Hacker News Reader

Comment by dvfjsdhgfv | Hacker News Reader

If they actually get to 90% or more, why would anyone bother with the more expensive and cumbersome vaccines? Except that the EU already signed a deal to buy the vaccines from AstraZeneca, Sanofi and Johnson & Johnson.

View on HN

Especially in the next few months, supply of all of these will be limited by production capacity and supply chains. Having multiple available means more doses can be delivered sooner.

Because there is only so much to go around in the initial stages, so they will buy whichever one is available to them. The 10x increase in price is peanuts compared to the ecconomic benefits of getting more people vaccinated sooner.

Additionally, lots of countries have already preordered all the major candidates, so in those cases its already spent money.

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.

Also 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.

Aren'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.

The 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.

Oh that's encouraging, thanks! It's great if it works well, as I understand it it's a potential gamechanger (cancer vaccines etc).

No 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.

Yeah 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.

If 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.

We 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.

Because even with all 3 vaccines we still don't have the supply needed to vaccinate everyone immediately.

Honestly, why would any 1st world country "vaccinate everyone immediately"? Wouldn't it be more prudent for a rich country to wait until 3rd world countries vaccinate first in order to see what the side effects actually are? Not to mention the fact that we know nothing about potential long-term side-effects.

The mRNA vaccines are better and protect more people. AZ leaves 10% unprotected, mRNA leaves 5%. That's a big difference if trying to get to herd immunity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com