health

The quest for a universal coronavirus vaccine

27 Comments
By Daniel Lawler

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2022 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.


27 Comments
Login to comment

Coronaviruses have been around longer than humans. They are a part of living on this planet.

Humans get the sniffles, and 85 year olds die when they get a cold.

That's the natural flow of life.

I fully expect to survive all coronavirus exposures while I'm healthy but eventually when I'm 90, my body will have become too weak to fight back. So be it. I'm human.

7 ( +17 / -10 )

This was my comment to your article in January 2022;

According that article it varies from 40% to 73% which is basically very good and much more than I expected.

Now it is May 2022!

Additional, The study in the article started in May 2021. One year ago.

And like you said, I was surprised, because I didn't believe that high percentage, and now in May 2022 and during the last months, the reality shows that my surprise at that time, or let me better say, my non believe was correct and your article from August 2021 is now proven as wrong by the reality.

At that time I said 40 to 73% is much more than I expected.

So my assumption at that time, before I read the article, was much lower.

And now the reality shows that my assumption, before I read the article was correct and that this article is wrong, based on the current reality.

Cases increase because of the effect of highly transmissible variants and relaxation of other measures

Now you contradicted again yourself.

You agree here that the cases increase. Even we have a vaccine!

And what you are saying with effect of highly transmissible variants, means that the vaccine do NOT help to prevent the transmission of those variants.

Which brings the conclusion, that the vaccine do not help to reduce the transmission and your article from 2021 is now proven wrong.

Even by yourself.

Because in May 2021, when that article study starts, we didnt have so much different highly transmissable variants.

Now after 1 year, with different highly transmissable variants, the reality let this article lose all its value.

So it seems that you agree with me, that now in May 2022, the vaccine is proven as no, or let me better say, no big help to reduce the transmission, because, like you said, of the highly transmissable variants.

I agree with you, it also because people let down their own personal preventions.

By why are they doing that?

People who do let down their personal preventions are mainly 3x vaccinated, and they think, that they can not spread or transmit the virus.

Why are they thinking like that?

Because they got told so by the experts and because of such false articles, which you posted with a link.

*
4 ( +10 / -6 )

He said the problem with updating current vaccines to target all existing strains -- a plan announced by Pfizer earlier this month -- is that "new variants are going to appear every three or six months".

Just as in the last pandemic,the virus eventually stopped being fatal to humans-Covid is also mutating and it will be the same.

In fact, most countries around the world have already.

I can live with any new variant perfectly well without help from any ‘booster’

3 ( +9 / -6 )

People that want to have a much more realistic and rational approach than just personal beliefs are more interested in the development of vaccines

Yes, as long as the vaccine makes sense and shows a really trustworthy and safe effectiveness.

By the way, what you said yesterday in another article here was wrong.

The worst thing is that you already know this (because you asked for this reference and was even surprised the reduction was above 60 %) 

I guess you mentioned about a discussion I had with another poster in february, when I heard from him or her, that the effectiveness of the vaccine is 75%.

But that discussion was about the efficiency of the vaccine against hospitalzation and death. Not about transmission!

The other poster said the effectivness of the vaccine is about 75% for hospitaization and death.

Yes, I was surprised about that.

But that was no discussion about transmission.

But even I would have been surprised about a prevention in transmission for 60% or more, means that my surprise was correct, because now the reality shows us a complete different picture.

Like the example from SK yesterday.

Vaccine Rates increase, and so do the cases.

Plus the link of an article you posted yesterday is from August 2021.

Which is now already completely proven as false by the reality which we can currently see all over the world.

I agree that it helps to reduce hospitalization and deaths, but not transmission.

But anyway, this doesn't belong to this article here.

I just wanted to clarify that.

I also support development of new vaccines, but like I said as long as they make sense.

Which means, no horrible side effects for 3 or more days, like the current Covid one, and not every 4-5 months a new booster.

A good vaccine for me means:

I have to take it just once in my lifetime. Or maximum twice. And no side effects after I took it.

I take the influence vaccine every year, which is already a little bit troublesome.

But I am ok with that trouble, because since I took that influenza Vaccine every year, I was not sick anymore with Influenza A, B or C.

So basically I say, the influeza vaccine is a good one even I have to take it every year, but it seems to protect me and no side effects.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

 @Bronco, sure, we have all been exposed to various corona viruses over our lifetimes but you don’t have the right to decide I might die from one. 

