12 ms·

Another huge differentiator is price. At $3 to $4, many countries will jump on board ASAP and stay away from the expensive vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna.

bawolff 6y ago
Maybe for less developed countries, but i think for major economies, the price difference is insignificant relative to the benefits of any vaccine.
- dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
  If they actually get to 90% or more, why would anyone bother with the more expensive and cumbersome vaccines? Except that the EU already signed a deal to buy the vaccines from AstraZeneca, Sanofi and Johnson & Johnson.
  - bawolff 6y ago
    Because there is only so much to go around in the initial stages, so they will buy whichever one is available to them. The 10x increase in price is peanuts compared to the ecconomic benefits of getting more people vaccinated sooner. Additionally, lots of countries have already preordered all the major candidates, so in those cases its already spent money.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - ulfw 6y ago
    Because 95% efficacy is twice as good as 90%. And some people are willing to pay the $30 it costs to be 5% likelihood to have a non-functioning vaccine vs. a 10% likelihood the vaccine you just got won't work on you.
    - xiphias2 6y ago
      Also so far the mRNA vaccines look to have less side effects. AstraZeneca is not doing charity, it's cheaper because they have the inferior vaccine.
      - Zenbit_UX 6y ago
        Fool, they literally are doing charity as they've pledged not to profit from the pandemic. It's was stated multiple times in the article that they will sell it at cost in perpetuity to poor and mid income countries and until the pandemic is considered over in rich countries.
        dash2 6y ago
        This would be fine, but delete "fool".
        triangleman 6y ago
        It's all right, he'll live
        xiphias2 6y ago
        Sure, maybe I just don't understand this whole charity thing. When governments can print trillions of dollars to ,,help the people in the pandemic'', why a few tens of billions of dollars matter when real companies with real experts are doing real work all day and night without sleeping. Instead of buying back bonds, governments should pay companies that help in this situation.
    - StavrosK 6y ago
      Aren't people worried about the fact that mRNA vaccines haven't been deployed before? I don't see much apprehension about that generally, but a few months of testing of a brand new delivery technique don't sound that extensive to me.
      - nemo44x 6y ago
  - cdash 6y ago
    Because even with all 3 vaccines we still don't have the supply needed to vaccinate everyone immediately.
    - dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
      Honestly, why would any 1st world country "vaccinate everyone immediately"? Wouldn't it be more prudent for a rich country to wait until 3rd world countries vaccinate first in order to see what the side effects actually are? Not to mention the fact that we know nothing about potential long-term side-effects.
  - andylynch 6y ago
    Especially in the next few months, supply of all of these will be limited by production capacity and supply chains. Having multiple available means more doses can be delivered sooner.
  - thehappypm 6y ago
    The mRNA vaccines are better and protect more people. AZ leaves 10% unprotected, mRNA leaves 5%. That's a big difference if trying to get to herd immunity.
- markvdb 6y ago
  As I understand it, whatever gets us to herd immunity more quickly is the best solution. That probably means a mix of both heavily tilted to the Oxford one. This vaccine is cheap, 90% efficient and easy to get people vaccinated. The other ones are expensive, 95% efficient and difficult to get people vaccinated.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    No, it means deploy everything we have as fast as we can. If we have a choice prefer the mRNA vaccines as they seem to be more effective. If you are in a city with cold storage abilities (most have this already, though how much...) the Pfizer is better, but only to reserve the Moderna vaccine for those who don't live so close to cold storage. The Oxford is best only if you either live in a very remote place, or are a very poor place. If you rely on the oxford vaccine it will be a little longer to get herd immunity, but overall your costs will be cheaper. But I must reemphasize, the above is only about logistics. Because most people live in cities, all vaccines will be distributed in big cities just to get the numbers they need. What ever vaccine you are offered first is the one to take. You personally are unlikely to be offered a choice other than take it or leave it.
- elmo2you 6y ago
