Pt 2
by
There’s a lot to unpack about the COVID-19 vaccines. One of the main concerns about the vaccine has been the expediency with which it has been created and rolled out. Regardless of that notion of doubt or despair, the technology and fevered innovation of the human race, especially under duress, should never be underestimated.
Last month we looked at how the two vaccines from China, Sinopharm and Sinovac, ; the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson and Novovax vaccines were developed. This month we continue that look, and also discuss the Cuban vaccine.
Sinopharm and Sinovac, are whole virus vaccines. Sinopharm purports an efficacy of 79 per cent, while Sinovac has not released an official efficacy but partners report ranges from 50 to 91 per cent.
Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are both mRNA vaccines that have reported similar efficacies of around 95 per cent. The Novovax vaccine has reported an efficacy of 89 per cent and is a protein subunit vaccine while Johnson & Johnson’s new contender is viral vectored vaccine has been reported at 85 per cent. The process of creating the various types of vaccines was discussed in Part 1 of this article.
Most notably in the news of late has been the eye on the Cuban domestically-produced Soberana 2; their own conjugate vaccine.
Soberana (Sovereign in Spanish) was created by fusing a carrier molecule with the coronavirus antigen.
Similar approved conjugate vaccines include vaccines against Streptococcus pneumoniae, or pneumococcus and the vaccine for Neisseria meningitidis, or meningococcus as well as a vaccine approved in 2018 to be used against typhoid.
Phase III of the testing of the Soberana 2 vaccine was scheduled to take place last month.
The vaccines sent to Barbados from India were the Oxford-AstraZeneca variety, created via non-replicating viral vector, and hailing with a possible efficacy of between 70 and 92 per cent (addressed further down). Russia’s Sputnik V, a non-replicating viral vector vaccine, like the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, has claimed a 92 per cent efficacy in its late stage trial that was published in The Lancet in early February.
The scientists at the Jenner Institute at Oxford University that partnered with AstraZeneca in April 2020 had already been working on new approaches to vaccination to similar coronaviruses like MERS before Chinese scientists globally released the sequenced results of the novel coronavirus on January 11.
Oxford University made the partnership under the condition that the vaccine would be developed and sold for no profit for the duration of the pandemic, in an act of benevolence.
Unfortunately, the appearing magnanimity of a non-profit vaccine has been marred by understandable stumbles and scrutiny. The grandeur of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, being offered at cost and primed for mass production has seen variance in efficacy. These irregularities were, in part, due to unplanned variances in time between first and second dose administration, variance in dosage requirements, and testing against multiple strains.
The Lancet’s early-December publication on the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine asserted, “If the two vaccine injections require different doses, this will add complexity for health workers with little formal training, but can be managed with innovative packaging and proper change management to reduce errors.”
The resulting pause and investigation into the results before the December of 2020 of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine reported results that exceeded licensure thresholds and elucidated that, “Further trials to substantiate the unexpected findings here and investigation of efficacy in older adults are now needed.”
However, the efficacy of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine may have dipped due to its testing against previously unknown strains of the virus it was initially designed to combat. The boon however, according to The Lancet, “Oxford–AstraZeneca’s US$2–3 per dose agreement with the COVAX Facility holds good promise for equitable access for LMICs (low and middle income countries), compared with the high cost of the two mRNA vaccines that have reported more than 90% efficacy.”
The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is now doing trials to test efficacy in children between the ages of 6-17. Getting out of the grip of this pandemic means taking the available steps to control the spread and severity of COVID-19.
According to the BBC, “The South Africa study, based on about 2,000 young people who had the vaccine, suggests the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine offers limited protection against mild and moderate disease caused by the South Africa variant.”
The BBC goes on to assure that, “It’s important to remember that even the lower 62% figure is a better result than the best flu jab, which is about 50% effective.” A more recent study had placed the Oxford-AstraZeneca at 82 per cent efficacy.
One concern over the vaccine has been the worry over side effects. The side-effect of infertility has been raised as a concern amongst some of the populous. However, “If natural infection doesn’t alter fertility, why would a vaccine do it?” says Paul Offit, MD, Director of the Vaccine Education Centre at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia as well as the Maurice R. Hilleman Professor of Vaccinology and a Professor of Pediatrics at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania who has been reviewing clinical trials behind the vaccines as an adviser to the FDA.
With any virus that causes a fever, it is likely that a temporary reduction in sperm count and quality can be observed due to the sensitivity of sperm to temperature. However, vaccines, as stated previously, are made of inactive whole or parts of the virus itself and thus their only effects would be minimalised versions of the disease for which they were designed to combat.
“We want to reassure women that there is no evidence to suggest that COVID-19 vaccines will affect fertility. Claims of any effect of COVID-19 vaccination on fertility are speculative and not supported by any data. There is no biologically plausible mechanism by which current vaccines would cause any impact on women’s fertility,” said Dr Edward Morris, President at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
Dr Christian Jessen, British TV and real life doctor chimed in on Twitter to assert, “I’m having my COVID vaccine today. I’m v excited. And humbled. And no, I’m not concerned about my fertility….”
Prof Nicola Stonehouse, a virologist at the University of Leeds, told the BBC, “You’re much more likely to have fertility issues post-COVID than after the vaccine”.
Another concern with the vaccine is the misinformed idea that vaccines are made from aborted foetal stem cells. Cells from an aborted foetus were harvested in the 70s and then have been replicated over the years in order to test the virus inside a versatile human cell. The vaccines contain no traces of foetal cells or DNA. Even the Vatican has formally recognised “all vaccinations recognised as clinically safe and effective can be used in good conscience.”
