Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine • Hacker News Board

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#171

Post by ggm » Mon, Nov 23, 2020, 10:13 AM UTC

pja wrote: post #150

ggm wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

70% efficacy at 2c-8c storage for $4 is indeed excellent but many comments here go to "but modena is 95% efficacy whyyyy" and "they're underselling it"

They also tried 2 different dose regimens, one of which had 90% efficacy. The 70% figure is the weighted mean of the two I think.

I would far rather we report 70% and find its more effective than we report is up to 90% effective but in field deployment find its less. A 70% vaccine at wide scale release can keep R under 1.0

1/5th the price, and no need for freezers. This vaccine is huge. I pray for more like this.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#172

Post by Scandiravian » Mon, Nov 23, 2020, 10:13 AM UTC

aquadrop wrote: post #144

erikstarck wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will you then also pay those who put huge effort and expense in to research that was perhaps necessary but didn't lead anywhere?

Is there somewhere any numbers on how much exactly does it cost? What portion is really "research" and what portion is marketing budget? How much trial phase 1/2/3 cost etc?

When I studied pharmaceutical sciences ten years ago, the rule-of-thumb was that it cost around 1 billion dollars from idea to the product being launched. That's only r&d costs and regulations have become stricter over the years, so I imagine the cost has risen since then

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#173

Post by tcptomato » Mon, Nov 23, 2020, 10:13 AM UTC

postingawayonhn wrote: post #129

bleepblorp wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I don't see why they shouldn't be able to make a fair profit.

what's you definition of fair? What the market would bear?

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#174

Post by pietjepuk88 » Mon, Nov 23, 2020, 10:15 AM UTC

bawolff wrote: post #111

rusticpenn wrote: post #17

Correct me if I am wrong, Oxford uses traditional Vaccine design technique (using a weaker virus and adding spikes or something similar) while Biontech(Pfizer) and ModeRNA use MRNA which is completely new technique (messenger RNA). This is awesome for more than just vaccinations. Traditionally the groups allocating govt funding to science and industries are very risk averse and this could be one more example where ta…

I thought adenoviral vaccines were also relatively new. Not as new as mRNA which is bleeding edge, but still i think this would be the first time this technique would be approved for human use should it be approved.

If I remember correctly, the Ebola vaccine is the first approved vaccine to use another virus as a vector. The first one to be approved (by Merck) does not use an adenovirus, but the second approved one (by J&J) does.

Note that approvals of these were late 2019 and the summer of this year. So still very new from an "approved on humans" point of view (although not _as_ new as mRNA-based vaccines). The techniques have both been in development for years and years of course, including determining their safety profiles.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#175

Post by ggm » Mon, Nov 23, 2020, 10:15 AM UTC

tomarr wrote: post #136

ggm wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The statistical difference between 25,000 and 43,000 samples being... small. Basically, any effect visible at less than 2 in 40,000 might be missed by the 25,000 test. Seriously, do you think this is a huge difference in quality of measurements?

The bigger dependent will be the prevalence of COVID during the trial (time, location and population sensitive)

Does that go to qualitative differences from a quantitative variance of half (or double, depending on what you focus on) sample size?

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#176

Post by andylynch » Mon, Nov 23, 2020, 10:15 AM UTC

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #75

bawolff wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe for less developed countries, but i think for major economies, the price difference is insignificant relative to the benefits of any vaccine.

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.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#177

Post by refurb » Mon, Nov 23, 2020, 10:17 AM UTC

bleepblorp wrote: post #126

ddeck wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>At $3 to $4, many countries will jump on board ASAP and stay away from the expensive vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. The price difference will likely remain substantial, but in case anyone is unaware, the difference is currently greater due to AstraZeneca pledging to the sell the vaccine at cost "during the pandemic", while Pfizer and Moderna have indicated that they fully intend to profit. [1] Once AstraZeneca de…

[flagged]

I’m sure you’d be willing to play that game? Let’s say your job becomes “essential”. The company pays your costs (rent, food) and nothing more. I mean, to “profit” is unacceptable.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#178

Post by steerablesafe » Mon, Nov 23, 2020, 10:17 AM UTC

bleepblorp wrote: post #126

ddeck wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>At $3 to $4, many countries will jump on board ASAP and stay away from the expensive vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. The price difference will likely remain substantial, but in case anyone is unaware, the difference is currently greater due to AstraZeneca pledging to the sell the vaccine at cost "during the pandemic", while Pfizer and Moderna have indicated that they fully intend to profit. [1] Once AstraZeneca de…

[flagged]

That would be a great way to disincentivize vaccine research for the next major pandemic.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#179

Post by andylynch » Mon, Nov 23, 2020, 10:18 AM UTC

sjwright wrote: post #167

_Wintermute wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

-80C is just a pretty standard cold storage temperature in science. I'd imagine they tested stability at 4C, -20C and liquid nitrogen as well.

The notion of distributing a billion copies of a vaccine at -80°C to every corner of the planet seems rather resource intensive.

It is, especially for far flung places. This stable vaccine will be very useful in places like the pacific islands, where air transport isn’t always an option.

Re: Oxford University breakthrough on global COVID-19 vaccine

#180

Post by refurb » Mon, Nov 23, 2020, 10:19 AM UTC

aquadrop wrote: post #144

erikstarck wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will you then also pay those who put huge effort and expense in to research that was perhaps necessary but didn't lead anywhere?

Is there somewhere any numbers on how much exactly does it cost? What portion is really "research" and what portion is marketing budget? How much trial phase 1/2/3 cost etc?

I talked to a bunch of CROs about the cost of Phase 3 trials. It varies, but is roughly $10,000 to $15,000 per patient year.

Pfizer’s trial will run for 2 years, so ~$900M for the trial alone. That’s excluding all the work to scale up the production, regulatory filing, distribution, etc.

Edit: my math sucks. $900M, not $90M