A Comparison of Production, Efficacy, and Safety of mRNA and Conventional Vaccines

Abstract

This paper investigates the advantages and disadvantages of mRNA vaccines and conventional vaccines through a comparison of both, particularly in three areas: production, efficacy, and safety. Classical vaccines comprising of live-attenuated vaccines and inactivated vaccines. Live-attenuated vaccines use an attenuated version of the original pathogen whereas inactivated vaccines use inactivated germs. Messenger RNA vaccines, on the other hand, utilize mRNA containing the code for antigens. With this, the aim is to make cells build the antigens themselves. When these two are compared, it is seen that mRNA vaccines are faster to produce due to technological improvements. They are more effective than classical vaccines owing to the advancements in delivery systems. Moreover, they do not possess the risk of degradation of DNA or instability again due to technological development. On the other hand, inactivated vaccines are harder to produce because of developing cultures. They are not as effective as mRNA vaccines in SARS-CoV-2 and its mutations. Finally, live-attenuated vaccines have the probability of a reversion to the virulence of the natural germ. Thus, they cannot be given to people with weakened immunity. When all of these are considered, it has been concluded that mRNA vaccines have numerous advantages when compared to traditional vaccines.