3 ms·

If we are talking specifically about which vaccines were the first to get approved see here: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03441-8 https://www.natu

If we are talking specifically about which vaccines were the first to get approved see here: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03441-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03441-8 Prices here: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.statista.com/chart/amp/23658/reported-cost-per-dose-of-covid-19-vaccines/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.statista.com/chart/amp/2365... I don't have any interest in promoting a specific vaccine. Just disdain for skewed reporting. FYI there are multiple adenovirus-based vaccines available (Oxford/AstraZeneca, Sputnik V).

notacoward 6y ago
In other words, no, you don't have any links proving any such thing. Your own link shows that mRNA-based Pfizer/BioNTech was approved before adenovirus-based Oxford/AstraZeneca in the UK. Ditto in the US. When you claim that something true is not true, you are the one uttering untruth. Why would you then be surprised by downvotes?
- tigerBL00D 6y ago
  I don't know what you are talking about. Quoting from the first link above: China and Russia have approved vaccines already, but without waiting for the immunizations to complete the final round of tests in people. Regulators in the United States and the European Union are expected to issue their decisions in the coming weeks.
  - notacoward 6y ago
    > without waiting Not exactly running the same race then, are they? It's a very dubious definition of "first" and certainly not enough to say someone else's claim is false.