Will new vaccines be better at fighting coronavirus variants?

mRNA didn't work this time so would it next time? This just reads like an advert

Preventing uncountable deaths thanks to these vaccines means they did work and keep working until now,

No, the Danish study clearly showed that the mRNA "vaccines" did not decrease overall mortality. Adenovirus-based vaccines had some effect.

Hopefully the next vaccines will be more effective and safer, but I doubt they will ever be as effective as a natural infection.

Definitely, the thing that must be greatly improved is the way the vaccines are tested. Until they setup a system of honest, open, and intelligently design clinical trials I will never trust anything they produce.

virusrex, here's one of the authors of the Danish study talking about what they found, showing your claim to be false. While acknowledging that there is benefit for older people, she would not give the mRNA vaccines to her own children.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_nKoybyMGg

They should get rid of the horrible side effects with which people are suffering after taking the vaccine.

A vaccine that pulls you off your feet and gives you a damned high fever, horrible headaches and whatever, for 3 consecutive days, is not really a motivation to take it.

This must really be improved from the vaccine makers.

To produce inactivated virus vaccines, you must first produce a huge amount of live coronavirus and then inactivate it. There is a small, but legitimate biohazard risk associated with producing a lot of live coronavirus.

Here we go again.

People need to stop their obsession with SARS-CoV-2.

The vaccines, as they are right now are more than enough. The scary part of COVID-19 is over, it has been over since people took the vaccine, but the anxiety has remained, and people are still looking for a magical vaccine that will get rid of the virus forever.

Chances are it won't happen, and to be honest, we don't need to get rid of it.

Some people might need some sort of reinforcement, but it would be limited and complemented with other stuff, like people already did for other respiratory illnesses.

Yes, and we will need new vaccines and mandates as data comes out that suggest the older vaccines are no longer effective against new variants. As the vaccines get better and better, and the variants get weaker and weaker, they can still force people to get jabbed and quarantine because well, they have to make money and maintain control somehow.

Many candidates have been worse than the safe and effective vaccines in use right now, that is precisely the reason why they have not become options for the public.

Extremely faulty logic.

inactivated virus and viral vector vaccines might not produce strong protection in immunocompromised patients.

Not surprised at this.

The virus will evolve so the vaccines must also evolve. There have been many cases over the years of viruses and diseases becoming stronger against the vaccines as they evolve. Hopefully, this virus will evolve into a flu and nearly disappear. However, at present, it's still killing people and leaving people with semi-permanent effects that can go on for years. The side effects of the vaccines are mostly encountered by those who already have decreased immune systems and are susceptable to severe allergic reactions. I've had four shots. My second booster was two weeks ago. The very first shot made me feel a bit crappy for 24 hours but the successive shots have had no side effects at all. I've had two Astra Zenica and two Phyzer boosters.

Can’t be worse than the old ones….

Can’t be worse than the old ones….

Many candidates have been worse than the safe and effective vaccines in use right now, that is precisely the reason why they have not become options for the public.

For something that is approved then the requirement is that is at least as safe and effective as the current option, and that it offers some kind of advantage.

Extremely faulty logic.

Calling faulty something but then failing to argue against it proves more the contrary. What is the problem with that argument?

I said this before and got thumb down after the first shot I said shot 1 then shot 2 then booster after booster after booster. The virus is not going away!

For something that is approved then the requirement is that is at least as safe and effective as the current option, and that it offers some kind of advantage.

Yeah, that is why they block several potential options, to make sure the more profitable ones appear attractive when compared to the permitted options.

I don't believe any 'potential options' were blocked @Raw Beer, they were just debunked as useless by the respected medical community. Not a few madcap alternative 'scientists'

Yeah, that is why they block several potential options, to make sure the more profitable ones appear attractive when compared to the permitted options.

That is false and easy to prove so, not only because the drugs you keep trying to misrepresent as "blocked" are actually useless against covid (according to the medical consensus of the world) but because dirt cheap drugs like dexamethasone are being used without any problem and have recognized as safe and effective, even if much more profitable options would be used instead if it was blocked.

There is no better vaccine nor drug being blocked.

Had 3 Moderna @Monty - same as you. Different from person to person. Other than sore arm, zero side effects from #1 and #3, #2 floored me for a day.

Can someone grab me a copy of this Danish Study too please? As usual @Raw Beer is finding ONE article by a load of wackos vs thousands of studies saying the opposite.

