What If There’s a COVID-22? How Should We Handle It?

Jeremy Hogan/SOPA Images via ZUMA

Get your news from a source that’s not owned and controlled by oligarchs. Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily.

Here’s a question for everyone to ponder.

As you know, the Moderna vaccine was developed in two days. The rest of the time after that was devoted to testing and production. Now, suppose it’s 2022 and we get hit with another coronavirus. Once again, the boffins develop a vaccine within two days. What’s more, they say that the new vaccine is structurally fairly similar to the COVID-19 vaccine, which means that it’s probably about as safe.

Probably. Maybe. Possibly.

So what do we do? Go through another nine months of testing? Or, given the vast death toll that’s likely without a vaccine, go immediately into production and start vaccinating people as soon as possible? If it turns out there are severe side effects, then stop and try something different.

I ask this because I don’t think it’s an unlikely scenario. We had SARS in 2003, MERS in 2012, and COVID-19 in 2019, which suggests that another coronavirus is likely to break out within the next decade. And given our experience with COVID-19, there’s going to be huge pressure to start a vaccination campaign as soon as possible. After all, what are the odds that even an untested vaccine could kill more people than an uncontrolled pandemic? And our experience with COVID-19 gives us a big leg up on how to quickly manufacture similar vaccines in large quantities.

Obviously the details matter here. How deadly is our hypothetical COVID-22? How similar is the vaccine to COVID-19? What’s the scientific consensus about its safety? Sometime in the next few years these might all turn out to be more than idle questions.

BEFORE YOU CLICK AWAY!

“Lying.” “Disgusting.” “Scum.” “Slime.” “Corrupt.” “Enemy of the people.” Donald Trump has always made clear what he thinks of journalists. And it’s plain now that his administration intends to do everything it can to stop journalists from reporting things they don’t like—which is most things that are true.

No one gets to tell Mother Jones what to publish or not publish, because no one owns our fiercely independent newsroom. But that also means we need to directly raise the resources it takes to keep our journalism alive. There’s only one way for that to happen, and it’s readers like you stepping up. Please help with a donation today if you can—even a few bucks will make a real difference. A monthly gift would be incredible.

payment methods

BEFORE YOU CLICK AWAY!

“Lying.” “Disgusting.” “Scum.” “Slime.” “Corrupt.” “Enemy of the people.” Donald Trump has always made clear what he thinks of journalists. And it’s plain now that his administration intends to do everything it can to stop journalists from reporting things they don’t like—which is most things that are true.

No one gets to tell Mother Jones what to publish or not publish, because no one owns our fiercely independent newsroom. But that also means we need to directly raise the resources it takes to keep our journalism alive. There’s only one way for that to happen, and it’s readers like you stepping up. Please help with a donation today if you can—even a few bucks will make a real difference. A monthly gift would be incredible.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate