5 ms·

Ending a contract would encourage them to do more R&D for more future contracts. Don't subsidize drugs/vaccines that don't work. There are 100+ vaccines being

Ending a contract would encourage them to do more R&D for more future contracts. Don't subsidize drugs/vaccines that don't work. There are 100+ vaccines being worked on. We're fine.

elliekelly 5y ago
> Don't subsidize drugs/vaccines that don't work. Why not? Funding vaccine research seems a worthy endeavor even if some of the research doesn’t pan out. The end result doesn’t need to be an immediately usable vaccine in order for the time & money spent to be worthwhile. Even a completely failed vaccine project could yield a piece of information that helps ensure the next project doesn’t fail.
- Daho0n 5y ago
  Yes but funding the research and buying vaccines that doesn't work or won't be used for whatever reason is not the same thing though. You can help fund research without buying the vaccine. It would be quite the waste to buy stuff just to throw it out.
- bluGill 5y ago
  There are different levels of research. Right not Adrenovirus vaccines need to go back to the lab and figure out this clotting issue. Maybe they can, maybe they can't, either way this is a basic research question that needs only a tiny amount of research money. More importantly, that money needs to be spread over a few years. Most of the vast amounts of research funding given isn't really research, it is scaling up production - a much harder problem that needs much more money. Since we now know of some issues (that would be very hard to find before a large scale roll out - lets not put undeserved fault on anyone here) the labs can focus on them.
- tertius 5y ago
  > Why not? Because money is finite? Not every research grant gets funded. So let's start with the most promising ones? Funding vaccines that are not meeting standards should be dropped so that standards can be met. These companies don't need money for R&D, they have enough and can recoup it if they create a product that the market wants.
thu2111 5y ago
But AstraZeneca does work. The idea it doesn't is a fiction peddled by French and German political leaders, it's not based in science.
- rocqua 5y ago
  And this can be clearly seen in the UK covid numbers!
- krzyk 5y ago
  It works, but has inferior efficacy compared to mRNA vaccines. Same for J&J. If you have a choice, why get AZ? More over second shot is 3 months away, for mRNA it is at most 42 days away. J&J has one shot, that has efficacy lower event than AZ. US is vaccinated mostly using mRNA (because AZ took long to approve and J&J came at that time, but is now blocked). In my country we have the most amount of Pfizer vaccine, AZ screwed us and didn't deliver so why bother with almost non-existent vaccine that has lower efficacy? J&J delivered todays some vaccines, but I assume it won't do it anymore as it waits to see what happens with clothing.
  - tblt 5y ago
    It's my understanding that efficacy cannot be directly compared like this, as it's a function of what variants were around during the trial, amongst other things. I believe Vice produced a good video on this recently. Importantly, don't all vaccines currently authorised have 100% protection against death from COVID-19? Edit: it was Vox, not Vice, and the video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3odScka55A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3odScka55A
gnfargbl 5y ago
> Don't subsidize drugs/vaccines that don't work. Both AZ and J&J have been proven effective. They clearly work. It might not be politically expedient for the EU Commission to emphasize that fact, but it is true nevertheless.
- krzyk 5y ago
  They work, but at least AZ is working hard to NOT deliver vaccines to EU. (and sending those manufactured in EU to the UK). Remember when Italians found 15M vaccines at the factory? I don't know why AZ representatives aren't prosecuted for such behavior of the company. So I think it is a good call to wait for the contract to end. BTW. Work at ~72%, mRNAs are at ~91%. What would you choose if you had both at the table? And what would you choose if you have the 91% at the table and 72% one in the other room?
  - makomk 5y ago
    The 15 million vaccines which the EU and Italy claimed were some secret shipment to the UK without any basis, and actually turned out to be part of their already publicly announced deliveries to the EU and South America (with the latter being vaccines of non-EU origin which they were just packaging)? Those 15 million vaccines? There's been some astoundingly dodgy political narrative-pushing against AZ.
    - krzyk 5y ago
      I didn't write it was a secret shipment to the UK. Just that they have hidden 15M doses, that could be used to protect lives. And considering that they were obligated to provide few M of vaccines to EU countries makes it a good case against AZ. Is reducing the total amount of vaccines to EU from 500M to 200M in the whole 2021 also a dodgy political narrative against AZ?
  - IAmEveryone 5y ago
    "The food is terrible, and the portions much too small".

