Last summer after reading about the avian flu vaccine being used on California condors to save them (vaccinations have finished, now they are monitoring), I came to the conclusion that there isn't widespread use of an avian flu vaccine because -
1. Similar to Marek's, a vaccinated but uninfected bird will show antibodies upon testing, which makes it indistinguishable from a non-vaccinated infected bird, and vaccinated birds can get infected but be fine with it and appear otherwise healthy.
2. A vaccine at this point can't be really specific because it mutates so much, and people want a magic bullet. For instance the human infections that are causing severe illness is a different genotype than the more common one infecting wild and domestic birds (so far). (Also, I read that people fear a more virulent strain developing if the virus encounters the vaccination. I'm thinking on this last point, that boat has sailed, vaccination or no.)
3. Cost. Maybe that should be #1 on the list.
Isn't partial protection still useful when a vaccine isn't matched exactly? At this point, a vaccine may be beneficial against what can be a severe disease. And so buy us and our birds time - don't viruses usually evolve to cause less severe disease over time, in order to more efficiently spread (by not quickly killing everyone it infects)?
So there is a conflcit in lines of thinking - vaccination of all domestic poultry and monitoring, which I think China does - versus the places/countries (U.S., E.U. etc) that are still attempting to control the spread of avian flu through quarantine and culling.
Maybe I'm off-base here, and I'll not post further on it if this is too sensitive, let me know. Also please correct any errors. But I see this as the same as a discussion about Marek's, and I don't see how our situation is pointing toward any other solution than widespread vaccination efforts, for both people and birds.
The beautiful Buckeyes sharing a moment, Summer 2023
View attachment 4023605