I don't claim that right, you're entitled to take as many vaccines, wear as many masks and social distance from as many people as you like.

As a civil and social courtesy, please afford me the same rights as I afford you, because you don't have the right to decide whether I will or won't die from a vaccine side effect. I will make that choice for myself, as should everybody.

Living in a society means respecting the rights of others.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

As vaccine makers rush to stamp out new COVID-19 variants, some scientists have set their sights higher, aiming for a universal coronavirus vaccine that could tackle any future strains and possibly even stave off another pandemic.

So, the current vaccines won't tackle any future strains.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

virusrexToday  07:39 am JST

May not, it is unlikely but if any strain makes the jump and share antigenic sites that can mediate neutralization then the current vaccines would be useful. What the scientists are doing is trying to increase this chance as much as possible by making vaccines that can neutralize the highest variety if variations that have been found.

There is no argument what the current scientists are trying to do.

This is a dose of reality at what the current vaccines can't and won't be able to do.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

I've had Covid-19 twice. I'm far from alone. Anyone who thinks getting it once provides any protection from future infection is delusional. It is an outright lie spread by those too lazy or selfish to take the necessary precautions.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

People that want to have 

Mr. Virus "expert"

How about a compromise.

I will fully accept your position that people that want to have a vaccine may have one or as many as they like.

May I ask that you cordially accept that people who do not want them should not be forced, coerced, pressured or intimidated in anyway whatsoever into putting something into their body that they do not want.

We can end this debate here and now by simply being adults any accepting to respect each other's viewpoints, opinions and bodily autonomy.

I will not stop you from choosing how many vaccines enter your body, please afford me and other members of society the same basic civil courtesy.

0 ( +12 / -12 )

"Okay, we screwed it up big time... but we'll do better next time if you us more money, we promise!"

More money down the drain

0 ( +11 / -11 )

Monty…you used to a sensible chap. Seems like you’ve been reading too much alternative media.

Probably you are right...

But anyway...かんぱい...let's enjoy golden week!

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

@Bronco

Sure, as long as you doe not pass your infection to others and kill them. Therefore, if you catch the China virus, don't stick your nose out of your front door for 10 days!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Natural infection does not offer 100% protection, but it is well established that it is far better and longer lasting than the protection offered by the "vaccination".

Those who have already recovered from an infection get very little, if any, additional protection by getting the "vaccine", it is definitely not worth the risk of suffering from vaccine adverse effects or the negative effects the vaccines have on T-cell immunity.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

That is a very poor argument to argue against vaccines and treatments. All pathogens are part of life in this planet, so are other diseases, that does not mean people would be fine by having greatly reduced life expectancies by considering medical interventions unnecessary.

I fully expect to survive all coronavirus exposures while I'm healthy but eventually when I'm 90, my body will have become too weak to fight back. So be it. I'm human.

People that want to have a much more realistic and rational approach than just personal beliefs are more interested in the development of vaccines. After all most if not all of the young and healthy people that died from COVID also fully expected to survive until old age, but they didn't.

We new new fku strains and viruses every year and more often than not doctors find a vaccine for it. such is the process of modern medicine. CoVid has come so rapidly and overtaken the planet. So many people (such as media yap-yap cretins and so-called 'leaders') have LIED about it, resulting in the deaths of millions. Scientists and doctors have been working 25/8/366 trying to find a solution to it all and they will. Problem is, we don't know all the aftereffects that it can cause even to the ones who get it but survive. More research needs to be done. Even now we don't have all the answers yet.

As a military vet I got all three vaccines the VA had available. If there's a 4th one available and/or needed I will get it. Sooner or later mankind is going to find a way and beat this beastie for good. In the meantime I ain't going to ant sports or entertainment events, religious services, anything until this thing is whipped. I ain't worried about myself but who got vaccinated and who didn't? And I don't want to be a carrier.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

There is no argument what the current scientists are trying to do.

Your quoted text explicitly says that. Why quote something if you are not going to read it?

This is a dose of reality at what the current vaccines can't and won't be able to do.

No vaccine is ever designed to act against any future possible virus, it is unrealistic and illogical to expect anything different.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

With many (most) people having already recovered from a natural infection, they already have far superior protection than what can be provided by any of the "vaccines", so what is the point other than to further enrich a select few.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

With many (most) people having already recovered from a natural infection, they already have far superior protection than what can be provided by any of the "vaccines", so what is the point other than to further enrich a select few.

