Fragile Covid-19 Vaccine Rolled Out in the U.K. Tests Global Supply Network https://www.wsj.com/articles/fragile-covid-19-vaccine-rolled-out-in-the-u-k-tests-global-supply-network-11607468333

Never in my life would I imagine that an article about supply chain logistics would get me teary eyed. So thankful for every person at every step of the way.

There's been a lot of new information regarding the Pfizer vaccine and the others:

1. It starts exhibiting actual immunity faster than expected - apparently within a couple of days.
2. Transportation at -90C is proving to be difficult, but not impossible. The UK is also looking forward to the Moderna vaccine, which can be transported/stored at about -20C, which is much more do-able.
3. The Astra-Zenaca vaccine is apparently stable/storable at much closer to room temperature, but there've been some anomalies reported in their Phase III testing. Plus, their reported efficacy as reported at around 70%, but that's an average between the whole-dose and half-dose initial dose. Given that the ordinary flu vaccine is around 70%, it looks like it may be very useful, especially if they get the dosage right.

My 10,000th post

I kind of hope we have a "which vaccine to take if we had a choice" thread. I worry about how they can keep the Pfizer vaccine stable and effective with all the requirements. Someone on another thread said that is what they do with Botox so it is nothing new?

Given it is free in the US and it is not clear how they will keep records of who got what (supposedly there is a computer system to keep track but I wonder how well that will work), I wonder if there will be people who end up mixing them or getting more shots than needed thinking it might increase their immunity. Looking at how deep that needle has to go, I don't think I will

Who or what determines which vaccine we get?

You could start that discussion here. https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/coronavirus-travel-773/

My thought, which vaccine is available when it's your turn to get inoculated. The first dose will determine the second. At this stage I'll take what is offered.

Haven't read the other thread, but that's not true. Botox can be transported and stored for a long time at normal home freezer or refrigerator temperatures, and will last for a few days at room temperature. No special equipment required.

I saw a headline suggesting that Americans could be financially incentivized to get the second dose, which is historically a problem with two dose vaccines. I think it would be really an idea to pay people $1,000 for getting vaccinated.

Easy K for me! I'd pay to get vaccinated, though fortunately I don't think I'll have to.

Seriously, it might be an idea to have people pay, say, $100 for the first shot - and get it back with the second.

This would be the better way around but it won't solve the issue of getting enough people to have it.

Mind you, at the moment, there will be many people who would be happy to pay to have the vaccine.

Perhaps the solution for prioritising:
First, care home residents and carers and healthcare professionals
Second, anyone over 70 who wants it
Third, anyone who will pay, say, $500.
Fourth, anyone who will put a refundable deposit down for the first dose, refundable against taking the second dose.
Then take stock and figure out how to encourage the rest of the population.

I don't agree with this at all. Lots of people right now don't even have money for rent or food so coming up with $100 (even if refundable) is not an option. This shouldn't be only available to someone with money just as organ transplants shouldn't go to the highest bidder.

Not to mention, we have a lot of essential minimum wage workers in this country, and I don't want to discourage someone who works in a store, teaches, provides child care or drives a cab from getting the vaccine because price is an issue.

Even in years where the flu shot is a "miss" and only 20-30% effective, the 20-30% is still useful and many others experience the benefits of partial immunity and a milder illness.

My only question on the Oxford one is *why* the data looks that way. Why is a half-dose better than a full-dose? It just seems weird to those of us who don't work in a medical field. Given that PR is important to getting people to take this vaccine, a good transparent explanation to what happened and why - in a way that laypeople can understand - would be useful. This particular vaccine is important because it's the one that the traditional vaccine supply chain in the developing world can handle.

It would be horrible for a bunch of reasons - practical, ethical, optics, etc. - if it appears that the rich can buy a fast-track to a vaccine. I have to think that the FDA and others are keenly aware that this would be a terrible, terrible look and an absolute media frenzy. I can see both the Fox News and NYT headlines already and they're both bad.

It's going to happen on the fringe because money breeds corruption, but buying your place in line won't be part of the formal process. Paying people to get the vaccine probably won't either - that seems less offensive to me personally but I have to wonder if there are ethical pitfalls there as well.

I don't think anyone knows for sure at this point. Apparently, it surprised them, too. Yeah - it sure seems counter-intuitive. Like the homeopathic patient who forgot to take his medicine and died from an overdose.

The super rich will likely be able to buy the vaccine without any formality. Notice all the various extremely rich people getting easy, quick tests in March and April when there were shortages.
At least this makes it open to more people.

Seriously though, it should be risk and job based with retail employees being one of the first groups.