4 ms·

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 th

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
    The delivery technique relies on LNP (lipid nano particles) which is fairly refined and existing therapeutics use today. There are potential patent violations though (both Phizer and Moderna possibly violating Arbutus patent) but it’s unclear to me how this affects distribution.
    - StavrosK 6y ago
      Oh that's encouraging, thanks! It's great if it works well, as I understand it it's a potential gamechanger (cancer vaccines etc).
    - wbl 6y ago
      No judge in their right mind will grant an injunction when doing so will cost the lives of third parties. All the harms can be solved with a big check.
      - nemo44x 6y ago
        Yeah I'm not 100% familiar with the potential case here but I'd imagine it's in everyone's best interest to ensure that the medicine is not hindered in its ability to be manufactured and delivered and that the company that holds patents on the delivery vehicle (LNP) would be compensated justly. It isn't a new thing for what it's worth. Going back to earlier this year it has been looked at, but we don't really have a clear picture on what will shake out.
- headmelted 6y ago
  If we’re relying on solely getting immunity ourselves then we’re in really bad shape, although its not been well communicated. We need the vaccine to remove the virus from circulation, not just keep us safe from it as individuals.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    We don't have evidence that is possible. There have been vaccines in the past that protected without stopping spread. We think that the reasons that happened don't apply, but we don't know that.
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.

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
  The delivery technique relies on LNP (lipid nano particles) which is fairly refined and existing therapeutics use today. There are potential patent violations though (both Phizer and Moderna possibly violating Arbutus patent) but it’s unclear to me how this affects distribution.
  - StavrosK 6y ago
    Oh that's encouraging, thanks! It's great if it works well, as I understand it it's a potential gamechanger (cancer vaccines etc).
  - wbl 6y ago
    No judge in their right mind will grant an injunction when doing so will cost the lives of third parties. All the harms can be solved with a big check.
    - nemo44x 6y ago
      Yeah I'm not 100% familiar with the potential case here but I'd imagine it's in everyone's best interest to ensure that the medicine is not hindered in its ability to be manufactured and delivered and that the company that holds patents on the delivery vehicle (LNP) would be compensated justly. It isn't a new thing for what it's worth. Going back to earlier this year it has been looked at, but we don't really have a clear picture on what will shake out.
headmelted 6y ago
If we’re relying on solely getting immunity ourselves then we’re in really bad shape, although its not been well communicated. We need the vaccine to remove the virus from circulation, not just keep us safe from it as individuals.
- bluGill 6y ago
  We don't have evidence that is possible. There have been vaccines in the past that protected without stopping spread. We think that the reasons that happened don't apply, but we don't know that.

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.