top | item 25184437

(no title)

mcdowall | 5 years ago

The key differentiator here is the storage requirements (2-8c ‘normal refrigerator’).

That’s much more accessible to developing / low GDP countries as opposed the cumbersome and expensive storage requirements of the other two.

discuss

order

noneeeed|5 years ago

Yeah, the fact that this doesn't even need a freezer is great news.

The fact that we have three highly effective vaccines in such a short period is amazing and between them we might stand a chance of making and distributing them at the scale necessary to get things under some kind of control by August.

beagle3|5 years ago

The safety concerns cannot be resolved yet. Effective - yes. Safe? We won’t know for a while.

Pandemrix, a flu vaccine, caused a notable uptick in narcolepsy in Sweden, Finland and likely the UK. This was not (and could not) be seen in smaller trial populations.

It is not a given that any of the covid vaccines is safe enough. Historically, two cases of rushed vaccines (cutter polio and Gullah barre) were worse than the disease - and these were for diseases worse than covid. Those were 50-60 years ago. Pandemrix was 10-20. I’m not sure we’re that much better on safety now to rush vaccines.

jjeaff|5 years ago

I think the cold storage issues are a bit overblown.

Apparently the pfizer and Moderna vaccines will keep for 30 days at refrigerator temps after thawing out. You can ship in dry ice and then I can't imagine the vaccine sitting around in any doctors office or pharmacy for longer than 30 days.

throwawayiionqz|5 years ago

Another huge differentiator is price. At $3 to $4, many countries will jump on board ASAP and stay away from the expensive vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna.

ddeck|5 years ago

>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 deem the pandemic to be over, the price will likely rise.

It was reported a few months ago that internal AstraZeneca documents showed them projecting the "Pandemic Period" to end on 1 July 2021. [2]

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/21/health/covid-19-vaccine-c...

[2] https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/520202-astrazenecas-no...

bawolff|5 years ago

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

onetimemanytime|5 years ago

Price is not an issue for rich countries. 500 Million vaccines for USA leaving kids and some other out...cost, what $25 Billion? Peanuts, compared to the damage it did /can do. Same for USA, EU, Japan, CA, Australia etc.

wereHamster|5 years ago

What are the storage requirements for the other two?

dragontamer|5 years ago

-80C for Pfizer, and below 0 for the other one (I forget exactly).

-80C is really close to dry-ice temperatures. So I wonder if its actually -80C or if the researchers were just saying "Dry Ice".

singingfish|5 years ago

-20c and -70c from what I remember

gumby|5 years ago

The key differentiator is the mechanism of action, not the storage system.

The other two current candidates are mRNA vaccines, an approach which hasn't been used in humans before -- looks like the harbinger of a revolution but we have no past experience.

This O/AZ uses the actual spike protein embedded in a simian virus (that does not affect humans and has its own DNA removed). It's possible to generate antibodies to the vehicle (virus) which is why a simian virus is used (humans won't already have encountered it) but also means your own immune system could target the vaccine itself. Loewe speculates that this is why the higher dose was less effective.

jeromegv|5 years ago

The storage system is important and a key differentiator, tons of countries cannot effectively distribute a virus at -70° to population in the most vulnerable spots. I don't know why you felt the need to be so dismissive.

stingraycharles|5 years ago

What does this imply? Is the approach by Oxford worse, or just more well known / less surprises? Does this mean that dosing the vaccination is somehow more difficult?

Sorry I’m a total noob in this area.

nbevans|5 years ago

I'd argue that it is more accessible to everyone including developed nations. It only requires a standard technology freezer - like that you have in a residential home. COVID-19 has already cost the UK hundreds of billions, so being able to roll out a vaccine with minimum hassle and without needing specialist storage and training on its handling, is an absolutely enormous benefit.

Honestly I feel like this vaccine is going to leave the mRNA-based vaccines trailing in its wake in terms of global government adoption.

Ciantic|5 years ago

Moderna's vaccine can be stored in normal refrigerator (at 2 to 8 degrees Celsius) for 30 days. It also can be freezed for longer storage. [1]

However for developing world the prices becomes the issue, so you are probably right, this vaccine is cheaper and thus more available.

[1]: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/11/moderna-e...

kul_|5 years ago

Moderna vaccine also seems to have similar storage requirements with a high price tag. BioNTech otoh has impractical storage requirements for the third world. AstraZenca's price and storage combiation may open possibilities for distributing this globally.