  While for now just speculation and without a doubt Machiavellian, it could be that this price difference ends up a significant factor for major economies in their choice for an expensive vaccine. I guess we will know, if/when/once examples of individual discrimination based on what vaccine people received start emerging (hopefully, never). Regretfully, it would be not the first example of major economies using the current reality as an excuse/cover to conveniently push political policies/agendas that would otherwise have been impossible to implement (at least not without violating laws/treaties and maybe even basic human rights). I have no intention to fear monger, but I believe way too many are too naive about some of the things that are currently happening. That is, mostly people within those major economies, for people in less fortunate countries already learned the hard way how double-faced those major economies turned out. How all this will eventually turn out ... anyone's guess is as good as mine. I guess we will all learn, when the immediate emergency of the current situation is over. I would prefer to be/remain optimistic, but thus far there appear to be more reasons for caution and skepticism (at best).
  - bawolff 6y ago
    What? I've read this 3 times and can't figure out what you're trying to say. Are you saying that rich countries are going to intentionally choose more expensive vaccines, with the intention of suppressing the lower classes? That's so rediculous. In rich countries (other than the usa) the gov pays for these things not the citizens. Even then, the expensive vaccine is only $40, that's within the means of most poor people. Not to mention that would screw over the rich people who want to benefit from (vaccine induced) heard immunity.
    - elmo2you 6y ago
      Fascinating ... > .. the gov pays for these things not the citizens .. You do know that the only money governments have, is the money they got from its citizens, right? That is, aside from what they may have earned (though plundered or extorted might be more fitting) from other nations. > .. the expensive vaccine is only $40, that's within the means of most poor people .. You may want to reevaluate your knowledge about the rest of the world. That is, outside the USA and some the more affluent parts of Europe. Also, that vaccine probably won't cost "just" $40 equally for everyone. However, believe whatever you want. Time will no doubt teach us all a lessen. Personally, I hope it will teach me that I was wrong with my skepticism.
ddeck 6y ago
>At $3 to $4, many countries will jump on board ASAP and stay away from the expensive vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. The price difference will likely remain substantial, but in case anyone is unaware, the difference is currently greater due to AstraZeneca pledging to the sell the vaccine at cost "during the pandemic", while Pfizer and Moderna have indicated that they fully intend to profit. [1] Once AstraZeneca deem the pandemic to be over, the price will likely rise. It was reported a few months ago that internal AstraZeneca documents showed them projecting the "Pandemic Period" to end on 1 July 2021. [2] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/21/health/covid-19-vaccine-coronavirus-moderna-pfizer.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/21/health/covid-19-vaccine-c... [2] https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/520202-astrazenecas-no-profit-pledge-for-vaccine-has-expiration-date-report https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/520202-astrazenecas-no...
- bleepblorp 6y ago
  Any government that fails to vacate the relevant patents and mass produce the vaccines at-cost will have failed its citizens. Allowing Pharma shareholders to profiteer from this disaster is completely unacceptable. Pay them their costs and not one cent more.
  - postingawayonhn 6y ago
    I don't see why they shouldn't be able to make a fair profit.
    - alephu5 6y ago
      When things go the other way, society doesn't let them make a fair loss.
      - evandijk70 6y ago
        There are currently 54 vaccines being tested on humans. Getting the necessary data to obtain approval for human testing requires a lot of funding. Testing on humans requires a lot of funding. In the end, maybe 4 vaccines will be used. Do you think the companies that produced and tested the ~50 vaccines that will not be used will get their investment back?
guilamu 6y ago
Would you mind to add a source for those price estimates? Thanks! Edit: just found a source here confirming what you said: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55040635 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55040635
onetimemanytime 6y ago
Price is not an issue for rich countries. 500 Million vaccines for USA leaving kids and some other out...cost, what $25 Billion? Peanuts, compared to the damage it did /can do. Same for USA, EU, Japan, CA, Australia etc.
- est31 6y ago
  Poor countries are hit by covid-19 as well. Those folks deserve a vaccine too. Even if you don't care about the Humanitarian side of this, the west benefits from that directly by not having giant reservoirs for the virus.
  - onetimemanytime 6y ago
    Plus, they travel to the rich countries.New vaccines are coming in. China will probably use their own, India will copy one and costs next to nothing. Donations will make sure everyone has one.
    - wobbly_bush 6y ago
      > India will copy one and costs next to nothing India's Serum Institute has already partnered to mass produce this vaccine. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/oxford-says-covid-19-vaccine-is-70-4-effective-tests-on-two-dose-regimens-show-it-could-be-90-according-to-interim-data-2328942 https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/oxford-says-covid-19-vaccine...

