Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by BurningFrog 2207 days ago
The point you're missing is that there is no vaccine for Covid-19.

If there was, no one would consider variolation.

2 comments

There are 30 candidate vaccines (probably a lot more by now). 32 if you include the two that are non-weakened forms of virus that are being proposed for variolation.
Are these 2 others actual registered trials? Or are you referring to public proposals for such, like Hanson's?

I'm working on just such a public proposal [1] and have been in correspondence with Hanson but haven't heard of any registered.

[1] "SARS-CoV2 Live Virus Skin Vaccine" - https://tinyurl.com/y8ujrcze

Having "candidate vaccines" is very different from having a "vaccine". Variolation is a reasonable alternative to the lack of a known, effective vaccine.
Variolation as a term only applies to smallpox. Giving small doses of the live virus as hanson suggests is literally just a lame vaccine. It's also not known to be safe or effective and would have to go through all the trials anyway.
Hanson is saying we should do those trials, not that we should start deliberately infecting the masses ASAP. The issue is that such trials are banned.
You have to test variolation too. There are dozens of vaccine candidates, if we are willing to ignore safety and efficacy testing we can start vaccinating people today.
This is a key insight. All of the benefits of variolation today skipping tests can be had by vaccination today skipping tests.
Not entirely accurate. We know variolation will provide immunity. The main risk is to the volunteer, not to others. A vaccine might not provide immunity. That would make the patient a vector for the disease and endanger others.
> We know variolation will provide immunity.

Do we really? I don't keep up with the news, did we already dismiss those reports about re-infection? Does it last long enough to be globally useful?

> The main risk is to the volunteer, not to others.

The main risk, sure, but the volunteer will become infectious. Vaccines constrain the risk to volunteers a lot better.

> Do we really? I don't keep up with the news, did we already dismiss those reports about re-infection? Does it last long enough to be globally useful?

It seems to be extremely rare, and it's hard to know how many of those cases are due to incorrect initial diagnosis or people with odd immune systems. Immunity seems to be much greater than that conveyed by vaccines (which protect 85-95% of recipients).

> The main risk, sure, but the volunteer will become infectious. Vaccines constrain the risk to volunteers a lot better.

In vaccine challenge trials, people are exposed to the virus and kept quarantined until after the incubation period. Those who aren't protected by the vaccine must remain quarantined until their immune system defeats the disease. It would be the same for deliberate infection. Volunteers wouldn't be allowed to leave until the virus is no longer detectable. Hanson makes this clear in his blog post (linked to at the top of this thread).

That said, most vaccine trials are not challenge trials. Researchers give patients the vaccine and wait a while to see how many of them naturally contract the disease. During that time, the patients may or may not have immunity and can potentially infect others.

Right. I think the proposal is simply to actually test variolation.