potential Nobel prize). mRNA allows a quicker path than traditional methods (no growing in eggs, for example), and has been used in cancer trials, so the background was already there.

2. I do not like the legal lack of responsibility one bit. For me that's far more concerning than what type of vaccine is manufactured. No-one wants to be suing for vaccine injury, but if they need to, they don't want to find they cannot sue the company responsible! It's not reassuring at all, and doesn't fill me with confidence.

3. Constantly re-assessing my position, certainly won't be rushing to get any of them, but I'm in group 6 so still have quite some time to go.

*I don't think vaccine developers... not 'I think don't think'

1. The Oxford vaccine group's technology is not brand new, it's been used for a MERS vaccine already.

2. I would happily get a vaccine, the Oxford one seems most likely for me anyways.

1. They chose the vaccine candidates that were most likely to work in the shortest time possible. When they started their research it was not known how severe covid-19 really was and they wanted to develop an effective product as quickly as possible. I don't really think they were thinking about anti vaxxers and people who are reluctant to try new technologies without long-term trials when they made their decisions. You could argue that was an unwise decision but I think there will be sufficient people who are willing to take their vaccines to use up all the stocks they are able to produce.
2. No. To me it doesn't matter whether it is a new approach or a "bog standard vaccine". The risks are relatively similar and are around the targets that you are priming immune responses to. I don't think the risks with bog standard vaccines would be any less. In the middle of a global pandemic the pharmaceutical companies are able to call the shots. They don't have to invest in developing vaccines for covid so understandably they asked for immunity from liability due to the time lines. The way I see it they are basically working on behalf of governments to deliver a vaccine they have been asked to deliver. It therefore doesn't seem unreasonable to expect governments to pay if there are any unforeseen consequences.
3. I'd happily take any vaccine and am more than happy to have an mRNA vaccine if there are spare stocks lying around after others have declined it.

@SexTrainGlue

because the type of vaccine your link is describing has never before been made to work for a corona virus

Do you have any reference to attempts that failed or why they failed?

@trulydelicious

Info here:

www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-00434-6

Work on 'traditional' vaccines has not been completely abandoned. But the key difficulties are
a) attenuated strain vaccine - unlikely to be safe because of the way that coronaviruses recombine
b) killed strain - have caused ADE

@SexTrainGlue

Thanks, will look into that

As far as I remember (but haven't read up on the vaccines that have 'made it' past the post), the big challenge was to get the RNA vaccine properly workable without the overzealous immune response, something that had not been done - not sure they were confident in how close they were at the Feb/March stage, for example:
medschool.duke.edu/about-us/news-and-communications/som-magnify/prepping-pandemic-duke’s-long-history-rna-based-vaccine-development

@Ormally

I'll have a read thanks