No such thing, omicron demonstrated natural immunity is also short lived and incomplete (at least to the same degree than vaccines if not more in the case of mild or asymptomatic infections) except that being infected comes with the full risks of the infection, that even on the case of Omicron can kill. Research have demonstrated that vaccinating people that were previously infected brings a reduction of the risk of reinfection (specially hospitalization and death). This by itself completely contradicts you and proves that there is a clear benefit from being vaccinated even for people that have already recovered from the infection.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Natural infection does not offer 100% protection, but it is well established that it is far better and longer lasting than the protection offered by the "vaccination".

Still false, as easy to prove as you offer absolutely no proof about it, mild or asymptomatic infection specially provide only short termed, barely protective immunity.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2021.722027/full

Those who have already recovered from an infection get very little, if any, additional protection by getting the "vaccine", it is definitely not worth the risk of suffering from vaccine adverse effects or the negative effects the vaccines have on T-cell immunity.

Also completely false antivaxxer propaganda, it has been proved scientifically that vaccination reduces the risk even for people that have been infected before.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/31/covid-vaccines-give-extra-protection-to-previously-infected-studies-show

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2118691

T-cell immunity is also importantly reinforced by vaccination, producing long lasting protection.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-021-01122-w

The natural infection on the other side have demonstrated changes on cellular immunity that can explain the presence of long COVID.

https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-021-02228-6

So, you provide absolutely no proof of anything you wrote, and solid evidence can easily be found that completely contradicts it, there is no point in repeating things so easily disproven, even if you want to believe them.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Coronaviruses have been around longer than humans. They are a part of living on this planet.

Humans get the sniffles, and 85 year olds die when they get a cold.

That is a very poor argument to argue against vaccines and treatments. All pathogens are part of life in this planet, so are other diseases, that does not mean people would be fine by having greatly reduced life expectancies by considering medical interventions unnecessary.

I fully expect to survive all coronavirus exposures while I'm healthy but eventually when I'm 90, my body will have become too weak to fight back. So be it. I'm human.

People that want to have a much more realistic and rational approach than just personal beliefs are more interested in the development of vaccines. After all most if not all of the young and healthy people that died from COVID also fully expected to survive until old age, but they didn't.

-3 ( +11 / -14 )

I guess you mentioned about a discussion I had with another poster in february, when I heard from him or her, that the effectiveness of the vaccine is 75%.

No, I am talking about your comment on Jan. 12  09:12 am

After doubting that vaccines reduce transmission and I presented you the same link you said literally

According that article it varies from 40% to 73% which is basically very good and much more than I expected.

Thanks for your answer and the link.

You have a tendency to completely forget or mis-remember things that disprove your beliefs, but you definitely knew the vaccine reduces the spread of COVID, why then continue to deny something you already knew is true?

Vaccine Rates increase, and so do the cases.

Cases increase because of the effect of highly transmissible variants and relaxation of other measures, that is the reason your conclusion is mistaken, it is the same as someone saying seat belts do not reduce deaths in accidents because even if more people use seatbelts now than when they were invented also more people die in accidents.

Plus the link of an article you posted yesterday is from August 2021.

Which is now already completely proven as false by the reality which we can currently see all over the world.

No, that is just your faulty conclusion. Omicron increases the number of cases, but that comes in spite of vaccination and thanks to its increased infectivity. From that it is not valid to conclude vaccines do not decrease the transmission, for that you would need to compare between vaccinated and unvaccinated people at the same time and see if there is a difference. This is exactly what the reference did and found that difference is very important. That proves that vaccines reduce transmission, even for strains different of the original one against the vaccines are made for.

-3 ( +9 / -12 )

Now it is May 2022!

And you pretended you did not know this that has not been rebuked by any other study, so it still stands true. Or what? if the theory of microbes causing disease is a lot older does it make it false now?

And like you said, I was surprised, because I didn't believe that high percentage, and now in May 2022 and during the last months, the reality shows that my surprise at that time, or let me better say, my non believe was correct and your article from August 2021 is now proven as wrong by the reality.

No, that is still false, the study (and others done that give the same result) are still true and demonstrate that vaccines reduce transmission, you not being able to accept it do not change it. Omicron causes more transmission, but that do not negate the value of vaccines.

