That’s a big issue. It’s not surprising that introduction of foreign protein into the airway can result in allergic type responses to subsequent exposure. While that’s certainly a form of immunity, it’s not the kind that’s desirable! We can observe a Type I (acute) & sometimes a Type IV (Cell mediated) allergic reaction.
I’ve often wond…
That’s a big issue. It’s not surprising that introduction of foreign protein into the airway can result in allergic type responses to subsequent exposure. While that’s certainly a form of immunity, it’s not the kind that’s desirable! We can observe a Type I (acute) & sometimes a Type IV (Cell mediated) allergic reaction.
I’ve often wondered how they ensure this doesn’t happen with nasal vaccines (there I go, presuming intent is to avoid harms!). Nasal flu vaccine is routinely given to English kids at school. I don’t think it’s justified. It’s extraordinarily unusual for a previously healthy child to die of flu. Does this warrant vaccination of almost 100% of kids annually in the hope of saving one life? Again, I doubt it. The reason is how low must the rate be of serious adverse effects for that trade off to make ethical sense? Probably far fewer than 1 in 1 million.
Statistical “powering” to detect such low rates of SAEs is problematic. I doubt it’s possible to test for safety in enough kids even to stand up the intended claim. I’m a risk / benefit person & ideally the same individual gets both. I don’t like most kids bearijg risk in order to benefit one person, it’s unethical.
That’s a big issue. It’s not surprising that introduction of foreign protein into the airway can result in allergic type responses to subsequent exposure. While that’s certainly a form of immunity, it’s not the kind that’s desirable! We can observe a Type I (acute) & sometimes a Type IV (Cell mediated) allergic reaction.
I’ve often wondered how they ensure this doesn’t happen with nasal vaccines (there I go, presuming intent is to avoid harms!). Nasal flu vaccine is routinely given to English kids at school. I don’t think it’s justified. It’s extraordinarily unusual for a previously healthy child to die of flu. Does this warrant vaccination of almost 100% of kids annually in the hope of saving one life? Again, I doubt it. The reason is how low must the rate be of serious adverse effects for that trade off to make ethical sense? Probably far fewer than 1 in 1 million.
Statistical “powering” to detect such low rates of SAEs is problematic. I doubt it’s possible to test for safety in enough kids even to stand up the intended claim. I’m a risk / benefit person & ideally the same individual gets both. I don’t like most kids bearijg risk in order to benefit one person, it’s unethical.