[Jolly2 (OP)]

I was wondering if a nasal spray vaccine would be better to vacinate people against SARS cov2 as it would mimic the normal transmission method. Is there any evidence to support the notion that vaccine administered in a similar way as natural transmission occurs are more effective?

I pondered weather injecting a virus into the blood stream or muscle tissue might change the immune response.

[Kryptid]

It might work, but you're getting the vaccine into the body either way. If anything, directly injecting the vaccine into the bloodstream guarantees that it's all absorbed (while some of the aerosols from a nasal spray might not be).

[Jolly2 (OP)]

It might work, but you're getting the vaccine into the body either way. If anything, directly injecting the vaccine into the bloodstream guarantees that it's all absorbed (while some of the aerosols from a nasal spray might not be).

Sure but I was pondering if the immunological process from external contact might be a more beneficial process.  Needs research no doubt.

Maybe not the entirely absorbing the whole vaccine could also have a benefit.

[charles1948]

I was wondering if a nasal spray vaccine would be better to vacinate people against SARS cov2 as it would mimic the normal transmission method. Is there any evidence to support the notion that vaccine administered in a similar way as natural transmission occurs are more effective?

I pondered weather injecting a virus into the blood stream or muscle tissue might change the immune response.

You make a good point.  Viruses, such as CV-19, aren't artificially injected into our bodies with hypodermic needles.

The viruses get into our bodies through natural orifices - our noses and mouths.

Couldn't these same orifices be used to get vaccines into our bodies. Why the needle?

 

 

[Kryptid]

Sure but I was pondering if the immunological process from external contact might be a more beneficial process. 

Why would there be a difference? It has to get the immune system either way.

[Bored chemist]

Maybe not the entirely absorbing the whole vaccine could also have a benefit.

That's heading for homoeopathy territory.
Were you planning to be taken seriously?

[Bored chemist]

You make a good point.

Really?
What?

[Bored chemist]

Is there any evidence to support the notion that vaccine administered in a similar way as natural transmission occurs are more effective?

I doubt it.

Are you assuming that the virus keeps a diary which the immune system can read?

If not, how could a white blood cell know how a virus got in?

[charles1948]

You make a good point.

Really?
What?

semper rem acu tetigisti

[Bored chemist]

You make a good point.

Really?
What?

semper rem acu tetigisti

Would you like a list of the three people to whom that's useful?
It's been about 2 or 3 hundred years since science used Latin.

You make a good point.

Really?
What?

[set fair]

Yes there are recognised advantages to using a nasal spray for vacination against respiratory diseases. But I imagine not for all types of vaccine. If you want to hear a very brief reference to this I can give you two youtube links - I'm not sure which of the two it's in - 90 minutes each and maybe 30 seconds of relevance to your question.

I believe they are developping one in India and Lancaster U has done a trial.

[Bored chemist]

Yes there are recognised advantages to using a nasal spray

Yes; it doesn't hurt.
And...?

[set fair]

Yes there are recognised advantages to using a nasal spray

Yes; it doesn't hurt.
And...?

I'm not about to rewatch 3 hours of video but as far as I remember they are better at stimulating mucosal antibodies, there may have been other pluses but I don't recall.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

I was wondering if a nasal spray vaccine would be better to vacinate people against SARS cov2 as it would mimic the normal transmission method. Is there any evidence to support the notion that vaccine administered in a similar way as natural transmission occurs are more effective?

I pondered weather injecting a virus into the blood stream or muscle tissue might change the immune response.

You make a good point.  Viruses, such as CV-19, aren't artificially injected into our bodies with hypodermic needles.

The viruses get into our bodies through natural orifices - our noses and mouths.

Couldn't these same orifices be used to get vaccines into our bodies. Why the needle?

Exactly I was thinking that there may be a process involved in the immune system,  attached to external transmission,  so injecting would by pass that process. Ofcourse needs research.

But diases spread by physical contact start on the skin, immune responses therefore also starts on the skin or surrounding tissue. 

Covid is spread by contact with the mouth throat and nose or eyes. There may be an immunal function attached to each area of potential viral contact.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Yes there are recognised advantages to using a nasal spray for vacination against respiratory diseases. But I imagine not for all types of vaccine. If you want to hear a very brief reference to this I can give you two youtube links - I'm not sure which of the two it's in - 90 minutes each and maybe 30 seconds of relevance to your question.

I believe they are developping one in India and Lancaster U has done a trial.

Cool

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Sure but I was pondering if the immunological process from external contact might be a more beneficial process.

Why would there be a difference? It has to get the immune system either way.

As I just suggested there may be immune process related to each area of potential viral contact injections avoid triggering. Needs research.

[Kryptid]

there may be

But do you have any evidence (or even good reasoning based on known biology) why we should expect that to be the case?

[Jolly2 (OP)]

I'm not about to rewatch 3 hours of video but as far as I remember they are better at stimulating mucosal antibodies, there may have been other pluses but I don't recall.

There it is. Mucosal antibodies would be the first line of defense.  Hence an nasal spray would probably be better.

[alancalverd]

Nasal administration is attractive for noncritical delivery but does not give a consistent dose, particularly if the  patient is snotty, a mouth breather, or sneezes shortly after dosing.

Oral vaccines are great (remember polio) if the active constituent can survive the digestive system. 

Dry powder injection is pretty painless and consistent for subcutaneous delivery  of a suitable dry agent by a non-expert, but the dose it delivers to the bloodstream depends on the fat thickness of the patient - great for skinny, malnourished kids but probably not consistently effective in British pensioners.

Traditional intramuscular injection seems to be the simplest and most  effective way of consistently delivering a wide range of agents in appropriate doses to almost everyone, and does produce a fairly consistent response if it "takes". That said, the air of my local vax center yesterday morning was rent by the screams of an octogenarian who, it seemed, had never picked a rose or played with a kitten. I suggested that the nurse should try using the pointy end instead, but my wisdom fell on stony ground.