Will they create a traditional vaccine as opposed to the mRNA?

[TheOldStar]

Does anyone know if there are plans to develop a traditional vaccine for covid? I think the uptake would be much higher if they did.

Traditional vaccines do seem to be more effective, the mRNA just seems to limit symptoms in many cases.

The Astra Zeneca vaccine is of traditional design. It's less effective than the mRNA vaccines unfortunately against omicron.

Most people are sensible enough to discount the crack pot theories about mRNA vaccines = genetic engineering of the human race.

So I’m not sure why they should change the vaccines for the minority who find conspiracies in everything.

The internet is a dangerous place for some.

There’s Novavax and a French one I think called Valneva that are traditional whole-virus vaccinations.

I was going to say the same about AZ. I had that initially and it would've been my first choice, had I had one. I had the Pfizer booster though and didn't really give the mRNA aspect a thought this time - I was just glad to have it.

@BigGreen

The Astra Zeneca vaccine is of traditional design. It's less effective than the mRNA vaccines unfortunately against omicron.

AZ is not the traditional vaccine. Traditional would be weakened(very rare nowadays)/inactivated virus. Chinese vaccine Sinopharm, for instance, is traditional

They already have - Astra Zeneca. Which so far seems less effective and has more side effects. HTH.

The traditional vaccines have been shown to be far less effective than the mRNA ones.

Stop reading shit on the internet.

In 10 years time, mRNA vaccines will be the norm. They are far better at what they do. They are really clever. It’s a real breakthrough in vaccine tech, could really help with so many other serious illnesses!

True @Onegingerhead - AZ used a chimp virus which is def not how traditional vaccines work.

Sinophram has been terrible. One of the least effective there has been.

My concerns about mRNA have nothing to do with 'genetic engineering' or crazy microchip theories and are instead about potential longer-term effects, including autoimmune issues. I recognise that I may be wrong, and if so, then years from now I might well have one of these vaccines. In fact, I hope I'm wrong! It's about possibility, not a certainty that they're a problem. But for now it's better to err on the side of caution, in my opinion. Others can make the decisions that seem best to them.

Moderna and Pfizer use mRNA technology but most of the other vaccines around the world don't- AZ, Janssen, Novavax, Sinovac, etc. I'm waiting for a booster that uses one of these.

I thought they hadn’t produced a traditional vaccine as there wasn’t time?

Why don’t they offer mRNA for flu if it’s a more effective vaccine? Genuine question.

What is the efficacy of these vaccines compared to mRNA?

They've just done a flu trial & it was only as effective as traditional vaccines.

Chinese vaccine Sinopharm, for instance, is traditional

And has had very poor results iirc. Don’t get me wrong, if there was nothing else I’d want it because it’s just better than nothing but I’m thankful that medical advancements are such we have other options.

@TheOldStar

Does anyone know if there are plans to develop a traditional vaccine for covid? I think the uptake would be much higher if they did.

Traditional vaccines do seem to be more effective, the mRNA just seems to limit symptoms in many cases.

Many companies tried developing more traditional vaccines (e.g. GlaxoSmithKline, Merck and Sanofi) and they didn't work very well.

So currently available "traditional" vaccines are NOT more effective than mRNA (e.g. Pfizer) or viral vector (e.g. AZ, Sputnik) vaccines.

People who say they would be happy to have a "traditional" vaccine (e.g. with live attenuated virus) will likely backpedal when actually offered one. They are usually just anti-vaxxers who will find any excuse.

Ah

Can someone explain the science behind mRNA in layman’s terms? Why do people think it changes their DNA? Why does the scientist who created it think it’s a bad idea?

@TheOldStar

Can someone explain the science behind mRNA in layman’s terms? Why do people think it changes their DNA? Why does the scientist who created it think it’s a bad idea?

Yes indeed, lets have lots of posts airing all the conspiracy theories YET AGAIN. What a great idea. After all, we need to have them posted at least 5 times a day on this board.

It all went quiet about Novavax but AFAIK that was of a “traditional” type and seemed to be showing promising early signs.

@TheOldStar

Can someone explain the science behind mRNA in layman’s terms? Why do people think it changes their DNA? Why does the scientist who created it think it’s a bad idea?

It doesn’t change the DNA. Neither does AZ, which is using the viral vector. There is an element of truth that both type of the vaccines, mRNA/viral vector are, strictly speaking, gene therapy. It is because they are making your cells (mostly muscle) produce the spike protein, encoded by either the mRNA (Pfizer/Moderna) or viral vector (AZ). In turn, your body produces antibodies against spike protein, which is a part of coronavirus. However, in order to change your genetic code the vaccine (mRNA or viral vector) should a)be able to get into the nucleus of the cell (it doesn’t) and b) integrate into your DNA (can’t do it either). The only viral vectors that can do so are lentiviral and they are very controlled in laboratory settings and absolutely not been used to generate any of the vaccines mentioned.

novavax (and possibly others) are set to be authorised very soon.

Novavax has been approved by the WHO for emergency use, I believe, and approval in the UK/US/EU is pending. The delay is because of manufacturing issues rather than efficacy.

It is a more traditional type of vaccine and results from phase 3 trials were very good against early variants. I've no idea on its Omicron effectiveness. Lots of people in Australia and the US claim to be holding out for it rather than more innovative vaccines so it could make a big difference if it works against new variants. And a game changer in low income countries as it's cheap and easy to store.

The flu vaccine is a traditional vaccine and I think it has a much lower success rate than any of the Covid vaccines. I think its around 60-70%?

@TheOldStar

Does anyone know if there are plans to develop a traditional vaccine for covid? I think the uptake would be much higher if they did.

Traditional vaccines do seem to be more effective, the mRNA just seems to limit symptoms in many cases.

What are you basing these statements on @TheOldStar?

There are two traditional based vaccine - sinopharm and sputnik. Sinopharm is the worst performing of all currently available, and Russia has not released enough data on Sputnik to allow other countrie's to evaluate it. But you can assume if they had evidence it was an effective & safe vaccine they would be trying to sell it for profit.

The fact that we have issues with vaccine efficacy has nothing to do with the fact that they use mRNA (or cDNA in the case of AZ).

Novavax is in the approval process here in the Uk. It’s protein based like the flu jab. I’d have no hesitation and am double jabbed with AZ but won’t go anywhere near mRNA. Not a chance.