Coronavirus

[Jocephus]

[mikechamp]

I'd be curious to understand why the double dose protocol was put in place to begin with. Sure, the booster makes sense from a theory background, two is better than one if it works, I guess. But, why did they originally think the booster was necessary? If the goal is to introduce the s protein such that the body would recognize it and form an immune response, one would think one dose would be sufficient. But, it's way above my head so who knows. They also could have, perhaps, thought in order to ensure success given the immediate need for the vaccines, it was best to put their most comprehensive protocol in place which would include two doses.

I have a theory: They may have been taking a calculated risk on the overall effectiveness of the vaccine and general public acceptance.

Since we live in a soundbyte world, consider these two headlines:

Brand X vaccine found to be 85% effective

Brand X vaccine found to be 95% effective

On the first one, you probably say, "Hey, that's pretty good."

On the latter, you probably say, "Wow! They really nailed that one!"

[Jocephus]

dont trust brand x

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

I'd be curious to understand why the double dose protocol was put in place to begin with. Sure, the booster makes sense from a theory background, two is better than one if it works, I guess. But, why did they originally think the booster was necessary? If the goal is to introduce the s protein such that the body would recognize it and form an immune response, one would think one dose would be sufficient. But, it's way above my head so who knows. They also could have, perhaps, thought in order to ensure success given the immediate need for the vaccines, it was best to put their most comprehensive protocol in place which would include two doses.

I have a theory: They may have been taking a calculated risk on the overall effectiveness of the vaccine and general public acceptance.

Since we live in a soundbyte world, consider these two headlines:

Brand X vaccine found to be 85% effective

Brand X vaccine found to be 95% effective

On the first one, you probably say, "Hey, that's pretty good."

On the latter, you probably say, "Wow! They really nailed that one!"

I was kind of thinking that as well. Plus, it buys them an additional 3 weeks for the first dose to 'activate'. So they delay the start of the clock an additional three weeks. IIRC, they started collecting data two weeks after the second dose which is 5 weeks after the first dose.

I mean, really, they had one shot to nail it so it makes sense to put the best foot forward, so to speak, even if scientifically it wasn't the most pragmatic approach.

Oh well.

[GeddyWrox]

I'm sure selling 2x the doses doesn't hurt either.

[mikechamp]

I'm sure selling 2x the doses doesn't hurt either.

That crossed my mind, but when the market is as big as it is already, I would hope they would simply be looking to get a solid vaccine out in the market and be known for helping solve a global problem. That kind of positive PR is incredibly hard to buy.

[GeddyWrox]

I'm sure selling 2x the doses doesn't hurt either.

That crossed my mind, but when the market is as big as it is already, I would hope they would simply be looking to get a solid vaccine out in the market and be known for helping solve a global problem. That kind of positive PR is incredibly hard to buy.

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that was their driving force for the 2 dose approach. I'm sure in the crunch of rushing to come up with a successful approach, they decided it was most expedient to over-deliver than under-deliver. But I'm also sure they weren't sitting in the board room saying, "What a shame that we'll have to sell 600,000,000 doses instead of 300,000,000."

[cardinalkarp]

Boy oh boy, you guys are being really naive if you don’t think these companies see this vaccine as a cash cow.

They’d have people taking as many doses as possible if it was viable.

[mikechamp]

The vaccine was a huge gamble for them. If they got it right, it was the biggest market they'd ever seen. Get it out first, and you're printing your own money.

Get it wrong, and it would have been a huge loss. Now, they're used to losing gambles. It comes with the territory. But this would have been a big one, because of all the hours and OT put into the effort.

Get to market 2nd, or later, or have a not-very-effective vaccine, and the sales projections shrink by varying degrees.

And yes, I know some got money through Warp Speed, but government fronting the money was exactly what needed to be done. Not every pharma company has the R&D budget of Pfizer. If you leave it to one or two drug manufacturers, then it could have taken a lot longer to get to where we are now.

And I can't imagine how bleak things would look right now if we weren't vaccinating millions of people around the world every day. Warp Speed (and other governmental programs like it) was a hedge against much bigger/broader economic losses.

[cardinalkarp]

I’d be interested to see the data on how much (if any) they put up for this. My guess is WE’RE the ones who paid for these pharmaceutical companies R&D on the COVID vaccine only to enrich themselves further.