Its no different to saying that that Al Horford was rubbish vs the Bucks this morning, when he clearly wasn't, but one journalist out of 250 did.

Yes - Surely a rhetorical question. Without a shadow of doubt.

Where can I get my a copy of this magical "Danish Study"? I would like to read how they disprove mRNA vaccines. Lmao

There is a small, but legitimate biohazard risk associated with producing a lot of live coronavirus.

My guess is, that probability is very high that exactly those whole virus vaccines will be their first choice, just because they are now experienced with gain-in-function research, setting them free in sufficient number and after the first biohazard just delivering the next one. They can’t stop and can’t get enough of next disasters, as it also makes them needed and irreplaceable with their (deadly) expertises.

virusrex, here's one of the authors of the Danish study talking about what they found, showing your claim to be false. While acknowledging that there is benefit for older people, she would not give the mRNA vaccines to her own children.

The report is clear, there is a clear reduction of mortality by any cause in the population that is more vulnerable for COVID, and there is no sense in expecting the same in the segments of population that die predominantly from other causes, anybody can have a different opinion but without data to support that opinion it does not have any value. The study clearly shows vaccines reduce mortality by COVID, which is exactly their purpose. Expecting them to reduce death by any and all different causes of death makes no sense. Is like saying that helmets don't work because they only reduce death rates of accidents in places where they are used, but not in the population in general.

A much longer but better explanation is easy to find.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/may/06/youtube-videos/fact-checking-claims-about-danish-preprint-study-c/

My guess is, that probability is very high that exactly those whole virus vaccines will be their first choice, just because they are now experienced with gain-in-function research

There is exactly zero need for "gain in function" research, in fact it would be against the purpose of this kind of vaccine because the effect depends completely on the virus not to change at all during the whole process, in fact mechanisms to avoid gain of function (of any kind) are integral part of the production process.

They should get rid of the horrible side effects with which people are suffering after taking the vaccine.

Unfortunately side effects may be linked to the efficient stimulation of the immune response, there would be no point to a vaccine completely free of problems for everybody but that neither makes anybody produce effective protection. Hopefully in the future this can be better understood and with luck sidestepping it may be possible, but it is not something that is sure to happen.

Vaccines are always at a balance between efficacy and safety, some can be easily made extremely effective with low problems and side effects, but for others this is not possible, there are several vaccine candidates for infectious diseases that are not used because their side effects are too strong (or come with unnaceptable levels or risk) and the infections are not worth it (affect only few people or cause heavy problems only exceptionally).

It may be that the risks associated with COVID decrease enough over time so that vaccines become unnecessary before side-effect free versions are developed.

mRNA didn't work this time so would it next time? This just reads like an advert

Preventing uncountable deaths thanks to these vaccines means they did work and keep working until now, disregarding this obvious benefit as "not working" is too obviously invalid. mRNA vectored vaccines have not even been fully developed and optimized, so they are still very susceptible to improvement.

No, the Danish study clearly showed that the mRNA "vaccines" did not decrease overall mortality. Adenovirus-based vaccines had some effect.

That is false and completely contradict the conclusions of the authors of the study, the mRNA vaccines did decrease overall mortality for all populations where COVID is a significant cause of death, as expected. For ages where other causes are hugely more frequent (for example young people without preexisting conditions die much more frequently from accidents and violence) it does not, but that should be obvious, the vaccines do not affect these much more significative causes of death so expecting it is deeply irrational.

Hopefully the next vaccines will be more effective and safer, but I doubt they will ever be as effective as a natural infection.

Even the current ones are, natural infection that causes none or mild symptoms produces low titers of protection for a short time, this is why the vaccines are also recommended for people that have had a previous infection, because it can be demonstrated that being vaccinated increase their protection, if what you said was true there would not be any of this increase.

Definitely, the thing that must be greatly improved is the way the vaccines are tested. Until they setup a system of honest, open, and intelligently design clinical trials I will never trust anything they produce.

The current system was completely appropiate according to the experts of the world, and the results completely congruent with what was observed from literally billions of vaccinated people. Your lack of trust is more related to a personal bias against vaccines than any flaw identified with the testing of the vaccines. Everything can be improved but it will never be enough for people that refuse to accept valid objective evidence of safety and efficacy and instead prefers to believe scientists and doctors of every single institution of the planet are willing to sacrifice their families and friends for money.