Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Vaccine hopes rise as Oxford jab prompts immune response among old and young

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 712 posts

Re: Vaccine hopes rise as Oxford jab prompts immune response among old and young

#201

Post by jleahy »

LandR wrote: post #181
ageitgey wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm assuming you also don't know if you got the active substance or a placebo? Yep. In the UK, they used an existing, unrelated vaccine with similar side effects as the control so it wasn't obvious which one you got. In some countries and for some of the other vaccine trials, they are just using saline as the control so it seems like a lot of those people would know.

> so it seems like a lot of those people would know. You can tell the difference in getting a vaccine shot and a shot of saline?

Yes, the vaccine you'll feel a bit rough for a few days after (potentially). The saline you won't.

Re: Vaccine hopes rise as Oxford jab prompts immune response among old and young

#202

Post by [deleted] »

LandR wrote: post #181
ageitgey wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm assuming you also don't know if you got the active substance or a placebo? Yep. In the UK, they used an existing, unrelated vaccine with similar side effects as the control so it wasn't obvious which one you got. In some countries and for some of the other vaccine trials, they are just using saline as the control so it seems like a lot of those people would know.

> so it seems like a lot of those people would know. You can tell the difference in getting a vaccine shot and a shot of saline?

[deleted]

Re: Vaccine hopes rise as Oxford jab prompts immune response among old and young

#203

Post by notankies »

eumenides1 wrote: post #170
apexalpha wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares. I'd gladly give this company a couple of billion if it means they can get us back to normal. Oxford develops the vaccine with public money. We also, god willing, need to manufacture billions of them and transport them around the globe. For that manufacturing, give me a solid existing multinational with a proven manufacturing record and base please, not some non-profit startup.

The point is that we should reconsider giving (temporary) monopolies to companies that are based public research. I suggest that we should give merek the for profit monopoly, but allow for non profit manufacturing. If another organization wants to make the vaccine but not derive profit from the process, let them. Manufacturing takes time and money to develop. Revenue should pay for those costs. The non-profit gains e…

Can someone explain profit motive to him? I'm too tired to be constantly educating people

Re: Vaccine hopes rise as Oxford jab prompts immune response among old and young

#204

Post by FrojoS »

zoobab wrote: post #116

Good news for US BigPharma Merck holding the Oxford patents, while public funding has paid for its research: https://archive.is/aGUJd

I'm sure they paid for the patent. From your linked article:

"Merck proposed giving Oxford around 1% of royalties, according to people familiar with the negotiations, with a sliver of that going to Vaccitech."

Re: Vaccine hopes rise as Oxford jab prompts immune response among old and young

#205

Post by samwillis »

zoobab wrote: post #116

Good news for US BigPharma Merck holding the Oxford patents, while public funding has paid for its research: https://archive.is/aGUJd

Could you please indicate where you heard that Merck has any ownership of the patents to the Oxford vaccine? The cited article indicates that it’s is AstraZeneca who have done a deal with Oxford and that the deal with Merch, while an early option, fell though.

Is would seem “US BigParma” are not involved, as AstraZeneca is a British/Swedish company.

Re: Vaccine hopes rise as Oxford jab prompts immune response among old and young

#206

Post by FrojoS »

MereInterest wrote: post #189
gambiting wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, for instance - public money is used to build roads, yet companies that build them make money in the process. There is no state-owned road building company. What's the difference here?

Public money pays for the roads. After the road is built, the road belongs to the public. Public money pays for the research. After the research finishes, the results should belong to the public, the same way as the road does.

The public can of course sell (i), charge (ii) or monetize in any other way.

(i) e.g. privatization of telephone networks

(ii) e.g. toll roads and bridges

Re: Vaccine hopes rise as Oxford jab prompts immune response among old and young

#207

Post by raverbashing »

LandR wrote: post #181
ageitgey wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm assuming you also don't know if you got the active substance or a placebo? Yep. In the UK, they used an existing, unrelated vaccine with similar side effects as the control so it wasn't obvious which one you got. In some countries and for some of the other vaccine trials, they are just using saline as the control so it seems like a lot of those people would know.

> so it seems like a lot of those people would know. You can tell the difference in getting a vaccine shot and a shot of saline?

You can

Some trials are going to use an unrelated vaccine as placebo (I think they're using a Meningitis one)

Re: Vaccine hopes rise as Oxford jab prompts immune response among old and young

#208

Post by fock »

tomp wrote: post #184
bufferoverflow wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I care. Just like about the bailouts. Socializing the funding/losses and privatizing the profits is just pure corruption.

If "we" gave you $20B to move a vaccine from proof-of-concept to production, could you do it? I know I couldn't... That's a service, it's worth money, it's worth paying for. Edit: people don't seem to understand that there are several stages in pharma development... (1) research, (2) trials, (3) scaling production. It sounds to me that even if (1) and (2) are "paid for" (with public money), (3) is still non-trivial a…

especially to the shareholders ... holding shares and getting dividends (and no, for a 100 year old company these people didn't invest at all in the business case. They invested in a financial product.)

Re: Vaccine hopes rise as Oxford jab prompts immune response among old and young

#209

Post by dageshi »

zoobab wrote: post #116

Good news for US BigPharma Merck holding the Oxford patents, while public funding has paid for its research: https://archive.is/aGUJd

If I'm reading everything correctly then they don't? The deal with Merck didn't go through and they don't have the Oxford vaccine?

Re: Vaccine hopes rise as Oxford jab prompts immune response among old and young

#210

Post by hobofan »

MereInterest wrote: post #189
gambiting wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, for instance - public money is used to build roads, yet companies that build them make money in the process. There is no state-owned road building company. What's the difference here?

Public money pays for the roads. After the road is built, the road belongs to the public. Public money pays for the research. After the research finishes, the results should belong to the public, the same way as the road does.

> After the road is built, the road belongs to the public.

Depending on where you live, you could very well be under the impression that the roads belong to delivery companies, taxis, etc. (private companies that make money off them) as they are effectively useless to everyone else (= the public) while they are constantly blocking them.

Post reply on HN