A Tennessee newspaper recently explored a baffling paradox that has emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Tens of millions of Americans have shunned getting vaccinated against the virus, claiming that the vaccines were rushed to production, weren’t sufficiently tested and could produce long-term side effects on their health.
None of these fears are supported by the scientific evidence, but they have taken root among the obstinate and the fearful. Their resistance has found plenty of reinforcement from the misinformation about vaccines spread on the internet and elsewhere and also by conservative TV commentators who disingenuously promote the anti-vax movement to build their ratings.
As the Nashville Tennessean points out, however, none of this fear or vituperation is directed at monoclonal antibody drugs, which have become a common treatment for the disease. The drugs, which are injected or infused in a person soon after symptoms of COVID-19 appear, have been widely accepted, including in states with low vaccination rates. They’re in such demand that federal officials have had to limit shipments so as to preserve supplies, even while vaccines get discarded because they expire before they can be used.
Monoclonal antibodies are safe and effective against COVID-19. It’s worth noting, however, that they have a lower stamp of approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration than does the Pfizer vaccine, and only the same as the other two vaccines authorized for emergency use in this country.
Monoclonal antibodies also are much more expensive than vaccines. The Tennesseean reports that the federal government is paying $2,100 per dose of the antibody drugs, about 100 times more than a dose of vaccine. Yet no one is arguing that promoting the use of monoclonal antibodies, which former President Donald Trump did early on after he was treated with them, is a scheme to enrich the drug companies.
Cost is not the only difference between the vaccines and monoclonal antibodies. So is their level of effectiveness. The antibody drugs work but are of temporary benefit. They shore up a body’s natural defenses against the virus, which can keep the illness from becoming too severe. They don’t train, however, the body’s immune system to respond effectively against the next infection or reduce the spread of the virus, as vaccines do.
Just as monoclonal antibodies have been embraced across political lines, the same will probably be true for the experimental COVID-19 pill developed by Merck, should it gain emergency FDA approval. The drugmaker announced Friday that the pill, in trial results, has been highly effective at reducing the severity of the disease among those who contract the virus.
It is just so strange, however, that drugs given after the onset of COVID-19 can be widely accepted, while those that could keep a person from getting sick in the first place are vilified in some corners.
A Nashville trauma surgeon compared the dissonance to those who, citing personal liberty, refuse to follow seat belt laws, but they have no problems with invasive surgery, which could have been avoided if they had only buckled up.
It may not be a perfect comparison, but it’s not a bad one.
— Tim Kalich, Greenwood Commonwealth
