10 December 2020
There are the rumours that it will affect your fertility, change your DNA and even embed a trackable microchip.
This is not the plot twist in a science fiction movie, but concerns circulating on social media, between neighbors and in supermarket queues, about the new COVID-19 vaccines.
Alongside fringe concerns, there are more general reservations about whether a vaccine developed at record-breaking pace can still be safe.
A recent Opinion poll for the Observer found that one in three members of the UK public would be “unlikely” to get the COVID-19 vaccine when it becomes available.
This week a pre-print study by Imperial College London researchers revealed that within a group of 9122 UK survey participants, only 71.5% were willing to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.
These are sobering statistics when you consider that around 90% of the UK population needs to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity.
As healthcare workers with scientific training, optometrists are well placed to examine the evidence that supports the use of COVID-19 vaccines.
Below OT debunks misinformation circulating about COVID-19 vaccines.
Myth: “The COVID-19 vaccine will change your DNA”
Although some of the COVID-19 vaccines in development are based on mRNA technology, UK charity FullFact explains that these vaccines do not alter human DNA.
In contrast to traditional vaccines that contain inactivated pathogens, mRNA vaccines contain a molecule that codes for a protein specific to the pathogen’s surface. However, this does not change the DNA of human cells.
Myth: “The speed of vaccine development means corners were cut and it unlikely to be safe”
The BBC has outlined why the public can be confident that a vaccine developed in less than a year is safe.
Plans to tackle ‘disease x’ were developed long before the current COVID-19 outbreak following shortcomings in the response to the Ebola outbreak between 2014 and 2016.
The fact that COVID-19 is part of a family of viruses that researchers are already familiar with in light of the Sars and Mers outbreaks in 2002 and 2012 also gave the scientific community a head start when developing a vaccine.
The number of scientists working on the COVID-19 vaccines and the amount of money that has been invested in their efforts has sped up the process of producing an effective vaccine without compromising safety.
For example, the Oxford vaccine has been through every stage of a trial that would normally be taken for a vaccine and 30,000 volunteers have been involved in the phase three trial.
Myth: “Aluminium in vaccines can cause Alzheimer’s disease”
As FullFact explains, small amounts of aluminium have been used in vaccines for close to a century.
During that time, no link has been established between the presence of the metal in some vaccines and Alzheimer’s disease.
The amount of aluminium in human vaccines typically weighs between 0.2 and 0.8 micrograms – while the average adult will ingest around seven to nine micrograms of aluminium per day as part of their diet.
Comments (4)
You must be logged in to join the discussion. Log in
OT Features Editor17 December 2020
Thank you for your comments. OT is keen to receive your questions about the COVID-19 vaccines. Please send your queries to [email protected] and the team will investigate what information is available. OT plans on publishing a selection of the questions and answers on our website at a later date.
Report Like 171
Anonymous14 December 2020
Can the AOP tell us precisely how an mrna vaccine works and the medical/scientific effects of mercury in the body?
Report Like 165
Anonymous10 December 2020
Moving past the obviously silly anxieties of a small number of misinformed people, this article does not engage with valid concerns about the new vaccines and their evidence base.
On the 8th of December the UK became the 2nd country in the World (joining China) to start vaccinating its population without waiting for published peer-review, in what is a naked political move at a critical point in Brexit negotiations.
We are still awaiting peer-review on the approved Pfizer vaccine, but there is peer-review for the AstraZeneca vaccine. This is a great, except I don’t think it helps inform decisions much, nor justifies the planned model of distribution.
It is crucial to know:
1) Does a vaccine reduces transmission?
- because if it did we could stop social distancing, given that asymptomatic transmission has been the main justification for these measures (albeit, without justification that this drives cases or supportive data on the effectiveness of lockdowns)
2) Does a vaccine stops the elderly who do get infected from becoming seriously ill or dying?
- because it is this demographic that are dying
3) What are the health risks, both short-term "allergies" and long-term?
The study did not look at transmission. It did not include subjects over 55yrs. It did not look at the reduction of serious illness or death rate, only any symptom (cough, SoB or loss of smell). It has a very limited follow-up, such that AstraZeneca have demanded and secured indemnity for the possibly of health complications that they cannot reasonably evaluate with the speed and scale of development and roll-out.
The main result was a reduction in any symptom of COVID from 1.7% to 0.5%, an absolute risk reduction of 1.2% (95% CI 0.9% to 1.4%) in people aged between 18 and 55yrs.
I do not think the vaccines are necessarily bad, they are probably on balance a good thing, but as yet we cannot be sure. It is not known. Worst case is that the vaccines reduce mild symptoms in younger patients, but do not reduce transmission nor severe disease and mortality in the elderly. In this situation, the younger generations (including most of the the optical workforce) would no longer be aware if they became infected, would therefore fail to self-isolate, and thus unknowingly pass it on to the the elderly in whom there is no evidence that vaccination protects from becoming very unwell or dying. We might cause the premature passing of our most vulnerable patients.
Please let us not lump everyone together who asks a question of The Science, which ironically is a very scientific thing to do, and treat them all as uninformed idiots.
Report Like 184
Anonymous10 December 2020
Moving past the obviously silly anxieties of a small number of misinformed people, this article does not engage with valid concerns about the new vaccines and their evidence base.
On the 8th of December the UK became the 2nd country in the World (joining China) to start vaccinating its population without waiting for published peer-review, in what is a naked political move at a critical point in Brexit negotiations.
We are still awaiting peer-review on the approved Pfizer vaccine, but there is peer-review for the AstraZeneca vaccine. This is a great, except I don’t think it helps inform decisions much, nor justifies the planned model of distribution.
It is crucial to know:
1) Does a vaccine reduces transmission?
- because if it did we could stop social distancing, given that asymptomatic transmission has been the main justification for these measures (albeit, without justification that this drives cases or supportive data on the effectiveness of lockdowns)
2) Does a vaccine stops the elderly who do get infected from becoming seriously ill or dying?
- because it is this demographic that are dying
3) What are the health risks, both short-term "allergies" and long-term?
The study did not look at transmission. It did not include subjects over 55yrs. It did not look at the reduction of serious illness or death rate, only any symptom (cough, SoB or loss of smell). It has a very limited follow-up, such that AstraZeneca have demanded and secured indemnity for the possibly of health complications that they cannot reasonably evaluate with the speed and scale of development and roll-out.
The main result was a reduction in any symptom of COVID from 1.7% to 0.5%, an absolute risk reduction of 1.2% (95% CI 0.9% to 1.4%) in people aged between 18 and 55yrs.
I do not think the vaccines are necessarily bad, they are probably on balance a good thing, but as yet we cannot be sure. It is not known. Worst case is that the vaccines reduce mild symptoms in younger patients, but do not reduce transmission nor severe disease and mortality in the elderly. In this situation, the younger generations (including most of the the optical workforce) would no longer be aware if they became infected, would therefore fail to self-isolate, and thus unknowingly pass it on to the the elderly in whom there is no evidence that vaccination protects from becoming very unwell or dying. We might cause the premature passing of our most vulnerable patients.
Please let us not lump everyone together who asks a question of The Science, which ironically is a very scientific thing to do, and treat them all as uninformed idiots.
Report Like 195