Question: Several public opinion polls have already found that lots of people won’t be rolling up their sleeves to get a COVID-19 vaccine when it becomes available. But does it really matter if anti-vaxxers shun the shot? Let them get sick if they want to. At least those of us who are vaccinated will be protected.
Answer: Unfortunately, it does matter. For a vaccine program to be effective against a common pathogen, a certain percentage of the population usually needs to be inoculated and able to resist infection.
A high level of participation helps create so-called “herd immunity” which is often necessary to safeguard those who don’t respond well to the vaccine, says Rob Kozak, a clinical microbiologist at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto.
He notes that many older folks may not generate a robust response to a vaccine. As people age, their immune systems become less efficient at producing the antibodies and T-cells necessary to fight off an infection. As a result, they may still become ill even if they get a shot.
People with compromised immune systems, such as certain cancer patients, may also fail to benefit fully from a vaccine.
To protect vulnerable populations, we need a sufficient number of people who are immune to the infection so that the virus has a hard time spreading from person to person.
Essentially, herd immunity reduces the chances that a susceptible individual will come into contact with SARS-CoV-2, the official name of the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.
However, because SARS-CoV-2 is so new, medical experts still don’t know what percentage of the population needs to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity.
“Some of the estimates range anywhere from 60 per cent all the way up to 85 per cent,” says Dr. Kozak.
Right now, the push is on to get a product to market as fast as possible. The U.S. program, called “Operation Warp Speed,” has set a target of having a vaccine ready by the end of year – 18 months at the outside. It typically takes many years to develop a vaccine against a new pathogen.
That rush could undermine public trust in anything that is developed, says Byram Bridle, an associate professor of viral immunology at the University of Guelph.
“As soon as you use terms like ‘warp speed’ it creates the impression that corners are being cut and a lot of people will question the safety of the vaccine,” says Dr. Bridle.
Dr. Kozak says vaccine development can be accelerated without jeopardizing science or safety.
He notes that researchers often spend a lot of time applying for grants.
In this case, though, money is readily available and the regulatory process is primed for a rapid response. “People are putting in place the resources that are really useful in speeding things up.”
What’s more, some scientists are working on new types of vaccines – using synthetic genetic material – that may be quicker to develop than traditional inoculations that often include part of a killed or attenuated (weakened) virus to trigger an immune response.
But Dr. Kozak acknowledges that research is still a very lengthy process. It takes a fixed amount of time for the immune system to respond to a vaccine, and then it takes more time to do the tests that can confirm safety and effectiveness. “It’s all just an exercise in patience,” he adds.
And once a vaccine (or more than one) is approved, it still needs to be manufactured in large amounts and administered to the public – additional time-consuming steps on the road to herd immunity.
Dr. Bridle doubts that any vaccine can be developed within the year. “I’m not going to say it is impossible, but it’s a low probability.”
Even without a vaccine, he expects natural herd immunity will be gradually created in the community as more and more people have become infected with the virus. That assumption is based on the fact that people normally develop some immunity after successfully fighting off an infection. But it’s uncertain how long that protection will last because it might wear off or the virus could morph over time.
So, the medical community is banking on vaccine development. “The uptake of a vaccine is going to be driven by people’s perceptions of how safe it is,” says Dr. Bridle.
That means public-health leaders can’t ignore vaccine critics whose activities could help sow seeds of doubts among those who aren’t usually opposed to inoculations. “We could be at risk of not getting enough people vaccinated,” he warns. “And, I do believe, that could be a problem.”
Sunnybrook’s Patient Navigation Advisor provides advice and answers questions from patients and their families. This article was originally published on Sunnybrook’s Your Health Matters, and it is reprinted on Healthy Debate with permission. Follow Paul on Twitter @epaultaylor.
If you have a question about your doctor, hospital or how to navigate the health care system, email AskPaul@Sunnybrook.ca
The comments section is closed.
I highly agree David, mRNA is made of “synthetic genetic material” obviously never used before, the risks are high,
It should also be noted that “herd immunity” happens even if we did not have access to a vaccine.
I’m not an antivaxxer or whatever insulting term is used . I and my children are up to date on all our vaccinations. I will however be skipping this new mRNA technology
That us something we have all agreed upon.
It is stupidly derogatory to refer to people who are not convinced of the safety a rushed Covid vaccine as ‘antivaxers’. Instead of derogatory comments toward those who mistrust big Pharma, how about an honest examination of why the public has come to mistrust this mega industry.could it be a history of harm from their drugs? Could it be something to do with profit over people? If we are honest, Big Pharma has proven itself to be untrustworthy. We are not talking ‘Science’ either; mistrust of Big Pharma has nothing to do with mistrust of Science, but mistrust of an industry that is not subject to independent review or testing of their products, and an industry that is clearly tainted. Doctors know nothing about the drugs they prescribe except what the pharma companies tell them. Informed consent regarding the drugs prescribed should obviously include the controversy regarding the treatments. Medicine has become about prescribing drugs, not keeping people healthy. Polypharma, especially for the elderly, is not a myth obviously. Whatever happened to ‘first do no harm’? How about addressing why the public no longer trusts Big Pharma, and increasingly, no longer trusts the American medical system?
Yes, I believe so…
It’s such a shame that we can’t even trust doctors anymore.
Has this vaccine only been tested on “healthy” people?
What about vaccine safety and side effects for older ones with compromised liver and liver diease?
Where is the transparent data for vaccine safety in those circumstances?
My mom has cirrhosis of the liver. I have been searching for info on the side effects for her, on taking the vaccine . I can’t find anything.
This is a question! Can someone suffering from cidp take the vacine
What I have found particularly interesting is that all the focus is on vaccine development and mask wearing. Nothing is being discussed or suggested on how to build up the immune system. Our bodies are capable of fighting and beating Covid, yet the media talks about it like it’s an automatic death sentence and it’s not. This alone creates doubt and distrust. It’s not the ‘antivaxxers’ as the media likes to blame, but rather the lack of acknowledgement that there are other things we can do to build up effective immunity. There will always be problems with every treatment (natural or pharmaceutical) yet the media only focuses on the problems with the natural. This is why I don’t trust what I hear and read. The constant doom and gloom reporting feels manipulative and is honestly backfiring.
My decisions about covid testing, a future vaccine for it, and the contact tracing app are “no”. They have nothing to do with the “perceived safety” of the shot, as the article posits. Nor is it ethically responsible for medical practitioner/author to pejoratively dismiss these views as primarily coming from the anti-vaxxer movement. I’m the opposite of an anti-vaxxer; I got all of the childhood diseases in the 60s and 70s, made darned sure my son got all of his shots in the early 90s, and I still had to fight his schools to prove it year after year because the school board and their partner, Toronto Public Health, both refused to keep accurate records. (They did manage to send me the threatening letters year after year, the repeated messag5 of which was; prove to us with doctors’ appointments and their signed documentation as to the shots or your son will be kicked out of school.) As to covid now, I won’t participate in a process designed by government-paid “professionals” (including doctors, nurses, technicians and administrators) that demeans patients, invades them, and still refuses to show us or our evidence any respect.
So it is NOT a shot that I object to; it IS the embedded processes designed by the provider-centric healthcare system that’s the problem, including the questionnaires, exclusionary criteria and financial gatekeeping, etc. Healthcare provider-authors here might take some responsibility for the systems they enforce, but which treat the public as stupid or stubborn cattle insufficiently docile to the “benevolence” of this breed of industrial farmers.
We still have autonomy in this country? I personally will not take a COVID vaccine which has been rushed through testing phases and even Dr. Fauci claims will not be as effective as we hope due to the mutability of this virus (see FluVaccine effectiveness). I have reviewed the information and ingredient labels that come with vaccines. These ingredient lists are miles long in tiny print and contain much valuable information including the fact that there is a risk of death when taking e.g. the flu shot (please DO NOT trust me, just ask your doctor to give you the ingredient list and flyer that is bunched up in the vaccine box and see for yourself). These vaccines are loaded with harmful metals and chemicals which are supposed to act as the “solvent”. Research shows that rare metals accumulate and do not leave your body – some even question links to conditions like dementia and Alzheimer’s. I would like any doctor on this forum to please (1) write a blog with the screenshot of any vaccine ingredient list and go through this list one by one and explain to us how they believe it is not harmful to us and any side effects of injecting said ingredient into the body. I have never seen anyone actually present the full list of vaccine additives and their logical and scientific reasoning for including them and I would welcome such a presentation. (2) Secondly, I would like any medical professional on here to please explain what the “National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program” is and why the government had to take over this program in the 1980s (hint: because the vaccine companies were becoming overwhelmed with lawsuits)? can you please tell us how many claims are made each year and what the payout is? can you provide me with 5 cases of claimants with life altering reactions and your explanation as to why you believe this did or did not have anything to do with vaccines?
The last question is – do we still have autonomy? are we pro choice as a country (or is it just for some choices)?
Does your vaccine work? If it does, why do you care if someone else is not vaccinated?
Thanks for writing this blog. It is very much informative and at the same time useful for me.
Whatever we think of people who question vaccines, using the term “anti-vaxxer” is a derogatory and offensive label. It is often accompanied by an attitude of disgust and disrespect. Whether we believe that they have come to wrong conclusions, the fact remains that we still live in a democracy where one of the foundations of health care is informed consent and freedom to choose (what is injected into our bodies). It will be a sad day when these freedoms are taken away from us. Our job is to educate and reassure, based on evidence, in a respectful way.
Thank you! Well said!