Inhaled Vaccine Delivers Broad Protection Against SARS-CoV-2(technologynetworks.com) |
Inhaled Vaccine Delivers Broad Protection Against SARS-CoV-2(technologynetworks.com) |
And several others are looking at CoV too: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33749491/
I guess nasal vaccines have been around for a while but the inhaled thing is still pretty new(ish) and from what I could read on some scattered short mentions in other reading, it's not really very widely used? I may be wrong on that, and can't find a great citation.
[1] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/child-flu-vaccine...
;)
I got a chuckle out of your comment, because it's kind of funny/clever. But I hope you were not serious. Many people believe it is wrong for one group of people to impose their will on others, on principle. I know that's not the prevailing attitude in our culture, and this causes many ginormous problems for our ginormous governments. We are all created equal. It's better to talk with people who think differently rather than tear gas them.
Here is wiki in 2013: https://web.archive.org/web/20130516001246/https://en.m.wiki...
The whole “they revised the definition” thing is itself revisionist history
Perhaps we need to discuss new terminology. Let's not discuss the point of view where immunocompromised people mean a vaccine doesn't work.
>The whole “they revised the definition” thing is itself revisionist history
I will concede this. I never said this in the post you replied to, but it is something I have said previously. I will admit I was misinformed or brainbroken.
I think the point stands however. IF there's a class of vaccines which prevent infection. These are different from a vaccine which basically does nothing more than tylenol.
So what should we do? Leave vaccine as a pretty weak word that includes prophylactic vaccines or do we redefine prophylactic vaccines to be something else?
I think the issue is that before COVID we didn’t bother with vaccines unless they provided immunity. Immunity is what the vaccines largely provided until Delta came along, and now with Omicron that aspect is even worse.
The flu vaccine was always a gamble but it hoped to provide immunity - other than that I can’t think of many. The shingles vaccines, I guess?
I honestly think the vaccine developers should be getting grilled for their decision not to try and make a Delta vaccine. Their decision process is pretty clear - they’d get to sell more doses of their vaccine without any R&D costs. Maybe they figured the next variant would come along before it mattered, but they had no way of knowing if that was going to be a variant of the Delta strain anyways.
There's nothing wrong with creating good drugs and therapies, and this looks cool, but if it doesn't stop transmission it's literally not a vaccine.
EDIT: I'm wrong. I would have been right for the wrong reasons in 2018, but now vaccines are "any substance that generates antibodies that produce immunity to disease".
I knew I would be when I posted. I accept the consequences of my post.
>There's nothing wrong with creating good drugs and therapies, and this looks cool, but if it doesn't stop transmission it's literally not a vaccine.
I have 2 shots, I believe in these shots, but misrepresenting them as something they are not has been dangerous. No doubt it casts shadow upon their value.
There's no ambiguity or uncertainty here – the statement is just factually not correct. A vaccine does not need to "prevent infection", and stating that it does is wrong.
It's particularly galling when this kind of statement is made in a way that says or contributes nothing except a literal falsehood.
These vaccines are not sterilizing though, which is what's required to stop infection. They 100% lied about that. Cue: The Biden administration saying "if you get vaccinated you will not get Covid".
I'm honestly surprised I'm just finding this out now, the combination of lies and legitimate updates got me confused as fuck.
On the delta specific vaccine, I thought they did develop a tailored shot and go through trials? I’m not sure it really mattered, the early research on omicron specific boosters seems to be finding that they’re not any better than the original formulation: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00003-y
Getting the flu or any other disease your vaccinated against in your upper respiratory tract has always been a risk, but IgA cells usually knock this out of your upper respiratory tract in 1 to 3 days for viral infections, and you avoid getting an infection in the lungs which could cause pneumonia.
Legally, a prophylactic seems to be the same as a vaccine, at least according to this definition from 2013: https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840...
But then I'm confused because couldn't we then consider, for example, vitamin D a vaccine? It's more commonly understood as a prophylactic - but then what's the difference between a vaccine and a prophylactic?
Just that vaccines are traditionally meant to be made from dead viral agents?
EDIT: Okay I found the difference:
Here's the definition of vaccine from 2017: https://web.archive.org/web/20170221053411/https://dictionar...
And here's the definition right now: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/vaccine
So, the definition changed from "[an innoculated bacterium/viral agent] that [prevents disease]", to "[any substance] that [produces antibodies]".
A prophylactic is "[any substance] that [prevents disease]".
Technically that still means a prophylactic is not a vaccine and vice versa because of the requirement that vaccines generate antibodies specifically.
I am asking these other people what we should do. It seems your in the camp that it's fine to keep calling the covid shot a vaccine. This is fine with me. We simply now need a new term for the vaccines which do prevent contagion.
I suppose the actual word used is irrelevant. Can you goto https://www.wordgenerator.net/fake-word-generator.php and push the button 5 times and tell me what the new term is?
I will then say, the covid shot is NOT that $newterm. That I recommend everyone get the $newterm shots, but since the covid shot isn't $newterm... well...
The problem has been that the Covid vaccines are definitely not what they were advertised as in terms of efficacy (namely: stopping transmission and ending the pandemic).
This is a fair point but going forward perhaps we need a new term or at least requirement to differentiate the clear 2 different categories.
>The problem has been that the Covid vaccines are definitely not what they were advertised as in terms of efficacy (namely: stopping transmission and ending the pandemic).
Oh absolutely. You can find countless examples of mainstream media saying that the covid shot would prevent infection and then you never have to worry about it again and we can then reopen.
So what do you think we should do to prevent this borderline fraud?
My takeaway is that the government and media (thesis and antithesis) has it's toxic influence in literally every piece of information we see, and they both need to be avoided to keep a clear head. It's the misinformed vs. the disinformed at this point, and I'm pissed that I've been wrong about this particular "vaccine definition" point for so long.
>There is some signal that it does affect reproduction, though not properly confirmed and definitely not to that degree. Anyway I agree, many people could take it to mean it sterilizes you.
I haven't seen anything that would suggest there is any possible symptom of fertility. Doctors should certainly be providing such risks as part of informed consent if true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccine_misinformatio...
Wikipedia very clearly defines it as misinformation. I don't know.
>To be honest, there should just be a proper forum to discuss these things where everyone is forced to agree on an epistemological basis then go from there. Otherwise there'll always be misunderstandings and shilling for whatever side.
I think the main problem is that things changed over time. That we came upon times where we didn't have any treatment for a disease and those producing the first shot that can help may have pushed things a little over the line.
Here we are at a point where it seems clear to me that we need to separate the terms. If I am wrong and vaccine will now include these, we need a new word for vaccines that do prevent infection.
>"Sterilizing vaccine" is as good a term as any, IMO. >Maybe the takeaway is that the government and media has it's toxic influence in literally every piece of information we see, and to not trust a single thing anyone on the internet says. It's the misinformed vs. the disinformed at this point.
I understand your point. But I think we come up against a new problem with that terminology.
There is covid misinformation which suggests the shot is sterilizing your fertility. After the shot you can no longer have babies is the allegation. Obviously utterly false.
https://www.kxly.com/could-the-covid-vaccine-make-a-person-s...
Maybe: "inoculating vaccine".
To be honest, there should just be a proper forum to discuss these things where everyone is forced to agree on an epistemological basis then go from there. Otherwise there'll always be misunderstandings and shilling for whatever side.