According to the article, Pfizer plans to sell 1.3 billion doses in 2021 and the price (for two required doses) is USD 19.50. This means USD 25,350,000,000.00 in sales.
And it also says: "Pfizer's CEO has already disclosed that the vaccine will be sold at a "very marginal profit." "
EDIT: corrected calculation
This article as well as many others confuses meaning of "infection" and "disease". This is a very important distinction.
The Pfizer press release says it is 90% effective at preventing the disease [1], it does not say the vaccine prevents infection.
COVID-19 = the name for the disease cased by the virus
SARS-CoV-2 = the name of the strain of coronavirus that causes the COVID-19 disease.
This vaccine is 90% effective at preventing the disease, but while infected, you have replicating RNA in your body and will be contagious.
It still seems like society is throwing far too little money at this problem. It would be worth paying twice as much just to speed up the pace of global vaccination by two months.
OP's comment pointing out the distinction between "infection" and "disease" has been downvoted to death without an apparent explanation. Could someone elaborate on why? On the surface this looks like an important point to raise.
Is it because an antiviral vaccine that prevents a disease must by definition also prevent infection?
There is really only one reason in practice HN comments are downvoted and/or flagged[0]: they're telling other commenters what they don't want to hear.
[0] as opposed to being removed by moderators, though dang has been known to use moderation as a super-downvote.
Whilst I do welcome a vaccine, I do worry about the safety of the vaccine. We have been told my medical professionals months and months ago that a vaccine is likely to take years, not just to develop a vaccine but also for testing and trails.
Now we're hearing it might be early next year? I understand that the focus to prepare a vaccine might have been greater. I do hope I can have a level of confidence in the drug being successful with little side effects if any.
Fuck society; why do other people get to choose the risks I take? Socialized gains (this kind of vaccine doesn't primarily protect the healthy individual receiving it) and private losses at their finest.
This argument is literally "it's okay to kill people as long as it's for the common good". Fuck subhuman collectivist scum who believe this. I'd have marginally more respect for a society which openly admitted this belief and acted upon it directly by strictly quarantining the infected and vulnerable; at least then they'd be evil but helping as opposed to evil and not helping.
I get that you’re mad, but I don’t think you’re taking it out on the right people.
The vaccine approval process is really rigorous, it isn’t some joke. We’re currently sitting around waiting because Pfizer is still observing, waiting for the slightest hint of a long term issue. Other vaccine candidates have been paused in the trials. Yes, the risk is nonzero. But there’s no evidence of risk at all and there will be tens of thousands of data points when the results come out.
Perhaps (and this is just a "perhaps" in search of where our beliefs diverge) I have the wrong idea not about the testing of the coronavirus vaccine - because I think I'm quite clear on the limitations of that - but rather the testing of all sorts of substances in the past which turned out to be deadly. Is this vaccine really undergoing strictly better testing than all drugs recalled in the past 50 years for serious side effects, for example? Unlike those drugs, this vaccine is being proposed for a huge proportion of the population and moreover it may be proposed for portions of the population who don't voluntarily agree to take the risks involved. It's quite one thing if a last-resort cancer drug kills 10% of people who take it and quite another thing entirely if this vaccine has long-term deleterious effects for even 0.1% of people who take it.
I applaud and thank those who are willing to take these risks on a personal basis for the good of others but that is an entirely different thing than being willing to take those risks myself and a different thing again from supporting force (or even "just" ostracism) on those who are not willing.
In my opinion, that attitude is pretty much the definition of selfishness. If everyone takes this vaccine, the pandemic ends. You have a right to be selfish and act according to your perceived risk of the vaccine, but society doesn't have to smile on you for it, either.
19 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 57.0 ms ] threadCOVID-19 = the name for the disease cased by the virus
SARS-CoV-2 = the name of the strain of coronavirus that causes the COVID-19 disease.
This vaccine is 90% effective at preventing the disease, but while infected, you have replicating RNA in your body and will be contagious.
[1] https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta...
1) 19.50 is what the United States has agreed to pay. It's unlikely the same price point other countries can / are willing to afford.
2) Rollout may be harder than expected.
3) If some of the other vaccines work, no certainty of what would be picked.
4) Since the amount of people taking it now grow exponential fold - we may hear of unexpected side effects (hopefully not).
Is it because an antiviral vaccine that prevents a disease must by definition also prevent infection?
[0] as opposed to being removed by moderators, though dang has been known to use moderation as a super-downvote.
Now we're hearing it might be early next year? I understand that the focus to prepare a vaccine might have been greater. I do hope I can have a level of confidence in the drug being successful with little side effects if any.
Society will take that risk, though. The pandemic is killing thousands every day.
This argument is literally "it's okay to kill people as long as it's for the common good". Fuck subhuman collectivist scum who believe this. I'd have marginally more respect for a society which openly admitted this belief and acted upon it directly by strictly quarantining the infected and vulnerable; at least then they'd be evil but helping as opposed to evil and not helping.
The vaccine approval process is really rigorous, it isn’t some joke. We’re currently sitting around waiting because Pfizer is still observing, waiting for the slightest hint of a long term issue. Other vaccine candidates have been paused in the trials. Yes, the risk is nonzero. But there’s no evidence of risk at all and there will be tens of thousands of data points when the results come out.
I applaud and thank those who are willing to take these risks on a personal basis for the good of others but that is an entirely different thing than being willing to take those risks myself and a different thing again from supporting force (or even "just" ostracism) on those who are not willing.