4 ms·
I think it's worth pulling out three points in particular from the article. One is that packaging choices (vial size) made to optimize mass vaccination are now
by icegreentea2 4y ago
I think it's worth pulling out three points in particular from the article.
One is that packaging choices (vial size) made to optimize mass vaccination are now somewhat of a hindrance. This isn't exactly unsurprising that packaging should have to evolve with the type of demand. I know that changing vial sizes probably would require the manufacturers to re-run all of their shelf-life and shipping validations. I wonder where they are along that process. One would have hoped that these validations would have been run earlier - the change in consumption patterns was somewhat predictable.
The other is that other countries are -refusing- vaccine donations. As it turns out, infrastructure and logistics constraints, as well as vaccine hestitancy continue to be a problem. Here's another article about that from earlier in 2022 (https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/22/africa-asks-covid-vaccine-donation-pause-00010667 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/22/africa-asks-covid-v...).
The article claims the US has a ~12% wastage rate. I'd argue that while that's not insignificant, if the rate can be held at 12% (big if to be fair...), that doesn't seem -that- bad. There's quite a lot of literature on vaccine wastage rates even prior to COVID. From what I've found, a 2.5%-5% wastage rate was considered normal for vaccines in steady-state use in developed countries, while flu vaccine wastage could potentially range from 5-40% (https://www.auditor.on.ca/en/content/annualreports/arreports/en14/304en14.pdf https://www.auditor.on.ca/en/content/annualreports/arreports... Figure 6).