Inhaled Vaccine Delivers Broad Protection Against SARS-CoV-2 • Hacker News Board

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

#41

Post by sleepingadmin » Wed, Feb 16, 2022, 5:47 PM UTC

prohobo wrote: post #35

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.

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).

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

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?

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

#42

Post by sleepingadmin » Wed, Feb 16, 2022, 5:52 PM UTC

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.

>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.

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...

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

#43

Post by prohobo » Wed, Feb 16, 2022, 5:56 PM UTC

sleepingadmin wrote: post #41

prohobo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

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

"Sterilizing vaccine" is as good a term as any, IMO. Not that anyone will start making that differentiation, considering the politics of this.

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.

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

#44

Post by sleepingadmin » Wed, Feb 16, 2022, 6:02 PM UTC

prohobo wrote: post #35

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.

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).

Sorry, I lost even my reply button for your reply to my reply. I can reply here.

>"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...

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

#45

Post by prohobo » Wed, Feb 16, 2022, 6:09 PM UTC

sleepingadmin wrote: post #44

prohobo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Sorry, I lost even my reply button for your reply to my reply. I can reply here. >"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 co…

There is some signal that it can 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.

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.

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

#46

Post by sleepingadmin » Wed, Feb 16, 2022, 6:30 PM UTC

prohobo wrote: post #35

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.

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).

Sorry, can't reply to your other post again. Getting frustrated with HN today.

>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.

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

#47

Post by rsfern » Wed, Feb 16, 2022, 6:44 PM UTC

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…

I can see where people are coming from with that CDC wording change, but I don’t really think “protection” vs “immunity” is inconsistent with the idea of vaccines sometimes just reducing the effects of an infection.

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

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

#48

Post by ageitgey » Wed, Feb 16, 2022, 9:22 PM UTC

xiphias2 wrote: post #13

What is the main reason that inhaled vaccines are not in use today for flu for example? Is there some new technological breakthrough for delivery that was needed?

Nasal flu vaccines are widely used. For example in the UK, all children in school are offered a nasal flu vaccine every year [1].

[1] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/child-flu-vaccine...

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

#49

Post by Confiks » Wed, Feb 16, 2022, 9:29 PM UTC

derbOac wrote: post #3

An open source inhaled vaccine was one of the first vaccines to be publicly promoted. I've always wondered how it would fare in RCTs, as it would be interesting if an open, unregulated vaccine design proposed relatively early in the pandemic became a model for coronavirus vaccines going forward.

Publicly promoted, DIY-vaccine indeed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23983756

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

#50

Post by Auracle » Thu, Feb 17, 2022, 3:34 PM UTC

rsfern wrote: post #47

Auracle wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I can see where people are coming from with that CDC wording change, but I don’t really think “protection” vs “immunity” is inconsistent with the idea of vaccines sometimes just reducing the effects of an infection. 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 t…

It sounds like we’re maybe running in to the problem of original antigenic sin? I wonder if variant vaccines that target something other than the spike protein would work better in those already vaccinated for that reason.