Dolly is partially responsible for the Moderna vaccine| Off-Topic Discussion forum |

Mr_Asa SuperDork
11/17/20 1:43 p.m.

The woman is as close to a saint as there is in the modern world.

https://www.nydailynews.com/snyde/ny-coronavirus-dolly-parton-donates-1-million-dollars-vaccine-20201117-fkwo6sf2ubhznllaamqzixp7va-story.html

mtn (Forum Supporter) MegaDork
11/17/20 2:05 p.m.

For every statue of a Confederate general that is torn down, they should replace it with one of Dolly. Dolly statues, all over the south. It would be awesome.

bearmtnmartin GRM+ Memberand SuperDork
11/17/20 2:07 p.m.

I came expecting dolly the sheep

californiamilleghia SuperDork
11/17/20 2:21 p.m.

I came also expecting Dolly the sheep so I could make a smart ass remark about Dolly Parton ,

whats the world coming to ???

PS.....I wish a bunch more old rich people would give millions to good causes and not their dead beat kids !

NickD UltimaDork
11/17/20 2:22 p.m.

Is that why this one is 5% more effective than the other one from Pfizer?

ultraclyde (Forum Supporter) UltimaDork
11/17/20 2:28 p.m.

NickD said:
Is that why this one is 5% more effective than the other one from Pfizer?

It's the Dolly Effect (R)

No Time SuperDork
11/17/20 2:37 p.m.

I think it would be interesting to know if same people that vaccine A doesn't work on would have been successfully vaccinated using vaccine B.

I'm sure there are others on here with more knowledge that can expand on this further, but there's many different reasons, but you'd need to know specific details of the vaccine that I doubt would be in any public info.

The main contributor to the difference is that while they both work using mRNA, they are using distinctly different molecules to induce the immune response.

One clue is the storage and refrigeration requirements. One needs to be stored at -94C while the other can be stored using conventional refrigeration. Based on that alone we can conclude they use different molecules. The differences in storage stability indicate different molecules and compounds are present.

The differences could be in the active or inactive portion of the molecules, so while they may work using a similar mechanism, the active portion may be compatible with a higher percentage of the population. Or a different shape or size of the inactive portion could interfere with binding in a larger percentage of the population.

There's really a lot of variables that could contribute to efficacy of the vaccine.

93EXCivic MegaDork
11/17/20 2:48 p.m.

mr2s2000elise UltraDork
11/17/20 2:56 p.m.

mmmmmmmm cleavage mmmmmmmm

mtn (Forum Supporter) MegaDork
11/17/20 3:04 p.m.

No Time said:

One clue is the storage and refrigeration requirements. One needs to be stored at -94C while the other can be stored using conventional refrigeration. Based on that alone we can conclude they use different molecules. The differences in storage stability indicate different molecules and compounds are present.

Not the point you were making here, but there is almost zero chance that we see the Pfizer (-94C storage requirement) vaccine continue in any significant portion after the general population is able to get vaccinated. The logistics of it just mean it isn't going to continue unless it is significantly cheaper. I'd hazard a guess that Pfizer wouldn't have even released it if it weren't a pandemic, just from a marketing perspective.

stanger_mussle (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand UltraDork
11/17/20 4:32 p.m.

Dolly is a damn national treasure!

californiamilleghia SuperDork
11/17/20 5:22 p.m.

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:
No Time said:

One clue is the storage and refrigeration requirements. One needs to be stored at -94C while the other can be stored using conventional refrigeration. Based on that alone we can conclude they use different molecules. The differences in storage stability indicate different molecules and compounds are present.

Not the point you were making here, but there is almost zero chance that we see the Pfizer (-94C storage requirement) vaccine continue in any significant portion after the general population is able to get vaccinated. The logistics of it just mean it isn't going to continue unless it is significantly cheaper. I'd hazard a guess that Pfizer wouldn't have even released it if it weren't a pandemic, just from a marketing perspective.

-94 I believe is dry ice temp.......you could deliver them in ice cream trucks !

wheelsmithy (Joe-with-an-L) (Forum Supporter) GRM+ Memberand UberDork
11/17/20 5:55 p.m.

I questioned the decision to open Dollywood back up so quickly, but never doubted her heart. She is indeed a treasure.

OHSCrifle GRM+ Memberand SuperDork
11/17/20 7:19 p.m.

My wife works at Northside hospital in Atlanta. They received some new large refrigerators in the last week, apparently for the vaccines.

And Dolly Parton is pure class.

yupididit PowerDork
11/17/20 7:29 p.m.

