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. 

Comments

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

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods.  Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects?  A new report now provides some of the answers. New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism. Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases cau