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

Inhaled Vaccine Delivers Broad Protection Against SARS-CoV-2

technologynetworks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 50 posts

Re: Inhaled Vaccine Delivers Broad Protection Against SARS-CoV-2

#31

Post by prohobo »

smorgusofborg wrote: post #24
sleepingadmin wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This shouldn't be downvoted, it's true. 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.

It's problematic to be pedantic about something that isn't true. A vaccine causes an immunity response. A therapeutic cancer vaccine is a vaccine because it relies on an immunity response, not because it prevents the spread of cancer. Vaccinations are often the best method of preventing a infectious disease but not all vaccines prevent contagion.

Sorry, I think you're right. A vaccine, legally, only has to prevent disease. That doesn't mean it has to cause your body to sterilize/kill the virus. That, and immunity is not an on/off thing but a scale in how much of a disease your body can prevent.

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.

Re: Inhaled Vaccine Delivers Broad Protection Against SARS-CoV-2

#32

Post by prohobo »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #28
prohobo wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This shouldn't be downvoted, it's true. 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".

No, it is not true. 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.

I've been reading the definitions of vaccine, and now I'm confused because it seems to technically have the same meaning as prophylactic - if not, then what's the difference between the two?

Re: Inhaled Vaccine Delivers Broad Protection Against SARS-CoV-2

#33

Post by xboxnolifes »

prohobo wrote: post #32
matthewmacleod wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it is not true. 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.

I've been reading the definitions of vaccine, and now I'm confused because it seems to technically have the same meaning as prophylactic - if not, then what's the difference between the two?

I believe vaccines are a subset of prophylactics. For example, masks, condoms, etc would also be prophylactics.

Re: Inhaled Vaccine Delivers Broad Protection Against SARS-CoV-2

#34

Post by prohobo »

xboxnolifes wrote: post #33
prohobo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been reading the definitions of vaccine, and now I'm confused because it seems to technically have the same meaning as prophylactic - if not, then what's the difference between the two?

I believe vaccines are a subset of prophylactics. For example, masks, condoms, etc would also be prophylactics.

So, what happened was that in 2018 they changed the definition of vaccine from "innoculated bacterium/viral agent" to "any substance" (probably to make space for mRNA vaccines), and then changed the result from "that prevents disease" to "that generates antibodies".

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...

Re: Inhaled Vaccine Delivers Broad Protection Against SARS-CoV-2

#35

Post by prohobo »

sleepingadmin wrote: post #22
prohobo wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This shouldn't be downvoted, it's true. 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".

>This shouldn't be downvoted, it's true. 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.

After reading all the definitions and articles about the meaning of vaccine and immunity, I think it's legit to call them vaccines.

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).

Re: Inhaled Vaccine Delivers Broad Protection Against SARS-CoV-2

#36

Post by Auracle »

rsfern wrote: post #29
sleepingadmin wrote: post #16

Does it prevent infection? If not, it's not a vaccine.

A vaccine doesn’t necessarily need to prevent infection to be called a vaccine, prophylactic vaccines are a thing. 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

I mean, the CDC literally did change their definition. From the Miami Herald: “Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.”

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.

Re: Inhaled Vaccine Delivers Broad Protection Against SARS-CoV-2

#37

Post by gs17 »

rsfern wrote: post #29
sleepingadmin wrote: post #16

Does it prevent infection? If not, it's not a vaccine.

A vaccine doesn’t necessarily need to prevent infection to be called a vaccine, prophylactic vaccines are a thing. 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

It's only half revisionism. They really did "change the definition" in some sources, but we had all accepted antigen vaccines that only prevent symptoms already. No one was saying "according to the dictionary, the tetanus shot technically isn't a vaccine!", as far as I know.

Re: Inhaled Vaccine Delivers Broad Protection Against SARS-CoV-2

#38

Post by prohobo »

Auracle wrote: post #36
rsfern wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A vaccine doesn’t necessarily need to prevent infection to be called a vaccine, prophylactic vaccines are a thing. 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

I mean, the CDC literally did change their definition. From the Miami Herald: “Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.” I think the issue is that before COVID we didn’t bother with vaccines unless they provided immunity. Immunity is what the vaccines…

The medical definition of "immunity" is a scale rather than a switch. You can have immunity and still have some form of the disease. I think they genuinely edited that to not confuse people.

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.

Re: Inhaled Vaccine Delivers Broad Protection Against SARS-CoV-2

#39

Post by simfree »

Auracle wrote: post #36
rsfern wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A vaccine doesn’t necessarily need to prevent infection to be called a vaccine, prophylactic vaccines are a thing. 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

I mean, the CDC literally did change their definition. From the Miami Herald: “Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.” I think the issue is that before COVID we didn’t bother with vaccines unless they provided immunity. Immunity is what the vaccines…

The flu vaccine (and other vaccines) only stimulate an IgG reaction (the immune cells that protect most of your body excluding your upper respiratory tract).

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.

Re: Inhaled Vaccine Delivers Broad Protection Against SARS-CoV-2

#40

Post by sleepingadmin »

rsfern wrote: post #29
sleepingadmin wrote: post #16

Does it prevent infection? If not, it's not a vaccine.

A vaccine doesn’t necessarily need to prevent infection to be called a vaccine, prophylactic vaccines are a thing. 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

>A vaccine doesn’t necessarily need to prevent infection to be called a vaccine, prophylactic vaccines are a thing.

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?

Post reply on HN