bawolff 6y ago

Maybe for less developed countries, but i think for major economies, the price difference is insignificant relative to the benefits of any vaccine.

dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
If they actually get to 90% or more, why would anyone bother with the more expensive and cumbersome vaccines? Except that the EU already signed a deal to buy the vaccines from AstraZeneca, Sanofi and Johnson & Johnson.
- bawolff 6y ago
  Because there is only so much to go around in the initial stages, so they will buy whichever one is available to them. The 10x increase in price is peanuts compared to the ecconomic benefits of getting more people vaccinated sooner. Additionally, lots of countries have already preordered all the major candidates, so in those cases its already spent money.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ulfw 6y ago
  Because 95% efficacy is twice as good as 90%. And some people are willing to pay the $30 it costs to be 5% likelihood to have a non-functioning vaccine vs. a 10% likelihood the vaccine you just got won't work on you.
  - xiphias2 6y ago
    Also so far the mRNA vaccines look to have less side effects. AstraZeneca is not doing charity, it's cheaper because they have the inferior vaccine.
    - Zenbit_UX 6y ago
      Fool, they literally are doing charity as they've pledged not to profit from the pandemic. It's was stated multiple times in the article that they will sell it at cost in perpetuity to poor and mid income countries and until the pandemic is considered over in rich countries.
      - dash2 6y ago
        This would be fine, but delete "fool".
        triangleman 6y ago
        It's all right, he'll live
      - xiphias2 6y ago
        Sure, maybe I just don't understand this whole charity thing. When governments can print trillions of dollars to ,,help the people in the pandemic'', why a few tens of billions of dollars matter when real companies with real experts are doing real work all day and night without sleeping. Instead of buying back bonds, governments should pay companies that help in this situation.
  - StavrosK 6y ago
    Aren't people worried about the fact that mRNA vaccines haven't been deployed before? I don't see much apprehension about that generally, but a few months of testing of a brand new delivery technique don't sound that extensive to me.
    - nemo44x 6y ago
- cdash 6y ago
  Because even with all 3 vaccines we still don't have the supply needed to vaccinate everyone immediately.
  - dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
    Honestly, why would any 1st world country "vaccinate everyone immediately"? Wouldn't it be more prudent for a rich country to wait until 3rd world countries vaccinate first in order to see what the side effects actually are? Not to mention the fact that we know nothing about potential long-term side-effects.
- andylynch 6y ago
  Especially in the next few months, supply of all of these will be limited by production capacity and supply chains. Having multiple available means more doses can be delivered sooner.
- thehappypm 6y ago
  The mRNA vaccines are better and protect more people. AZ leaves 10% unprotected, mRNA leaves 5%. That's a big difference if trying to get to herd immunity.
markvdb 6y ago
As I understand it, whatever gets us to herd immunity more quickly is the best solution. That probably means a mix of both heavily tilted to the Oxford one. This vaccine is cheap, 90% efficient and easy to get people vaccinated. The other ones are expensive, 95% efficient and difficult to get people vaccinated.
- bluGill 6y ago
  No, it means deploy everything we have as fast as we can. If we have a choice prefer the mRNA vaccines as they seem to be more effective. If you are in a city with cold storage abilities (most have this already, though how much...) the Pfizer is better, but only to reserve the Moderna vaccine for those who don't live so close to cold storage. The Oxford is best only if you either live in a very remote place, or are a very poor place. If you rely on the oxford vaccine it will be a little longer to get herd immunity, but overall your costs will be cheaper. But I must reemphasize, the above is only about logistics. Because most people live in cities, all vaccines will be distributed in big cities just to get the numbers they need. What ever vaccine you are offered first is the one to take. You personally are unlikely to be offered a choice other than take it or leave it.
elmo2you 6y ago
While for now just speculation and without a doubt Machiavellian, it could be that this price difference ends up a significant factor for major economies in their choice for an expensive vaccine. I guess we will know, if/when/once examples of individual discrimination based on what vaccine people received start emerging (hopefully, never). Regretfully, it would be not the first example of major economies using the current reality as an excuse/cover to conveniently push political policies/agendas that would otherwise have been impossible to implement (at least not without violating laws/treaties and maybe even basic human rights). I have no intention to fear monger, but I believe way too many are too naive about some of the things that are currently happening. That is, mostly people within those major economies, for people in less fortunate countries already learned the hard way how double-faced those major economies turned out. How all this will eventually turn out ... anyone's guess is as good as mine. I guess we will all learn, when the immediate emergency of the current situation is over. I would prefer to be/remain optimistic, but thus far there appear to be more reasons for caution and skepticism (at best).
- bawolff 6y ago
  What? I've read this 3 times and can't figure out what you're trying to say. Are you saying that rich countries are going to intentionally choose more expensive vaccines, with the intention of suppressing the lower classes? That's so rediculous. In rich countries (other than the usa) the gov pays for these things not the citizens. Even then, the expensive vaccine is only $40, that's within the means of most poor people. Not to mention that would screw over the rich people who want to benefit from (vaccine induced) heard immunity.
  - elmo2you 6y ago
    Fascinating ... > .. the gov pays for these things not the citizens .. You do know that the only money governments have, is the money they got from its citizens, right? That is, aside from what they may have earned (though plundered or extorted might be more fitting) from other nations. > .. the expensive vaccine is only $40, that's within the means of most poor people .. You may want to reevaluate your knowledge about the rest of the world. That is, outside the USA and some the more affluent parts of Europe. Also, that vaccine probably won't cost "just" $40 equally for everyone. However, believe whatever you want. Time will no doubt teach us all a lessen. Personally, I hope it will teach me that I was wrong with my skepticism.

