4 ms·
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
by 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 agoAlso 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 agoFool, 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 agoThis would be fine, but delete "fool".
- triangleman 6y agoIt's all right, he'll live
- xiphias2 6y agoSure, 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 agoAren'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 agoThe 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 agoOh 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 agoNo 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 agoYeah 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 agoIf 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 agoWe 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.