Conspiracy theories about Covid-19 vaccines may prevent herd immunity(economist.com)
economist.com
Conspiracy theories about Covid-19 vaccines may prevent herd immunity
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/08/29/conspiracy-theories-about-covid-19-vaccines-may-prevent-herd-immunity
22 comments
When did "jabs" become a synonym for "vaccine"? Australian health officials have been using the term as well. This is imprecise if not outright incorrect language: a drug delivery mechanism (injection or "jab") is independent of the drug being delivered.
Different drugs have different fitness for purpose, side effects and compatibility with other drugs. There is a broad range of research drugs proposed for conferring immunity to SARS-COV-2, only a subset of which have the properties (e.g. low virus dose) of a traditional vaccine.
If health officials want to increase trust, they may want to use more precise language to separate known-good approaches from not-yet-known-good, a.k.a. ongoing research. Do not blur scientific and legal/financial liability categories, which vary by the drug being injected.
Different drugs have different fitness for purpose, side effects and compatibility with other drugs. There is a broad range of research drugs proposed for conferring immunity to SARS-COV-2, only a subset of which have the properties (e.g. low virus dose) of a traditional vaccine.
If health officials want to increase trust, they may want to use more precise language to separate known-good approaches from not-yet-known-good, a.k.a. ongoing research. Do not blur scientific and legal/financial liability categories, which vary by the drug being injected.
We've been using "shots" as a synonym for ages. I don't think it's really an issue.
"Shots" are indeed a longstanding noun/synonym for vaccines.
"Jab" is a verb for the delivery of many different drugs.
"Jab" is a verb for the delivery of many different drugs.
Here in Argentina it is common to call the Rho(D) immune globulin injection a "vaccine" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rho(D)_immune_globulin . I even heard that from doctors and nurses. Each time I have to decide if I have to start a rant or just smile and wave.
Before we start worrying about herd immunity, we need to show that the vaccines for covid-19 prevent transmission of the virus as well as prevent or mitigate the symptoms of covid-19. It is not always the case that an effective vaccine prevents transmission of the disease.
The Oxford/AstraZeneca Vaccination uses HEK-293 cells, a strain originally derived from human kidney cells grown in an aborted fetus.
So how about we skip the low brow attacks on "Conspiracy theories" and talk about the multitude of reasons it's unlikely Covid-19 vaccines will hit herd immunity.
Like, a massive part of the world can't afford vaccines, and we haven't helped them in full in the past so the claim we will now is a bit of a joke.
So how about we skip the low brow attacks on "Conspiracy theories" and talk about the multitude of reasons it's unlikely Covid-19 vaccines will hit herd immunity.
Like, a massive part of the world can't afford vaccines, and we haven't helped them in full in the past so the claim we will now is a bit of a joke.
How much spare capacity for manufacturing vaccines does even exist? Manufacturing 7.5 billion doses could take a while.
Vaccines usually take around 10 years to develop, now we are trying to rush them out in around a year. Russia already developed a vaccine, but no one seems interested, instead we are expecting the rushed one from the west to be somehow better / more trustworthy. Meanwhile hydroxychloride is used by millions worldwide without issue, yet only now it is considered dangerous for treating covid.
There are so many contradictions surrounding covid, it's not surprising that the public aren't interested in what scientists have to say.
There are so many contradictions surrounding covid, it's not surprising that the public aren't interested in what scientists have to say.
Russia developed a vaccine candidate that should be tested, but they skip the test part before the announcement for political reasons. Something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Accomplished_speech
EDIT: You mean Hydroxychloroquine? I never heard of Hydroxychloride to treat covid-19. Hydroxychloroquine has a few known issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxychloroquine#Adverse_eff... . Anyway, the main problem is that the studies that support it's effect against covid-19 are very weak.
EDIT: You mean Hydroxychloroquine? I never heard of Hydroxychloride to treat covid-19. Hydroxychloroquine has a few known issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxychloroquine#Adverse_eff... . Anyway, the main problem is that the studies that support it's effect against covid-19 are very weak.
No offence but I thought this was HN not reddit:
Hydroxychloride isn’t a COVID-19 vaccine. It has anti viral and anti anti inflammatory properties that might help if you have the virus but it won’t give you immunity from COVID-19
The Russian vaccine is at the same stage in development as the ‘ones from the west’ they’ve just skipped testing and said it’s ready presumably for political reasons (they have named it Sputnik)
Hydroxychloride isn’t a COVID-19 vaccine. It has anti viral and anti anti inflammatory properties that might help if you have the virus but it won’t give you immunity from COVID-19
The Russian vaccine is at the same stage in development as the ‘ones from the west’ they’ve just skipped testing and said it’s ready presumably for political reasons (they have named it Sputnik)
I didn't say it was a vaccine, but some recent studies have shown promising results when the correct dosage is used. (30% drop in mortality, which doesn't sound amazing as far as I am aware, flu vaccines are only around 50% effective). Despite having been around for years it is only now declared to dangeorus to treat covid - that's what I don't get (without going down the narrative of "no money to be made that way").