Where you are confused is in your own belief that somehow vaccines by themselves are supposed to completely stop transmission, so you only demonstrate your own misunderstanding as wrong. In the same way to many other health interventions the value of vaccines reducing transmission has been proved above any rational doubt, but that does not mean the higher transmissibility of Omicron is completely negated, much less if other measures are abandoned. That is what you have not refuted but still do not want to recognize.

Now you contradicted again yourself.

You agree here that the cases increase. Even we have a vaccine!

That is no contradiction, the same as vehicular deaths that have increased exponentially when compared with the time seat belts were invented. Does that prove seat belts do not work? obviously not, it means there are more people driving, at higher speeds. This means OTHER factors have affected the number of cases, but the value of vaccines at reducing transmission do not just disappear just because you misunderstand it.

Which brings the conclusion, that the vaccine do not help to reduce the transmission and your article from 2021 is now proven wrong.

No, that conclusion is obviously invalid (again with the example of the seat belts that is the same flawed logic), to get to that conclusions you can't compare between strains that have very different transmission rates. You have to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated populations being infected by the same strain. You have not done that, so a professionally made study that actually did that is enough to prove you mistaken.

How do you know that without the vaccines we would not have 10 or 20 or 100 times more cases? the answer is simple, you don't. That is why concluding the vaccine has little value depends on your baseless guess that this is not the case. The evidence collected until now proves the vaccines importantly reduce transmission, just not by themselves.

So no, the article is not false, your logic is simply mistaken.

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

Living in a society means respecting the rights of others.

As long as you don't expose others to any extra risk that is fine, but if your decisions means that others have to deal with that extra risk you lose that privilege.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

So, the current vaccines won't tackle any future strains.

May not, it is unlikely but if any strain makes the jump and share antigenic sites that can mediate neutralization then the current vaccines would be useful. What the scientists are doing is trying to increase this chance as much as possible by making vaccines that can neutralize the highest variety if variations that have been found.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

I quoted something, but didn't read it? Interesting!

Your quoted text explains the argument you say the scientists are not trying to do.

So you agree with my statement. You can just state so.

As explained I do not agree that is rational to expect vaccines to act against yet unidentified viruses, it is as logical as saying "this vaccine do not protect against all kinds of infection". That is clearly relevant to a comment implying this is something that is supposed to be solved.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

"Okay, we screwed it up big time... but we'll do better next time if you us more money, we promise!"

Saving countless lives could only be characterized as "screwing up" by people that are obviously not interested in the well being of others, just their own beliefs.

-5 ( +9 / -14 )

@Wobot: ‘We’ll do better next time’ I laughed so much at your comment that I had to crack an early beer.

So far the vaccines have saved numerous lives, fact. The terror that Covid 19 bought upon the world in early 2020 has gone. Vaccines out in less than a year? Yep, of course they will improve! As for @Bronco, sure, we have all been exposed to various corona viruses over our lifetimes but you don’t have the right to decide I might die from one. Not when it CAN be prevented. The key word old chap was ‘novel’ when it came to Covid 19…and not everyone who died in the early days or will die from it now will have ‘pre existing’ conditions.

You guys make me cringe with embarrassment to be of the same race as you.

Monty…you used to a sensible chap. Seems like you’ve been reading too much alternative media.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Just as in the last pandemic,the virus eventually stopped being fatal to humans-Covid is also mutating and it will be the same.

There are many viruses that have been infecting humans since prehistory and they are still lethal and causing millions of deaths a year, but even if COVID reduces its deaths rates preventing as many deaths as possible until that happens is a very good purpose.

I can live with any new variant perfectly well without help from any ‘booster’

there is no guarantee any new variant will be less pathogenic, or even the same as the current prevalent ones, your sense of safety is baseless.

I will fully accept your position that people that want to have a vaccine may have one or as many as they like.

that is not my position, my position is written very clearly and that is that people want to be healthy and live longer lives instead of just being contempt to die just because the diseases are part of life.

May I ask that you cordially accept that people who do not want them should not be forced,

What part of what I say could ever be interpreted to forcing anything? You can act irrationally as much as you want, the only problem is if your actions and decisions affect the safety of others, in which case your freedoms can be limited. But if you want to run as much risks as you want and refuse any and all medical treatments because they are only acting against the natural world you are free to do it, just as long as you don't expose others to extra risks.

If for you demonstrating your position as irrational is somehow forcing you that is invalid.

-6 ( +8 / -14 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites