I guess nasal vaccines have been around for a while but the inhaled thing is still pretty new(ish) and from what I could read on some scattered short mentions in other reading, it's not really very widely used? I may be wrong on that, and can't find a great citation.
An open source inhaled vaccine was one of the first vaccines to be publicly promoted. I've always wondered how it would fare in RCTs, as it would be interesting if an open, unregulated vaccine design proposed relatively early in the pandemic became a model for coronavirus vaccines going forward.
What is the main reason that inhaled vaccines are not in use today for flu for example? Is there some new technological breakthrough for delivery that was needed?
They are! Inhaled flu vaccines are generally live attenuated virus, which isn't recommended for everyone but is perfectly effective for a large segment of the population:
From a lay person's point of view, I am trying to imagine if there would be significant extra mass required to distribute a billion inhalable vs injectable vaccines. It seems like there would be additional mass and volume. Could that be one reason?
First, a real vaccine is designed to be much safer than the disease it protects against (compare extremely rare incidence of vaccine side effects with extremely common incidence of hospitalization for infection). What would be the point otherwise?
There's nothing wrong with creating good drugs and therapies, and this looks cool, but if it doesn't stop transmission it's literally not a vaccine.
EDIT: I'm wrong. I would have been right for the wrong reasons in 2018, but now vaccines are "any substance that generates antibodies that produce immunity to disease".
blakesterz|4 years ago
And several others are looking at CoV too: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33749491/
I guess nasal vaccines have been around for a while but the inhaled thing is still pretty new(ish) and from what I could read on some scattered short mentions in other reading, it's not really very widely used? I may be wrong on that, and can't find a great citation.
derbOac|4 years ago
Confiks|4 years ago
xiphias2|4 years ago
kwantam|4 years ago
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/nasalspray.htm
ageitgey|4 years ago
[1] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/child-flu-vaccine...
consumer451|4 years ago
calebm|4 years ago
[deleted]
dang|4 years ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
petsounds|4 years ago
kwantam|4 years ago
First, a real vaccine is designed to be much safer than the disease it protects against (compare extremely rare incidence of vaccine side effects with extremely common incidence of hospitalization for infection). What would be the point otherwise?
Second, in the case of COVID variants prior to Omicron, infection is 5x less effective than vaccination at protecting against future infection: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s1029-Vaccination-Of...
schmorptron|4 years ago
belltaco|4 years ago
vmception|4 years ago
onion2k|4 years ago
;)
sschueller|4 years ago
sleepingadmin|4 years ago
rsfern|4 years ago
Here is wiki in 2013: https://web.archive.org/web/20130516001246/https://en.m.wiki...
The whole “they revised the definition” thing is itself revisionist history
prohobo|4 years ago
There's nothing wrong with creating good drugs and therapies, and this looks cool, but if it doesn't stop transmission it's literally not a vaccine.
EDIT: I'm wrong. I would have been right for the wrong reasons in 2018, but now vaccines are "any substance that generates antibodies that produce immunity to disease".
sjg007|4 years ago
loceng|4 years ago
lern_too_spel|4 years ago