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:
For every statue of a Confederate general that is torn down, they should replace it with one of Dolly. Dolly statues, all over the south. It would be awesome.

+16

Datsun310Guy MegaDork
11/17/20 7:33 p.m.

My dad was a Dolly and Kenny Rogers fan.

As I get older I appreciate their music cause I'm turning into my dad.

Yeah, Dolly is pretty cool. Her quote on all her plastic surgery; "I spent a lot of money to look this cheap".

Woody (Forum Supportum) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
11/17/20 7:51 p.m.

They should change their name to MoDDerna.

And... Thank you Dolly.

aircooled MegaDork
11/17/20 8:05 p.m.

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:
No Time said:

One clue is the storage and refrigeration requirements. One needs to be stored at -94C while the other can be stored using conventional refrigeration. Based on that alone we can conclude they use different molecules. The differences in storage stability indicate different molecules and compounds are present.

Not the point you were making here, but there is almost zero chance that we see the Pfizer (-94C storage requirement) vaccine continue in any significant portion after the general population is able to get vaccinated. The logistics of it just mean it isn't going to continue unless it is significantly cheaper. I'd hazard a guess that Pfizer wouldn't have even released it if it weren't a pandemic, just from a marketing perspective.

They are both $30+ for the two shots.

The other vaccines (different method, coming soon) are a one shot treatment and are either $10 or $3! So... you can see where that is going. I don't know if they require extreme refrigeration, but I don't think so.

aircooled MegaDork
11/17/20 8:07 p.m.

Regarding statues of Dolly....

...we are going to need a lot of granite...

No Time SuperDork
11/17/20 8:52 p.m.

aircooled said:
They are both $30+ for the two shots.

The other vaccines (different method, coming soon) are a one shot treatment and are either $10 or $3! So... you can see where that is going. I don't know if they require extreme refrigeration, but I don't think so.

I'd be interested to see where those numbers come from. The one's for Pfizer and Moderna seem to be somewhat inline with this article, but $3 seems very low, unless you are talking about out of pocket cost.

As for the cost difference, different technologies and different manufacturing methods can definitely impact the cost of a vaccine. I believe the ones that are still in the pipeline are not mRNA based and more traditional types of vaccines with dead or inactivated virus.

While I don't want to overpay for healthcare, there are areas where I think cost is secondary to effectiveness and availability.
Spending $50 now is going to have a bigger impact on the overall health of people and the economy compared to waiting for a cheaper version with unknown effectiveness.

My understanding is these will be the first commercial vaccines for humans using mRNA technology (earlier ones have been in clinical trials for smaller patient populations). That is a bigger area of consideration for me than the cost, since insurance will cover the majority of the cost.

procainestart Dork
11/17/20 9:03 p.m.

In reply to stanger_mussle (Forum Supporter) :

Hilarious!

aircooled MegaDork
11/17/20 9:43 p.m.

No Time said:
aircooled said:
They are both $30+ for the two shots.

The other vaccines (different method, coming soon) are a one shot treatment and are either $10 or $3! So... you can see where that is going. I don't know if they require extreme refrigeration, but I don't think so.

I'd be interested to see where those numbers come from. The one's for Pfizer and Moderna seem to be somewhat inline with this article, but $3 seems very low, unless you are talking about out of pocket cost....

The cost are not completely solid at this point and seem pretty varied. I have seen similar numbers elsewhere. The $3 is apparently from a negotiation the EU made:

https://www.ft.com/content/80f20d71-d7eb-4386-b0f2-0b19e4aed94d

No Time SuperDork
11/17/20 9:51 p.m.

In reply to aircooled :

Thank you for posting the link, unfortunately it's behind a paywall.

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out with cost and timing for each country getting doses to administer.

chandler UltimaDork
11/18/20 5:23 a.m.

aircooled said:
Regarding statues of Dolly....

...we are going to need a lot of granite...

And a bunch of Atlas statues as well...

aircooled MegaDork
11/18/20 11:53 a.m.

No Time said:
In reply to aircooled :

Thank you for posting the link, unfortunately it's behind a paywall.

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out with cost and timing for each country getting doses to administer.

