As I understand it, whatever gets us to herd immunity more quickly is the best solution. That probably means a mix of both heavily tilted to the Oxford one.
This vaccine is cheap, 90% efficient and easy to get people vaccinated. The other ones are expensive, 95% efficient and difficult to get people vaccinated.
No, it means deploy everything we have as fast as we can. If we have a choice prefer the mRNA vaccines as they seem to be more effective. If you are in a city with cold storage abilities (most have this already, though how much...) the Pfizer is better, but only to reserve the Moderna vaccine for those who don't live so close to cold storage.
The Oxford is best only if you either live in a very remote place, or are a very poor place. If you rely on the oxford vaccine it will be a little longer to get herd immunity, but overall your costs will be cheaper.
But I must reemphasize, the above is only about logistics. Because most people live in cities, all vaccines will be distributed in big cities just to get the numbers they need. What ever vaccine you are offered first is the one to take. You personally are unlikely to be offered a choice other than take it or leave it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
While for now just speculation and without a doubt Machiavellian, it could be that this price difference ends up a significant factor for major economies in their choice for an expensive vaccine. I guess we will know, if/when/once examples of individual discrimination based on what vaccine people received start emerging (hopefully, never).
Regretfully, it would be not the first example of major economies using the current reality as an excuse/cover to conveniently push political policies/agendas that would otherwise have been impossible to implement (at least not without violating laws/treaties and maybe even basic human rights). I have no intention to fear monger, but I believe way too many are too naive about some of the things that are currently happening. That is, mostly people within those major economies, for people in less fortunate countries already learned the hard way how double-faced those major economies turned out.
How all this will eventually turn out ... anyone's guess is as good as mine. I guess we will all learn, when the immediate emergency of the current situation is over. I would prefer to be/remain optimistic, but thus far there appear to be more reasons for caution and skepticism (at best).
I've read this 3 times and can't figure out what you're trying to say.
Are you saying that rich countries are going to intentionally choose more expensive vaccines, with the intention of suppressing the lower classes?
That's so rediculous. In rich countries (other than the usa) the gov pays for these things not the citizens. Even then, the expensive vaccine is only $40, that's within the means of most poor people.
Not to mention that would screw over the rich people who want to benefit from (vaccine induced) heard immunity.
> .. the gov pays for these things not the citizens ..
You do know that the only money governments have, is the money they got from its citizens, right? That is, aside from what they may have earned (though plundered or extorted might be more fitting) from other nations.
> .. the expensive vaccine is only $40, that's within the means of most poor people ..
You may want to reevaluate your knowledge about the rest of the world. That is, outside the USA and some the more affluent parts of Europe. Also, that vaccine probably won't cost "just" $40 equally for everyone.
However, believe whatever you want. Time will no doubt teach us all a lessen. Personally, I hope it will teach me that I was wrong with my skepticism.
I'm not sure why i'm replying here. Guess i'm bored.
> Time will no doubt teach us all a lessen.
I doubt it. You need to actually have a position that can be shown to be true or false with the passage of time before you can learn something from the passage of time. You have a bizare, logically disconnected, rant that does not make any predictions. I don't think any course of events would prove you right (or wrong).
> You may want to reevaluate your knowledge about the rest of the world
In context, we were discussing afluent countries, canada europe, etc.
> Also, that vaccine probably won't cost "just" $40 equally for everyone.
They will cost $0 directly. As you say there will be indirect costs based on taxes. However that will be true regardless of if you get the vaccine and be scaled based on your income, so im not sure how you think that applies to your argument sbout class divide.
Needs to be repeated again & again:
"Governments have no money of their own, it's citizens' (past, present and future - mostly the latter these days) who provide the cash via taxes".
This changes nothing. If anything it is wise for goverments to pay for vaccine because that means that economy will no longer be stifled by lockdowns and that means more money in taxes.
In any cases many governments already said they will provide vaccine for free.
This vaccine is cheap, 90% efficient and easy to get people vaccinated. The other ones are expensive, 95% efficient and difficult to get people vaccinated.