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7za_j7f3L0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBn4e69tGlg
At the moment numbers are going up in Spain, but the hospitals are not overloaded and the deaths are staying pretty low. At the point I am not sure why we are pushing so hard for a vaccine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7za_j7f3L0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBn4e69tGlg
At the moment numbers are going up in Spain, but the hospitals are not overloaded and the deaths are staying pretty low. At the point I am not sure why we are pushing so hard for a vaccine.
We're trying to rush it because it's so important.
Economic factors play a very significant role in the timescale of developments, not just now, but in those 10 years you mentioned. That's one reason why we can go faster when there is enough motivation.
Another thing is that there are lots of groups working on different vaccines for this disease at the same time. That's unusual too. Usually, there isn't enough money to do all the research, production and testing that fast, for so many at once. And you can assume, because of the circumstances, that the different groups are sharing knowledge more than they normally do.
Obviously there are risks associated with a new vaccine, which is why they are also trying to get on with cautious testing on people as quickly as possible. There have been problems with previous vaccines (such as Pandemrix) so, of course, vaccine makers are trying to learn from those.
The Russian vaccine recently announced has explicitly skipped some safety tests that everyone else thinks are too important to skip. That's one reason for skepticism towards it. Another is that the Russians didn't release enough information about the vaccine. Detailed study information was not available (I don't know if that's still true), so other groups are unable to tell if it actually works.
And a third concern is complex social consequences: If people take a vaccine that turns out to be unsafe to take, or if it has measurable effects (like antibodies) but doesn't really provide actual immunity (not the same thing as antibodies), the consequence is likely to increase the amount of Covid-19 rather than help. That is, it could actually make the pandemic situation worse.
If all the other vaccine candidates would skip the same tests, then we'd see more vaccines getting the same kind of announcements. But the other candidates appear to be doing things more carefully. That's why we expect the others to be "better / more trustworthy": Because they actually are showing how they are doing more careful testing.
Eventually, we hope the Russian vaccine will also meet these standards. Maybe a modified version; proper testing can reveal problems which can sometimes be fixed by altering the vaccine design. Like writing code, you find bugs, you fix them. It's not that nobody is interested. It's actually an interesting vaccine approach, and it might be the one we all end up using. It's that nobody wants to start partying in the streets yet, because nobody who understands these things outside Russia can tell, yet, if it really works, or if it it's just been announced for geo-political point-scoring and would actually make things worse. High quality data would help a lot. But maybe that doesn't exist yet.
I assume you mean hydroxychloroquine (HCL). Yes it's used by millions worldwide, but it has some nasty side effects, although as usual with side effects it varies between individuals. For serious diseases where HCL is an effective treatment, the risk profile with side effects is considered worth it. If you're unlucky it can still ruin your life though. For Covid-19 it has been tested, because we hoped it would work. Unfortunately it was found to be ineffective, so the side effects are not worth it.
The Wikipedia article on HCL side effects is pretty good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxychloroquine#Adverse_eff...
Economic factors play a very significant role in the timescale of developments, not just now, but in those 10 years you mentioned. That's one reason why we can go faster when there is enough motivation.
Another thing is that there are lots of groups working on different vaccines for this disease at the same time. That's unusual too. Usually, there isn't enough money to do all the research, production and testing that fast, for so many at once. And you can assume, because of the circumstances, that the different groups are sharing knowledge more than they normally do.
Obviously there are risks associated with a new vaccine, which is why they are also trying to get on with cautious testing on people as quickly as possible. There have been problems with previous vaccines (such as Pandemrix) so, of course, vaccine makers are trying to learn from those.
The Russian vaccine recently announced has explicitly skipped some safety tests that everyone else thinks are too important to skip. That's one reason for skepticism towards it. Another is that the Russians didn't release enough information about the vaccine. Detailed study information was not available (I don't know if that's still true), so other groups are unable to tell if it actually works.
And a third concern is complex social consequences: If people take a vaccine that turns out to be unsafe to take, or if it has measurable effects (like antibodies) but doesn't really provide actual immunity (not the same thing as antibodies), the consequence is likely to increase the amount of Covid-19 rather than help. That is, it could actually make the pandemic situation worse.