Sorry about that. Weird, if I go to the link from Google it works, but the direct link hits the paywall. Here is the article. I apologize for the wall of text:

---------------

The race for a coronavirus vaccine has stoked a debate on how much the jabs will cost and who will pay for them, as prices range from $3 to more than $30 a dose and public health advocates including Bill Gates call for a price cap for poor countries. Even as billions of dollars of public money has been poured into vaccine development, drugmakers have been reluctant to discuss how they will price a shot. They say it is the result of many factors including efficacy, trial results, development and manufacturing costs, competition, demand and whether the buyers are private groups — such as insurers — or state bodies. The pandemic’s urgency and global spread has added layers of intricacy. In the rush to develop the right vaccine, companies are experimenting with different technologies. In an unprecedented move, some drugmakers are then planning to allow other companies to manufacture their doses, further complicating cost calculations.

The pricing of all vaccine deals has been shrouded in secrecy, with companies and public institutions defending their right to confidentiality. But people briefed on talks between drugmakers and the European Commission say that AstraZeneca has sold its jab at about $3 to $4 a dose in deals with the EU, while the Johnson & Johnson shot and the vaccine jointly developed by Sanofi and GSK have come in at about $10 a dose. By contrast, Moderna — a newer and still lossmaking company — has sought to pitch its vaccine at about $50 to $60 a course of two jabs, after initially asking for almost double that amount, the Financial Times reported in July. Other biotechnology businesses, such as CureVac, have said they would seek an “ethical margin” on their prices. Pressure from civil society and media reports have pushed some companies to disclose projected list prices, with Moderna doing so in August and publishing a maximum price tag of $37 a dose. One of China’s vaccine frontrunners, Sinovac, this week began selling its vaccine in select cities at $60 for two shots as part of an emergency use programme with hundreds of thousands of participants.

At the heart of the discussion lies a question both ethical and practical: whether pharmaceutical corporations should work with rich countries to ensure charges to poor nations are capped. Mr Gates, for example, told the FT drugs companies should support a system whereby rich countries subsidise vaccines so that poor nations pay $3 or less a dose. “The price needs three tiers where rich countries are paying back a lot of the fixed costs, middle-income countries are paying back some of the fixed costs and the poorer countries are paying a true marginal cost,” Mr Gates, co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, said in an interview. The billionaire software developer turned health philanthropist says any successful vaccine must be made available wherever it is needed at non-prohibitive cost. “We actually had to explain to a couple of pharma company CEOs that, in even the non-profit context, this tiering is absolutely necessary to maximise human benefit.” The price needs three tiers where rich countries are paying back a lot of the fixed costs, middle-income countries are paying back some of the fixed costs and the poorer countries are paying a true marginal cost Bill Gates Some manufacturers in countries such as India, which has a large drug production industry, have criticised western drug companies that they see as trying to prop up prices, by failing to ramp up production to meet demand. “They don’t want to give it to the rest of the world because they’ll have to compete with me at $3 [a dose],” said Adar Poonawalla, chief executive of India’s Serum Institute, the world’s largest vaccine manufacturer. “We’re making a small margin but that’s just normal business,” he said. He added that higher production costs in Europe did not justify the difference in price between his company’s products and those of some western vaccine producers. Gavi, the UN-backed vaccines alliance, and the Gates Foundation last month expanded a deal with Mr Poonawalla’s institute for delivery of up to 200m doses of candidate vaccines licensed from AstraZeneca and Novavax to low and middle-income countries at a maximum of $3 a dose — with the option to increase the volume of the order several times over.

Other initiatives to support global access include efforts by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, which is co-funding nine vaccine candidates with a mix of partners including big companies and academic institutions. Recommended Coronavirus treatment China’s Covid-19 vaccine diplomacy steals a march on US But the Covax initiative, the World Health Organization’s flagship programme to ensure the equitable global distribution of 2bn Covid-19 vaccinations by the end of next year, had to delay its full launch until this month after it struggled to sign up rich countries.* Mr Gates said he was hopeful in the long term that competition would keep prices down. “By the end of the year, or certainly in the first quarter of next year, the likelihood is that, of the six leading vaccines, two or three of them are likely to show efficacy, and then we’ll be off to the races,” he said. But he also acknowledged that prices for certain vaccines were likely to remain higher than others. For example, mRNA vaccines, such as those from Moderna and the Pfizer and BioNTech partnership, are more expensive to manufacture than vaccines based on an adenovirus vector such as the shot developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford university, he said. Coronavirus: the global race for a vaccine | FT Interview A fundamental challenge for effective planning and pricing is that all those involved have had to squash the normal decade-long vaccine development cycle into a fraction of that time, said one senior EU official. “We’re now trying to compress this to 12 to 18 months and not only produce a few vaccines but produce them in the order of hundreds of millions — even billions — in volume,” the official said. “This is risky business.”