I’ve highlighted a few key points of interest in this 2015 paper on Coronaviruses. (link at bottom)
My opinion, based on what is in this section is that there is no vaccine coming because they know how difficult it is
to achieve safely, and if it it does come…
…not only does it easily have the potential to do more harm than good to the patient (no surprise here) but beyond that the live attenuated vaccine has the potential to create even MORE novel viruses in the wild by recombining in the human host.
They aren’t communicating these hurdles very clearly to the public.
It’s not just a matter of 12-18 months…
This is just bad news all around.
There are other goodies in this research paper that I will point out and add to the OP later but this is a start.
Coronaviruses. 2015; 1282: 1–23.
Published online 2015 Feb 12. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-2438-7_1
Coronaviruses: An Overview of Their Replication and Pathogenesis
Guest Editor (s): Helena Jane Maier,2 Erica Bickerton,3 and Paul Britton4
2The Pirbright Institute, Compton, United Kingdom
3The Pirbright Institute, Compton, United Kingdom
4The Pirbright Institute, Compton, United Kingdom
Only limited options are available to prevent coronavirus infections. Vaccines have only been approved for IBV, TGEV, and Canine CoV, but these vaccines are not always used because they are either not very effective, or in some cases have been reported to be involved in the selection of novel pathogenic CoVs via recombination of circulating strains. Vaccines for veterinary pathogens, such as PEDV, may be useful in such cases where spread of the virus to a new location could lead to severe losses of veterinary animals. In the case of SARS-CoV, several potential vaccines have been developed but none are yet approved for use. These vaccines include recombinant attenuated viruses, live virus vectors, or individual viral proteins expressed from DNA plasmids. Therapeutic SARS-CoV neutralizing antibodies have been generated and could be retrieved and used again in the event of another SARS-CoV outbreak. Such antibodies would be most useful for protecting healthcare workers. In general, it is thought that live attenuated vaccines would be the most efficacious in targeting coronaviruses. This was illustrated in the case of TGEV, where an attenuated variant, PRCV, appeared in Europe in the 1980s. This variant only caused mild disease and completely protected swine from TGEV. Thus, this attenuated virus has naturally prevented the reoccurrence of severe TGEV in Europe and the U.S. over the past 30 years [106]. Despite this success, vaccine development for coronaviruses faces many challenges [107]. First, for mucosal infections, natural infection does not prevent subsequent infection, and so vaccines must either induce better immunity than the original virus or must at least lessen the disease incurred during a secondary infection. Second, the propensity of the viruses to recombine may pose a problem by rendering the vaccine useless and potentially increasing the evolution and diversity of the virus in the wild [108]. Finally, it has been shown in FIPV that vaccination with S protein leads to enhanced disease [109]. Despite this, several strategies are being developed for vaccine development to reduce the likelihood of recombination, for instance by making large deletions in the nsp1 [110] or E proteins [111], rearranging the 3′ end of the genome [112], modifying the TRS sequences [113], or using mutant viruses with abnormally high mutation rates that significantly attenuate the virus [114].
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4369385/
h/t BFD