Britain to infect healthy volunteers with coronavirus in vaccine challenge trials

[My Pet Orangutan]

Source: Washington Post,

LONDON — British scientists said Tuesday they will launch the world's first human challenge trials for covid-19, in which healthy volunteers will be deliberately infected with the coronavirus in hopes of further speeding the drive to a vaccine.

The research, led by scientists at Imperial College London and funded by the British government, is a gutsy gambit, given that people will be submitting themselves to a deadly virus with no surefire treatment.

The United States is moving more cautiously, with leading government researchers saying human challenge trials might be too risky or unnecessary. But the British scientists say the potential payoff is massive — that accelerating vaccine development by even three months could save hundreds of thousands of lives globally.

The British experiment is scheduled to begin in January. Volunteers will have a purified, laboratory-grown strain of the live virus blown into their noses, while quarantined in a 22-bed biosecure unit at the Royal Free Hospital in London, where they will undergo daily, even hourly, tests over two to three weeks.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/covid-challenge-trials-uk/2020/10/20/00a31136-026c-11eb-b92e-029676f9ebec_story.html

---

ABSOLUTELY irresponsible. Two points.

1. Even a well-designed vaccine may not protect much more than 80% of recipients.

2. Although young people are unlikely to die from COVID, particularly if receiving up to the minute medicare care and assessment, Sars-Cov-2 can attack virtually every organ in the body, not just the lungs. Neurological and renal injuries are widespread amongst hospitalized patients. And.The.Longterm.Effects.Are.Unknown.

A challenge trial of a COVID vaccine is a grave violation of medical ethics.

[unblock]

1. I agree, completely unethical. And why? Can't find anyone who already has it?

Or who will be exposed to it naturally?

[dawg day]

2. I've been in a clinical trial for an experimental drug

and the protocols were so tight.
They're jumping right past the sensible measures, like first inoculating people who are already being exposed, like the spouses of people with Covid, and healthcare workers, and cashiers and others constantly around people, and then see if fewer than expected get the disease.

Of course, that takes much longer, but it doesn't deliberately make people sick.

I don't know-- there are always tradeoffs. People will die the longer there's no vaccine, but people might also die because they're given Covid and the vaccine doesn't work.

[Yonnie3]

3. If I understood the article correctly the first group will have no vaccine.

The first group is to determine the minimum amount of virus necessary to infect them. I'm not sure what to think of this. Will they be doing this for altruistic reasons or is there significant compensation? The ethics of this escape me.

[Hugin]

6. It's a given that the minimum amount of the virus required to cause an infection will be shockingly

low.

[Yonnie3]

8. I've seen reports that say the viral exposure load may be a factor in the secerity of infection.

I don't know how much credibility to give them.

I'm off to read https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/88692

"Does Virus Dose or Load Predict How Sick You Get With COVID-19?
— Initial exposure, strength of virus infection both seen as contributors to illness severity"

[Hugin]

10. Good article.

I had been looking for a similar piece earlier today and couldn't find it.

Thanks.

[Hugin]

4. This is crazy.

I can't come up with a single reason to justify this kind of study.

[uppityperson]

5. Wtf

[Blappy]

7. Don't think that study would fly here

I work for the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of a major research university. I cannot envision such a study gaining approval under the existing federal regulations, because there is insufficient information about the virus and its long term effects, or who is susceptible to the worst side effects, to ensure that the risks are minimized. Historically, some scientists have done similar immune challenges to themselves out of altruism, so I understand why someone would possibly want to participate.

[RelativelyJones]

9. Brave souls

[Warpy]

11. Different places have different standards

and please remember these people are carefully screened and they're all volunteering, knowing the risks. They are heroic.

This is one of the ways to see if your first statistic is at all true. It most likely is not.

There is no 100% reliable treatment for this disease and cases are increasing at a much faster rate worldwide. We might be out of time.

Challenge testing a vaccine is a drastic step. Pushing out unproven medications during the HIV epidemic in the 80s because death was certain without them was also a drastic step. Sometimes drastic steps are necessary and people willing to risk themselves are to be applauded. This isn't the first vaccine challenge and most likely won't be the last. Ethics would state that test subjects be screened as thoroughly as possible, are aware of the possible consequences, and are undergoing it voluntarily.

Challenge testing could well be the difference between getting a safe and effective vaccine out in March and having to wait until late summer. A hell of a lot of people will be maimed or dead by late next summer if we have to wait.

I've been a medical guinea pig, I started at the age of 5 with the first Salk trial near DC. I've participated in other trials as both a subject and later as a nurse making sure test subjects knew the risks. All carried risks.

medical ethics aren't revealed religious text. Most medicine relies on risk versus benefit rather than a 100% guarantee of absolute success or safety. I don't see the US as being willing to do formal challenge testing. I do see vaccine recipients doing their own challenge studies informally, either through feeling bulletproof or in the interest of science, taking unnecessary risks. Offhand, I find the formal challenge in which subjects are closely monitored preferable.