[ad_1]
It is perhaps the best news of the year, it went around the world as a breaking news, it scared the stock exchanges: a vaccine devised by researchers from the Mainz company Biontech and developed with the help of the American pharmaceutical company Pfizer is supplying effect.
In a study with a total of almost 44,000 subjects, the vaccine is said to have protected more than 90 percent of those vaccinated from corona infection. If this first announcement of the companies is confirmed, it would be cause for celebration in several ways.
[Wenn Sie alle aktuellen Entwicklungen zur Coronavirus-Krise live auf Ihr Handy haben wollen, empfehlen wir Ihnen unsere runderneuerte App, die Sie hier für Apple- und Android-Geräte herunterladen können.]
On the one hand, a highly effective vaccine could significantly inhibit the spread of the virus and therefore give hope that the pandemic will end. Very few experts had expected such a high degree of efficacy since the first hastily carried out vaccine developments (and, in fact, this value may also decrease, depending on the duration of the vaccine protection).
On the other hand, “BNT162b2” is a type of vaccine that has never existed before. It is not based on weakened viruses or parts of viruses, but on RNA molecules, that is, a genetic code that is only translated by the vaccinated person’s own cells and becomes the vaccine. The fact that this vaccination principle was developed in Germany, of course, does not matter to people who simply wait for a good Covid-19 vaccine. But it is also proof of the often-questioned excellence and competitiveness of local biotechnology.
Who has to do without, so that the little vaccine has the best effect
As much as the joy over the first Covid-19 vaccine may be, the question of how this and successor vaccines should be distributed fairly and as beneficially as possible is open. The National Ethics Council, the Leopoldina Academy of Sciences and the Stiko Vaccination Standing Commission of the Robert Koch Institute commented on this in a position paper commissioned by the Federal Government.
[Warum die Charité-Ärzte die Meldung vom Impfstoff auch besorgt – lesen Sie hier die T+-Geschichte.]
Because one thing is clear: the demand will be immense and initially it will not be possible to meet it. Even if 1000 people per day, a purely fictitious number, could be vaccinated in each of the 60 planned vaccination centers in Germany, only 21 million would be protected after one year, which would be a far cry from “herd immunity”, which should only be set to 70 percent. .
“We have to do it in such a way that the population benefits the most,” says Thomas Mertens, president of Stiko. But what does “higher profit” mean? Is it measured solely, as the position paper states as the first priority, in the number of serious illnesses and deaths from Covid 19 averted? So, in fact, it seems obvious, as recommended, to vaccinate risk groups first, that is, the elderly and previously ill, and medical personnel who are particularly exposed to the virus.
[Mehr zum Thema Covid-19-Impfstoffe: Diese Vakzinkandidaten werden derzeit geprüft – ein Überblick]
But does this really protect most people from Covid 19 illness and death? A model calculation, in which the researchers recently showed that it is better to vaccinate the younger population first with a highly effective vaccine, and that would include Biontech’s, because they contribute more to the spread of the virus than older ones, speaks out against this.
This also indirectly protects older people from infection, illness and death, according to the study by Laura Matrajt, Julie Eaton, Tiffany Leung and Elizabeth Brown of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. Vaccinating a 25-year-old who could have infected ten people, two of whom would be seriously ill, would be better than vaccinating an 80-year-old who only infected one or two other people, none of whom became ill.
In their document, Leopoldina, Ethics Council and Stiko emphasize the “solidarity” that is needed for a fair distribution of vaccines: many must show solidarity and, in the interests of the bigger picture, the goal of protecting as many people as possible, the individual protection. abstain and continue to expose yourself to the risk of Covid 19 disease. The majority of the population will accept it. But there should be a good and transparent explanation as to whether the noble goal can really be achieved in this way, and only in this way.
