Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Physiology & Medicine => COVID-19 => Topic started by: nudephil on 16/11/2020 18:29:41
-
Here's a question from listener Dave:
With the possibility of multiple COVID-19 vaccines becoming available via different technologies, will there be an advantage in having a vaccination from different sources to improve efficacy?
-
Actually, the approach of mixing vaccines of different types is an established vaccination strategy. It's called "prime boost immunisation". The rationale is that you use one vaccine to stimulate an initial response which you then broaden and consolidate with the administration of a different vaccine that features overlapping but different antigens.
Therefore, there might be merit in mixing and matching between vaccines, but for simplicity of deployment the strategy used in the first instance will be to give people the clinically tested and approved regimen of their (probably) two doses, a month or so apart.
-
I think it will be a challenge to get a vaccine that has been through a solid phase 3 trial, in sufficient quantities to vaccinate everyone once.
- Running a significant Phase 3 trial on a combination of vaccines is not in the interests of the individual vaccine makers.
- Having the option to be vaccinated twice is a luxury that some rich individuals might buy, but is unlikely to be funded by governments.
- If they track who receives which vaccines, after a while there may be enough people who have tried 2 vaccines to be able to certify the effectiveness of the combination
However, if the immune response gets weaker over a few months, or the virus mutates sufficiently that the original vaccines are no longer effective, then multiple vaccinations may become necessary, and validating the combination of vaccines will become a essential.
-
Actually, most of the vaccines being tested at the moment rely on a two-dose regimen with 3 weeks between doses. Therefore mixing and matching is not such a perverse prospect, and of the two genetic vaccines with results declared so far, most of the immune heavy-lifting appears to be arising from the first dose. Nevertheless, it would be a logistical headache to mix up vaccines, so not worth it...
C
-
Not a great logistic problem.
There must be some means of certification and tracking. Suppose we have 3 acceptable products available for free public vaccination. On your first appearance you will fill in a card with whatever ID is appropriate, and you can choose to join queue A, B or C. Your card will be stamped A/B/C and scanned on injection, you take it away and you will be invited to choose any queue on your second appearance, with a note that this is a clinical trial to investigate the relative effectiveness of A, B, C and all combinations of two vaccines. Scan and stamp the card again.
Result: a 100% random sample of every possible combination, at no cost or effort.
The tactical logistics of cold chains and mass vaccination have been solved by WHO, Oxfam, MSF and pretty well every other medical charity. The UK presents fewer problems than most.
Suppose we open three queues at the gate of a military camp, just like a ferry terminal. You printed off your card at home and were given an arrival slot. Drive in, check paperwork, get the jab, stamp the card, then drive to a holding line on the parade ground/dock/runway where you wait for 10 minutes until release if there are no allergic symptoms. No problem of isolation as each family group stays in their own vehicle. That should take care of 90% of the population, in and out in 15 - 20 minutes.
-
A potential advantage to using different vectors is that you avoid an immune response to the vector, in the second jab, lessening spike protein production. I understand the Russians are using two different adinoviruses.
-
Coral asks:
Given that the covid-19 vaccines are quite different - i.e. adenovirus, mRNA - is it safe or recommended to have more than one?
-
Hello Coral.
🙂
There seems to be Alot of Confusion regarding Symptoms, Treatments, Vaccinations & Side Effects.
👍
Provided Newer things come to be known on a daily basis, the commotion of confusion seems Apt.
👍
I'm not a " Subject Matter Expert " hence would rightfully recommend You to Not blindly believe Articles posted Online.
👍
P.S. - Please get in touch with the Local Medical Govt Authorities and state your concerns & then act accordingly to the Updated Corrected Information provided by them.
😷
🙏
-
Coral asks:
Given that the covid-19 vaccines are quite different - i.e. adenovirus, mRNA - is it safe or recommended to have more than one?
Virtually all of the current vaccines are based on the COVID spike protein, whether it is packaged in a lipid membrane, or an adenovirus vector.
In theory, the body's reaction to those spike proteins should be similar if the spike proteins are the same. So both should help build up the immune system.
One risk is developing antibodies to the actual delivery system. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines contain polyethylene glycol (PEG). The J&J vaccine does not.
So, it is possible that one would get an undesired reaction to PEG, or to adenovirus,and using the other type might be a benefit.
It appears as if the US CDC is now recommending the J&J vaccine in some cases of individuals who had a bad reaction to the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/91446
Hopefully we'll be getting booster cocktails by this fall including multiple prevailing spike proteins (or mRNA/adenovirus vectors). It is hard to say what form it will take. Hopefully there will be more research into reactions to PEG or other delivery vectors.
-
I believe it's only Pfizer that use PEG. Delaying the 2nd jab looks a good idea. I think using a different vaccine for the 2nd jab is sensible as would be reducing the dose of the Pfizer vaccine and the AstraZeneca one - there is a third world out there. We should be giving multivalent vaccines by now.