Hacker News Reader

Comment by notacoward | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com