Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine

blogs.sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 124 posts

Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine

#111

Post by bildung »

gnfargbl wrote: post #92
pixelkritzel wrote: post #30

Virologist Dr. Angela Rasmussen about the ability of the vector virus to replicate https://mobile.twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/1387397186...

In the linked Twitter thread, Dr Rasmussen says that a consequence of the Ad5 vector becoming replication competent is that the E1 gene might have replaced the spike protein, rendering the vaccine ineffective. Are there any other consequences to the Ad5 vector virus being able to replicate? Is the virus harmful to humans in any way, or does it have the potential to become harmful?

From the article: "The Ad5 variety has infected a solid proportion of the entire human race [...]. It’s believed that if you already have antibodies and T-cells primed against the Ad5 vector itself (for example) that delivery of its payload will thus be impaired, leading to a less-effective vaccination."

Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine

#112

Post by meepmorp »

gus_massa wrote: post #109
ummonk wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weren’t the first viral vector vaccines (for Ebola virus) only recently approved? As to track record, the first viral vector vaccines in widespread use (i.e. the COVID vaccines) will have killed hundreds (possibly even thousands) of people via blood clots. That’s a worthwhile trade off for a disease as deadly as COVID. But it would be less acceptable against less dangerous diseases, particularly if safer vaccine tech…

The MMR vaccine contains "live" weakened virus. The kid sometimes get some small red points in the skin that disappear in a few days. The oral polio vaccine "Sabin" has "live" virus. It's stronger than the injectable polio vaccine, but there is a small risk that the virus can escape and mutate and after a year or so cause polio to another person. So countries without polio cases, only use the injectable version "Salk…

None of those are VVVs, though.

Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine

#113

Post by meepmorp »

nottorp wrote: post #108
perardi wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My intuition, given the absolute (small) magnitude of blood clots, is that it’s not a huge issue. Except that it is , because it has people spooked. Humans, myself included, are just terrible at gauging relative risk, and it doesn’t really matter that you are way more likely to die in your car driving to get the vaccine than from any vaccine complication. You are putting this in your arm, and people find it scary whe…

> My intuition, given the absolute (small) magnitude of blood clots, is that it’s not a huge issue. Except there are two other vaccines with no risk of bloot clots. So if you can choose, why not choose the ones that aren't linked to that? Ofc, that mostly goes for the US and EU who have secured supply.

The J&J vaccine, at least, is approved for single dose administration. That’s much easier for many people to handle then a 4 week return to someplace for a second round. If you risk getting fired for taking time to get vaccinated, only having to do so once is obviously better.

Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine

#114

Post by meepmorp »

sanxiyn wrote: post #60
xvilka wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not a virologist, but blood clotting might be related to the specific payload rather than the platform. The original SARS-CoV2 has the same property. Could it be related to the spike protein?

This preprint suggests AZ vaccine blood clotting is due to EDTA, an ingredient specific to AZ vaccine and absent in other vaccines, and is related to neither platform nor payload. https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-440461/v1

EDTA is an anti-coagulant, though. Blood collection vials are coated with it to prevent clots in blood samples.

Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine

#115

Post by meepmorp »

zgcarvalho wrote: post #110

I would like to add information that I believe is very relevant. During the pandemic, the congress approved a law (Article 16, Law No. 14.124/2021)[1] that defines a limit period of 30 days for Anvisa to approve or disapprove the vaccine. If, after 30 days, Anvisa does not issue its final recommendation, the vaccine is automatically approved. I think this law is absurdly stupid, but let's get back to the facts. Days…

The automatic approval law is incredibly stupid. Your timeout mode shouldn’t be to automatically approve medicines when the regulator takes over a month to issue a decision.

Thanks for the context, this is probably a large part of the decision. Not enough time for due diligence, and the only option to prevent automatic release of a potentially problematic medicine is outright rejection.

Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine

#116

Post by nottorp »

meepmorp wrote: post #113
nottorp wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My intuition, given the absolute (small) magnitude of blood clots, is that it’s not a huge issue. Except there are two other vaccines with no risk of bloot clots. So if you can choose, why not choose the ones that aren't linked to that? Ofc, that mostly goes for the US and EU who have secured supply.

The J&J vaccine, at least, is approved for single dose administration. That’s much easier for many people to handle then a 4 week return to someplace for a second round. If you risk getting fired for taking time to get vaccinated, only having to do so once is obviously better.

What ?!?

Where I am employers are legally obligated to give a day off for vaccination...

Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine

#117

Post by major505 »

guhcampos wrote: post #53
marcosdumay wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Thanks to mistakes and possible crimes commit by the Brazilian goverment, when rejecting other vacines Well, that's the first COVID-19 vaccine the Brazilian government has rejected.

Not really, Covaxin was also rejected about a month prior. However I believe the original comment refers to the refusal of the Brazilian government to commit/invest in any of the vaccines while they were being developed, then stubbornly dismissing the importance of vaccination while promoting snake oil treatments.

Yes. The president of Brazil is now fighing a against a Comission in the brazilian senate that is revising all the work of lack of that the brazilian federal goverment put in the figth against Covid. This is now problably the moment of more political fragility he ever been,

Governors and mayors tired of waiting for the federal goverment that is still dennying the gravity of the situation, formed a group to import vacines by themselves. The problem is that there's no vacins avaliable in the market because there still a lot of nations that got first in the line, and production is still not enougth. The alternative that they got was coaxin that was rejected, and the russian vacine, that have thisconfidence problems that led to it being reject.

Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine

#118

Post by meepmorp »

nottorp wrote: post #116
meepmorp wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The J&J vaccine, at least, is approved for single dose administration. That’s much easier for many people to handle then a 4 week return to someplace for a second round. If you risk getting fired for taking time to get vaccinated, only having to do so once is obviously better.

What ?!? Where I am employers are legally obligated to give a day off for vaccination...

That's not true around the world, and even then, you'd need to lodge a complaint and get it resolved for it to do you any good. A lot of people don't have the financial security necessary to handle that kind of event.

Beyond that, there are people who are unlikely to come back for a second dose - homeless people, those with drug problems, etc. From a public health perspective, getting those people an effective vaccine is very important because they're generally at higher risk of getting infected and transmitting it to others, in addition to generally poorer health.

Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine

#119

Post by coliveira »

is_true wrote: post #93
coliveira wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot trust the Brazilian government to make this judgement. It is a policy of that government to delay the approval of vaccines as much as possible, as if there was no actual pandemic going on. Other governments around the world have analyzed the vaccine, including Argentina and Mexico, and they're using it without any problems.

Argentinian government basically told it's own version of anvisa to approve the vaccine. That's it.

That's nonsense, most governments around the world are approving vaccines on an urgent basis. This is true for every vaccine. This doesn't mean that the government forcing any vaccine to be accepted.

Re: Brazil Rejects the Gamaleya Vaccine

#120

Post by doliveira »

SpaceRaccoon wrote: post #11

A reminder that "U.S. officials pushed Brazil to reject Russia’s coronavirus vaccine" [0] for political reasons. > Under a section titled “Combating malign influences in the Americas,” the HHS report states that countries including Russia “are working to increase their influence in the region to the detriment of US safety and security.” The global affairs office coordinated with other U.S. government agencies “to dis…

Making sense in your head and fitting a narrative is not enough to make a claim correspond to reality.
Post reply on HN