ddeck 6y ago

>At $3 to $4, many countries will jump on board ASAP and stay away from the expensive vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. The price difference will likely remain substantial, but in case anyone is unaware, the difference is currently greater due to AstraZeneca pledging to the sell the vaccine at cost "during the pandemic", while Pfizer and Moderna have indicated that they fully intend to profit. [1] Once AstraZeneca deem the pandemic to be over, the price will likely rise. It was reported a few months ago that internal AstraZeneca documents showed them projecting the "Pandemic Period" to end on 1 July 2021. [2] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/21/health/covid-19-vaccine-coronavirus-moderna-pfizer.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/21/health/covid-19-vaccine-c... [2] https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/520202-astrazenecas-no-profit-pledge-for-vaccine-has-expiration-date-report https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/520202-astrazenecas-no...

bleepblorp 6y ago
Any government that fails to vacate the relevant patents and mass produce the vaccines at-cost will have failed its citizens. Allowing Pharma shareholders to profiteer from this disaster is completely unacceptable. Pay them their costs and not one cent more.
- postingawayonhn 6y ago
  I don't see why they shouldn't be able to make a fair profit.
  - alephu5 6y ago
    When things go the other way, society doesn't let them make a fair loss.
    - evandijk70 6y ago
      There are currently 54 vaccines being tested on humans. Getting the necessary data to obtain approval for human testing requires a lot of funding. Testing on humans requires a lot of funding. In the end, maybe 4 vaccines will be used. Do you think the companies that produced and tested the ~50 vaccines that will not be used will get their investment back?

guilamu 6y ago

Would you mind to add a source for those price estimates? Thanks! Edit: just found a source here confirming what you said: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55040635 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55040635

onetimemanytime 6y ago

Price is not an issue for rich countries. 500 Million vaccines for USA leaving kids and some other out...cost, what $25 Billion? Peanuts, compared to the damage it did /can do. Same for USA, EU, Japan, CA, Australia etc.

est31 6y ago
Poor countries are hit by covid-19 as well. Those folks deserve a vaccine too. Even if you don't care about the Humanitarian side of this, the west benefits from that directly by not having giant reservoirs for the virus.
- onetimemanytime 6y ago
  Plus, they travel to the rich countries.New vaccines are coming in. China will probably use their own, India will copy one and costs next to nothing. Donations will make sure everyone has one.
  - wobbly_bush 6y ago
    > India will copy one and costs next to nothing India's Serum Institute has already partnered to mass produce this vaccine. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/oxford-says-covid-19-vaccine-is-70-4-effective-tests-on-two-dose-regimens-show-it-could-be-90-according-to-interim-data-2328942 https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/oxford-says-covid-19-vaccine...