If all the other vaccine candidates would skip the same tests, then we'd see more vaccines getting the same kind of announcements. But the other candidates appear to be doing things more carefully. That's why we expect the others to be "better / more trustworthy": Because they actually are showing how they are doing more careful testing.
Eventually, we hope the Russian vaccine will also meet these standards. Maybe a modified version; proper testing can reveal problems which can sometimes be fixed by altering the vaccine design. Like writing code, you find bugs, you fix them. It's not that nobody is interested. It's actually an interesting vaccine approach, and it might be the one we all end up using. It's that nobody wants to start partying in the streets yet, because nobody who understands these things outside Russia can tell, yet, if it really works, or if it it's just been announced for geo-political point-scoring and would actually make things worse. High quality data would help a lot. But maybe that doesn't exist yet.
I assume you mean hydroxychloroquine (HCL). Yes it's used by millions worldwide, but it has some nasty side effects, although as usual with side effects it varies between individuals. For serious diseases where HCL is an effective treatment, the risk profile with side effects is considered worth it. If you're unlucky it can still ruin your life though. For Covid-19 it has been tested, because we hoped it would work. Unfortunately it was found to be ineffective, so the side effects are not worth it.
The Wikipedia article on HCL side effects is pretty good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxychloroquine#Adverse_eff...
I don’t really care. If people don’t want to get vaccinated that’s their problem. As long as they don’t ask others to keep the infinite quarantine.
It sounds like you don't understand the point of "herd immunity".
If individual people don't want to get vaccinated, it's not just their problem.
It contributes risk to everyone else, by pushing the R number higher, increasing the size and duration of clusters, and potentially tipping the balance towards permanent pandemic instead of the disease fading out.
That's the point.
In light of that, "as long as they don't ask others to keep the infinite quarantine" doesn't make sense. If lots of individual people decide not to get vaccinated (assuming there's an effective one), they won't be the ones asking for stronger quarantine.
If individual people don't want to get vaccinated, it's not just their problem.
It contributes risk to everyone else, by pushing the R number higher, increasing the size and duration of clusters, and potentially tipping the balance towards permanent pandemic instead of the disease fading out.
That's the point.
In light of that, "as long as they don't ask others to keep the infinite quarantine" doesn't make sense. If lots of individual people decide not to get vaccinated (assuming there's an effective one), they won't be the ones asking for stronger quarantine.
I still don’t care. The herd immunity story only matters if for some reason a large amount of people has a valid reason why they can’t be vaccinated.
Any useful coronavirus vaccine has to work for the vulnerable people anyway, the old, the obese, the diabetics etcetera and these would be the people with a valid reason.
If these people can get vaccinated everyone can choose, get vaccinated or run the risk. I don’t care. And there is no herd immunity story.
Any useful coronavirus vaccine has to work for the vulnerable people anyway, the old, the obese, the diabetics etcetera and these would be the people with a valid reason.
If these people can get vaccinated everyone can choose, get vaccinated or run the risk. I don’t care. And there is no herd immunity story.
That is not how things actually work.
First, many people with relevant "underlying health conditions" don't know they have them yet.
The public warnings talk about visible things (obesity etc) because they are the only ones it is useful to publicise. It doesn't mean they are the only relevant conditions.
Second, Covid-19 strikes down many healthy people, and "long covid" is an awful long-term disability.
Third, vaccines aren't perfect at an individual level. Their use tips the balance to the disease dying out, but they don't confer perfect protection to every individual that is vaccinated. People still depend on each other, so herd immunity still matters.
First, many people with relevant "underlying health conditions" don't know they have them yet.
The public warnings talk about visible things (obesity etc) because they are the only ones it is useful to publicise. It doesn't mean they are the only relevant conditions.
Second, Covid-19 strikes down many healthy people, and "long covid" is an awful long-term disability.
Third, vaccines aren't perfect at an individual level. Their use tips the balance to the disease dying out, but they don't confer perfect protection to every individual that is vaccinated. People still depend on each other, so herd immunity still matters.
Speculation aside, you don't need a vaccine in order to get herd immunity.
While technically correct, I don't get what you are implying here. Just let nature run its course? Cull the weak?
I'm not implying anything. I'm saying that we'll end up with herd immunity whether we successfully make and distribute a vaccine or not. There are two ways to get that outcome: the easy way and the hard way. The linked article is wrong because it suggests that the easy way is the only way.
You could argue immunity can always be obtained the 'hard' way, even for a virus that seems not to induce it, as when the last human succumbs the infection rate has effectively gone to 0.
We refer to those points as 'technicalities'.
We refer to those points as 'technicalities'.
0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemrix