Skip to main content

Hope for a COVID-19 vaccine?

So much now depends on developing a vaccine against COVID-19, but how long could that take?

The best estimate is that it would take at least twelve months. The best chance currently is one being developed in the United States.

One way to generate a vaccine is to replicate the bit of the virus that causes the immune system to react, but without the virus' potential for taking over the cells of the body that host it. It is a bit like finding a key that fits a lock but doesn't allow the thief to enter.



The estimate is that a vaccine for Covid-19 is at least 12 months away. A trial of a vaccine has begun in the United States.

The group based in Seattle, Washington, had been working on a similar virus and so have been able to switch to Covid-19.

They have reproduced a bit of RNA that acts as a template for a bit of the virus that would be recognised by the immune system. 

It is an ingenious trick they are using, which is to use a bit of RNA to get cells of our bodies to produce a protein that forms part of the outer shell of the coronavirus.

A virus is essentially a packet carrying all the RNA needed to create new replica viruses.   It needs the machinery of our cells to do this.  It is a bit like an alien species that invades our cells so that these cells then manufacture replica viruses that can then be released.

RNA, among other things, is a molecule that is used by our cells as a kind of template to produce particular proteins.  In this case, by injecting a bit of RNA, our immune system will hopefully then start producing antibodies to the protein it produces. It will then have the 'memory' or ability to produce it in response to the same protein on the virus shell. Very neat

Currently, it is in a Phase 1 trial stage, which looks at safety issues and whether the immune system is producing antibodies to the protein.

If it looks promising, it will then be rolled out for a larger trial to test for its efficacy in creating immunity to COVID-19 in the population. 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba...
7 comments
Read more

Ethical considerations of a National DNA database.

Plans for a national DNA database   will be revealed by the Prime Minister this week. This is the same proposal the Tories and Liberal Democrats opposed when presented by the Blair government because they argued it posed  a threat to civil liberties. This time it is expected to offer an 'opt-out' clause for those who do not wish their data to be stored; exactly how this would operate isn't yet clear. But does it matter and does it really pose a threat to civil liberties? When it comes to biology and ethics we tend to have a distorted view of DNA and genetics. This is for two reasons. The first is that it is thought that our genome somehow represents the individual as a code that then gets translated. This is biologically speaking wrong. DNA is a template and part of the machinery for making proteins. It isn't a code in anything like the sense of being a 'blueprint' or 'book of life'.  Although these metaphors are used often they are just that, metapho...
2 comments
Read more

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to...
2 comments
Read more