@Marum you’re right in saying that before the rapid devt of Covid-19 vaccines that vaccine devt could take 4-10 years.
but having tapped your memory for that fact you then failed to research any special circumstances that would have allowed more speedy and safe devt of Covid-19 vaccines.
did you do this deliberately to present misinformation.
or did you just accidentally overlook the plentiful material available to you as it is to me that explains how some of the new Covid-19 vaccines were developed inside a year.
massive funding, as the article explains, allowed for truncation. others, doctors, have noted elsewhere that no time was lost, as it usually is, in recruiting phase 3 participants as the pandemic was raging.
this excerpt from a news feature in Nature.com on Dec. 18, 2020 explains how it happened. I commend it to you. The article is one of many with the same message.
first the headlines of the article, then a reasonable summary.
”The lightning-fast quest for COVID vaccines — and what it means for other diseases” ”The speedy approach used to tackle SARS-CoV-2 could change the future of vaccine science.”
”The slowest part of vaccine development isn’t finding candidate treatments, but testing them. This often takes years (see ‘Vaccine innovation’), with companies running efficacy and safety tests on animals and then in humans. Human testing requires three phases that involve increasing numbers of people and proportionately escalating costs.
”The COVID-19 vaccines went through the same trials, but the billions poured into the process made it possible for companies to take financial risks by running some tests at the same time (see ‘A vaccine in a year’).
”With large sums given to vaccine firms by public funders and private philanthropists, “they could do preclinical and phase I, II and III trials, as well as manufacturing, in parallel instead of sequentially”, says Rino Rappuoli, chief scientist at GlaxoSmithKline’s vaccines division in Siena, Italy. This meant that companies could gamble on starting large-scale testing and manufacturing of candidates that might not work out.
““It was totally de-risking the entire development process,” says Kampmann.
”The vaccine science would not have produced such fast results without this funding, she says. “It didn’t happen with Ebola, which was devastating communities in Africa [in 2014–16]” — and Ebola vaccines accordingly took longer to develop.
“The money only materialized this time because all countries, including wealthy ones, faced economic devastation: suggesting that the development of future vaccines, including for existing diseases such as malaria, will not be as speedy.
““Unless you put in the money, there’s no way to accelerate,” says Rappuoli.Virologist Peter Hotez at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, suggests that large pharmaceutical companies might have been motivated not just by the desire to stop the pandemic, but also by the opportunity for governments to fund their research and development.
” With public investment of around US$10 billion, the US Operation Warp Speed vaccine programme “represents the largest government stimulus package the pharma companies have ever seen”, says Hotez.
”The impetus didn’t all come from the urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic itself. Previous infectious and lethal viruses have motivated the creation of national and global infrastructures that can promote faster vaccine development. The Ebola and Zika outbreaks saw the beginning of better global coordination in how to respond to an infectious-disease crisis, Graham says.
““If SARS in 2002 had spread like this, we wouldn’t have had the vaccine technology or the coordinated systems, and we’d have had a much more difficult time,” he says.”