Ending a contract would encourage them to do more R&D for more future contracts. Don't subsidize drugs/vaccines that don't work. There are 100+ vaccines being worked on. We're fine.

elliekelly 5y ago

> Don't subsidize drugs/vaccines that don't work. Why not? Funding vaccine research seems a worthy endeavor even if some of the research doesn’t pan out. The end result doesn’t need to be an immediately usable vaccine in order for the time & money spent to be worthwhile. Even a completely failed vaccine project could yield a piece of information that helps ensure the next project doesn’t fail.

Daho0n 5y ago
Yes but funding the research and buying vaccines that doesn't work or won't be used for whatever reason is not the same thing though. You can help fund research without buying the vaccine. It would be quite the waste to buy stuff just to throw it out.
bluGill 5y ago
There are different levels of research. Right not Adrenovirus vaccines need to go back to the lab and figure out this clotting issue. Maybe they can, maybe they can't, either way this is a basic research question that needs only a tiny amount of research money. More importantly, that money needs to be spread over a few years. Most of the vast amounts of research funding given isn't really research, it is scaling up production - a much harder problem that needs much more money. Since we now know of some issues (that would be very hard to find before a large scale roll out - lets not put undeserved fault on anyone here) the labs can focus on them.
tertius 5y ago
> Why not? Because money is finite? Not every research grant gets funded. So let's start with the most promising ones? Funding vaccines that are not meeting standards should be dropped so that standards can be met. These companies don't need money for R&D, they have enough and can recoup it if they create a product that the market wants.

thu2111 5y ago

But AstraZeneca does work. The idea it doesn't is a fiction peddled by French and German political leaders, it's not based in science.

rocqua 5y ago
And this can be clearly seen in the UK covid numbers!
krzyk 5y ago
It works, but has inferior efficacy compared to mRNA vaccines. Same for J&J. If you have a choice, why get AZ? More over second shot is 3 months away, for mRNA it is at most 42 days away. J&J has one shot, that has efficacy lower event than AZ. US is vaccinated mostly using mRNA (because AZ took long to approve and J&J came at that time, but is now blocked). In my country we have the most amount of Pfizer vaccine, AZ screwed us and didn't deliver so why bother with almost non-existent vaccine that has lower efficacy? J&J delivered todays some vaccines, but I assume it won't do it anymore as it waits to see what happens with clothing.
- tblt 5y ago
  It's my understanding that efficacy cannot be directly compared like this, as it's a function of what variants were around during the trial, amongst other things. I believe Vice produced a good video on this recently. Importantly, don't all vaccines currently authorised have 100% protection against death from COVID-19? Edit: it was Vox, not Vice, and the video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3odScka55A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3odScka55A

gnfargbl 5y ago

> Don't subsidize drugs/vaccines that don't work. Both AZ and J&J have been proven effective. They clearly work. It might not be politically expedient for the EU Commission to emphasize that fact, but it is true nevertheless.

krzyk 5y ago
They work, but at least AZ is working hard to NOT deliver vaccines to EU. (and sending those manufactured in EU to the UK). Remember when Italians found 15M vaccines at the factory? I don't know why AZ representatives aren't prosecuted for such behavior of the company. So I think it is a good call to wait for the contract to end. BTW. Work at ~72%, mRNAs are at ~91%. What would you choose if you had both at the table? And what would you choose if you have the 91% at the table and 72% one in the other room?
- makomk 5y ago
  The 15 million vaccines which the EU and Italy claimed were some secret shipment to the UK without any basis, and actually turned out to be part of their already publicly announced deliveries to the EU and South America (with the latter being vaccines of non-EU origin which they were just packaging)? Those 15 million vaccines? There's been some astoundingly dodgy political narrative-pushing against AZ.
  - krzyk 5y ago
    I didn't write it was a secret shipment to the UK. Just that they have hidden 15M doses, that could be used to protect lives. And considering that they were obligated to provide few M of vaccines to EU countries makes it a good case against AZ. Is reducing the total amount of vaccines to EU from 500M to 200M in the whole 2021 also a dodgy political narrative against AZ?
- IAmEveryone 5y ago
  "The food is terrible, and the portions much too small".