A response to vaccine deniers

There were many mistakes made during the pandemic, but fortunately, they were corrected as scientific evidence was generated to combat the uncertainties posed by a completely new virus for the world. Science, sooner rather than later, is humbly setting course and directing positions in favor of the welfare of humanity.

Sadly, there is always a small group of destructive individuals, deniers, anti-science libertarians, anti-vaccine activists, and professionals with anchor biases who falsify, misrepresent, or massage data for personal convenience so that the misinformation generates notoriety and perhaps even financial returns. This misleading infodemic finds amplification through social networks and some irresponsible communicators, propitiating an avalanche of hoaxes that spreads faster than the pandemic itself. Fortunately, science is in charge of putting these frustrated specimens in their place. Several have already fallen in Panama … writes Dr. Xavier Saez Llorens in La Estrella where he records the history of the pandemic.

SARS-CoV-2 was identified in late December 2019 in the city of Wuhan and its genome shared publicly in January 2020. The disease, initially considered pneumonia, was later better characterized and named COVID-19 due to its distinctive lung involvement and systemic. During the first two months of last year, the world scientific community thought that the virus was going to be controlled, as had happened years ago with the coronaviruses that cause SARS-CoV-1 and MERS, predicting that it would not be a health problem global collective. The verification of autochthonous transmission in Europe, the United States, and Canada, not directly linked to travelers from Asian countries, coupled with the appearance of infected in Latin America at the end of February (Brazil and Ecuador),

Because it was a respiratory infection, it was speculated that the face mask would only work for people who had symptoms, similar to what was recommended for influenza and other viruses that affect the lungs. As soon as the concept of pre-symptomatic transmission became clear, the population was educated that personal protection measures applied to all individuals, regardless of the presence or absence of clinical manifestations. Mitigation measures also included physical distancing, hand washing, cleaning of contact surfaces, and confinements. At the beginning it was mentioned between 1.5 and 2 meters of separation in a general way, But later investigations revealed that in closed and poorly ventilated places the viral particles could travel in the form of aerosols beyond 3 meters. The initial quarantines, based on epidemiological modeling, were long, symmetrical, and rigorous. Several subsequent studies demonstrated greater benefit in containing the spread of the virus using short (3-5 weeks) and hermetic confinements, focused on areas with a high number of infections and with optimal contact traceability. The sequential development and adequate interpretation of the diagnostic tests (molecular, antigenic, serological) greatly contributed to the detection and isolation of the cases. Several subsequent studies demonstrated greater benefit in containing the spread of the virus using short (3-5 weeks) and hermetic confinements, focused on areas with a high number of infections and with optimal contact traceability. The sequential development and adequate interpretation of the diagnostic tests (molecular, antigenic, serological) greatly contributed to the detection and isolation of the cases. Several subsequent studies demonstrated greater benefit in containing the spread of the virus using short (3-5 weeks) and hermetic confinements, focused on areas with a high number of infections and with optimal contact traceability. The sequential development and adequate interpretation of the diagnostic tests (molecular, antigenic, serological) greatly contributed to the detection and isolation of the cases.

Due to people’s logical fear of daily deaths and retrospective observations on the hypothetical usefulness, in a limited number of patients, of some old drugs with immunomodulatory, antiviral or anti-inflammatory potential, it was decided to establish empirical management in many parts of the world during the second four-month period of 2020. As the quality and methodological solidity scientific investigations were carried out (prospective, randomized, double-blind design, adjusting for confounding variables and comparable groups), most of these initial therapies were abandoned for lack of benefit and not negligible toxicity. Only oxygen, steroids, blood thinners, remdesivir (modest effect), and several monoclonal antibodies have successfully passed close scientific scrutiny (evidence-based medicine). These are the only drugs indicated to date by internationally renowned academic organizations to treat COVID. It is worth highlighting, in this sense, the great importance of having had open data that facilitated the evaluation and collaboration of academics in real-time to make reliable decisions and formulate global recommendations.

Before the end of 2020, two vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) were cleared by the FDA for emergency use. This extraordinary achievement, less than 1 year after the identification of the etiological microbe, has marked an unprecedented milestone in the history of medical science. The speed does not obey any shortcut in terms of security. First of all, the development of these vaccines did not start from scratch, there was already an important ground gained when the SARS-1 and MERS epidemics emerged; the same technologies have been used for SARS-2, only one viral genome had to be replaced by another on the platform. Second, many manufacturing companies have received substantial economic subsidies from industrialized countries, scientific alliances, and philanthropic foundations to finance your research phases without the risk of losing your invested money. Finally, phases 3 completed their preliminary analyzes more quickly due to the huge influx of volunteers who altruistically participated in the trials and the large number of infections that occurred at the sites of these studies, which allowed us to have sufficient data comparisons between vaccinated and controls (placebos) to achieve the necessary statistical strength that could infer the degree of protection. To date, 10 vaccines have already publicized their acceptable efficacy results and safety profiles. participated in the trials and the large number of infections that occurred in the places of these studies, which allowed having enough comparative data between vaccinated and controls (placebos) to achieve the necessary statistical strength that could infer the degree of protection.

To date, 10 vaccines have already publicized their acceptable efficacy results and safety profiles. participated in the trials and the large number of infections that occurred in the places of these studies, which allowed having enough comparative data between vaccinated and controls (placebos) to achieve the necessary statistical strength that could infer the degree of protection.

The author is a physician and researcher