3 ms·

I'm curious about the argument that giving too many boosters takes away the vaccine from "people in low and middle-income countries." Surely we have the capaci

I'm curious about the argument that giving too many boosters takes away the vaccine from "people in low and middle-income countries." Surely we have the capacity to make enough vaccines for everyone by now. It's just a matter of economics. Giving more boosters really shouldn't reduce supply, if there is money to make vaccines for everyone in the lower income countries, they will be made.

jimmyswimmy 5y ago
At some point the economics involves construction of a new facility, which is a pretty significant cost and, perhaps, only makes sense to a company if they expect there to be a persistent need for what they can produce in that facility. So, if company decision makers don't perceive that they can sell more vaccines, for a long time (many years), building a new factory will be off the table.
giantg2 5y ago
We don't have the capacity to vaccinate the whole world every 6 months.
- kittiepryde 5y ago
  https://launchandscalefaster.org/covid-19/vaccinemanufacturing https://launchandscalefaster.org/covid-19/vaccinemanufacturi... But, we could, at 12 billion doses a year already realizable, getting to 14+ isn't far fetched -- distribution and convincing people to take them would be much more challenging. I'm not which of distribution and cooperation is the hardest, but, manufacturing is certainly not the blocker.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    What's the date of that article? It seems old. I haven't heard of anyone talking about herd immunity at 70% since at least before delta. These other articles seem to say that it's not feasible in the short term and have a better count that is nor just projections based on past capacity. https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/04/health/andrew-pollard-booster-vaccines-feasibility-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/04/health/andrew-pollard-booster... https://www.barrons.com/articles/a-plan-to-break-the-vaccine-manufacturing-bottleneck-51621952245 https://www.barrons.com/articles/a-plan-to-break-the-vaccine...
- robbrown451 5y ago
  I would imagine we'd have the capacity to make as many vaccines as someone will pay for. Yes the factories have to be ramped up but that can be done quickly enough. If those low to middle income countries were offering big bucks for vaccines, the vaccine makers would have just put more resources on it. The only reason it might make sense that we should stop boosting because it is taking them away from people who need them more, is if the vaccine makers made more than needed, or built more capacity than needed, simply because they didn't anticipate hesitancy. It would be great if the US and other wealthy countries wanted to subsidize vaccines for poorer countries.... I mean, I'd vote for that. That just means we have less money, though, not fewer doses of vaccine. (and just to be clear, I'm not saying we should overdo it if there is no point. I'm just saying the article and the position of the WHO is not logical)
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Factories have already ramped up. Additional factories take about 5 years to build. With a constrained supply (from continual boosting), it is logical that the wealthy countries want to keep it for themselves rather than subsidize other countries. Hopefully they'll stop at 3 doses, as recommended, and then they can roll out to the poorer countries. https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/04/health/andrew-pollard-booster-vaccines-feasibility-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/04/health/andrew-pollard-booster... https://www.barrons.com/articles/a-plan-to-break-the-vaccine-manufacturing-bottleneck-51621952245 https://www.barrons.com/articles/a-plan-to-break-the-vaccine...
  - bagacrap 5y ago
    "as many as someone will pay for" doesn't contradict "we don't have the capacity". This is a capital allocation problem and dedicating 100% of the world gdp to vaccine production will not improve our overall health and prosperity.
    - robbrown451 5y ago
      But no one was suggesting " dedicating 100% of the world gdp" to vaccine production. I'm simply saying that using more boosters in wealthy countries in no way depletes the vaccine, or raises the prices for it, in poorer countries. I mean, would you agree that wealthy people buying more television sets does not in any way reduce the ability of poorer people to buy television sets?

jimmyswimmy 5y ago

At some point the economics involves construction of a new facility, which is a pretty significant cost and, perhaps, only makes sense to a company if they expect there to be a persistent need for what they can produce in that facility. So, if company decision makers don't perceive that they can sell more vaccines, for a long time (many years), building a new factory will be off the table.

giantg2 5y ago

We don't have the capacity to vaccinate the whole world every 6 months.

kittiepryde 5y ago
https://launchandscalefaster.org/covid-19/vaccinemanufacturing https://launchandscalefaster.org/covid-19/vaccinemanufacturi... But, we could, at 12 billion doses a year already realizable, getting to 14+ isn't far fetched -- distribution and convincing people to take them would be much more challenging. I'm not which of distribution and cooperation is the hardest, but, manufacturing is certainly not the blocker.
- giantg2 5y ago
  What's the date of that article? It seems old. I haven't heard of anyone talking about herd immunity at 70% since at least before delta. These other articles seem to say that it's not feasible in the short term and have a better count that is nor just projections based on past capacity. https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/04/health/andrew-pollard-booster-vaccines-feasibility-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/04/health/andrew-pollard-booster... https://www.barrons.com/articles/a-plan-to-break-the-vaccine-manufacturing-bottleneck-51621952245 https://www.barrons.com/articles/a-plan-to-break-the-vaccine...
robbrown451 5y ago
I would imagine we'd have the capacity to make as many vaccines as someone will pay for. Yes the factories have to be ramped up but that can be done quickly enough. If those low to middle income countries were offering big bucks for vaccines, the vaccine makers would have just put more resources on it. The only reason it might make sense that we should stop boosting because it is taking them away from people who need them more, is if the vaccine makers made more than needed, or built more capacity than needed, simply because they didn't anticipate hesitancy. It would be great if the US and other wealthy countries wanted to subsidize vaccines for poorer countries.... I mean, I'd vote for that. That just means we have less money, though, not fewer doses of vaccine. (and just to be clear, I'm not saying we should overdo it if there is no point. I'm just saying the article and the position of the WHO is not logical)
- giantg2 5y ago
  Factories have already ramped up. Additional factories take about 5 years to build. With a constrained supply (from continual boosting), it is logical that the wealthy countries want to keep it for themselves rather than subsidize other countries. Hopefully they'll stop at 3 doses, as recommended, and then they can roll out to the poorer countries. https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/04/health/andrew-pollard-booster-vaccines-feasibility-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/04/health/andrew-pollard-booster... https://www.barrons.com/articles/a-plan-to-break-the-vaccine-manufacturing-bottleneck-51621952245 https://www.barrons.com/articles/a-plan-to-break-the-vaccine...
- bagacrap 5y ago
  "as many as someone will pay for" doesn't contradict "we don't have the capacity". This is a capital allocation problem and dedicating 100% of the world gdp to vaccine production will not improve our overall health and prosperity.
  - robbrown451 5y ago
    But no one was suggesting " dedicating 100% of the world gdp" to vaccine production. I'm simply saying that using more boosters in wealthy countries in no way depletes the vaccine, or raises the prices for it, in poorer countries. I mean, would you agree that wealthy people buying more television sets does not in any way reduce the ability of poorer people to buy television sets?