Hacker News Reader

Comment by tigerBL00D | Hacker News Reader

Unlike this relatively new approach adenovirus-based vaccines have been researched and used for over 50 years (350 studies) [1]. An Ebola vaccine has been developed using this same tech.

This is certainly important and impressive work, but the title is inaccurate stating these are the "the first" vaccines. These are definitely the most expensive ones and made for the first word countries with developed and reliable infrastructure able to meet storage requirements. So in some ways they are the first indeed.

1: https://sputnikvaccine.com/about-vaccine/human-adenoviral-va...

View on HN

Approval is one thing involving a whole world of bureaucracy. But the Moderna vaccine was designed by January 13, 2020 and took just 2 days. 2 days plus decades of prior research... This was before the first identified case in the US and in fact before China or the WTO recognised that it could be transmitted between humans.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/12/moderna-covid-19-vac...

Oh, interesting, I didn't realize. This is a faster timeline indeed compared to Sputnik V which was registered in May 2020, and I don't know the date for the Oxford/AstraZeneca one.

Do you have a link to information about an adenovirus-based COVID vaccine developed and/or approved earlier, at any price point? Without such, the "first" claim is accurate and your disputation is counterfactual. Also, please disclose the nature of any personal stake in promoting one over the other.

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

Prices here: 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).

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?

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.

> 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.

P.S. Not sure why the downvotes without any comments. Did I write something factually inaccurate? But then again it's not surprising because vaccine conversation in some parts of the world (e.g. the US) is shaped predominantly by business interests and politics, not facts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com