Moderna's experimental coronavirus vaccine shows promise in early-stage study
-
The market likes it
https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/moderna-experimental-coronavirus-vaccine-early-stage-study
Moderna's experimental coronavirus vaccine shows promise in early-stage study
(Reuters) - Moderna Inc said on Monday its experimental COVID-19 vaccine produced antibodies that could "neutralize" the new coronavirus in patients in a small early stage clinical trial, sending its shares up 25%.The levels of the antibodies were similar to those in blood samples of people who have recovered from COVID-19, early results from the study conducted by the National Institutes of Health showed.
Participants were given three different doses of the vaccine and Moderna said it saw dose-dependent increase in immunogenicity, the ability to provoke an immune response in the body.
The vaccine, mRNA-1273, was also found to be generally safe and well tolerated in the early-stage study, the drug developer said.Moderna leads global efforts in developing a vaccine for the new coronavirus and last week, won the U.S. health agency's "fast track" label to speed up the regulatory review. It is looking to begin late-stage trials in July.
-
Promising - lots of things to still hammer out here I imagine.
But let's say for the sake of argument that this thing works.
What is the right thing to do? Should some sort of public entity buy them out and release the vaccine to the world?
Should they do that themselves (though where do they draw the line on monetization)?
If these guys start extracting the actual value at play here - that's literally multiple economies worth of value.
-
"My pronouns are FA/FO." - Mik, 2024
-
@Mik said in Moderna's experimental coronavirus vaccine shows promise in early-stage study:
They deserve to be richly rewarded if this works and is approved. I have no problem with that. Would I pay a couple grand to be immune? Hell yes.
Would be better for world economies if price restrictions didn't prevent many from becoming immune. But no I'm not suggesting they not be richly compensated, either. I just don't think this is a "market decide" kind of situation.
-
Yeah - I didn't word that clearly enough. And remember, I'm a kind-of libertarian, "the market is great" - kinda guy. So I'm not coming at this from a socialist angle.
My questions is - the marginal value of a dose is insanely high. Yes, Mik - exactly as you say many would be willing to pay thousands for a dose.
The question is - if they figure it out, should they price it at $10K a dose? They'd probably get many many bites. But, the world economy may still be in the toilet, especially if there's a 2nd wave.
Hell - it might be worth it for the U.S. government to give these guys half a trillion dollars and still come out on top. (I'm just making crap up).
So - I think they'll be richly rewarded regardless of anything. The interesting question is - where is that line drawn.
-
@Copper said in Moderna's experimental coronavirus vaccine shows promise in early-stage study:
Before we have the government interfere in the market, let's all take a moment to thank Mr. Trump for one more win.
It's not a done deal yet, but with him in the oval office, the vaccine can't be far away.
Yes - if only he'd bestow us with these blessings a little bit sooner. But I understand these things take time and he works in mysterious ways.
-
Sure - I'd actually agree with that. That's the right thing to do and he's doing it.
Though, I'm not sure if that's a super courageous action given the circumstances.
Does anywhere here think we shouldn't loosen the regular process - or at least tailor it to make it as fast as possible for this specific vaccine?
Would Obama or Bush be pumping the brakes here?
Also - given Trump's recent over-exuberance on drugs, would you rather have the "Trump seal of approval" or Phase IV trial results before you decide to inject yourself with this?
-
@xenon said in Moderna's experimental coronavirus vaccine shows promise in early-stage study:
Does anywhere here think we shouldn't loosen the regular process - or at least tailor it to make it as fast as possible for this specific vaccine?
Yes.
Well if I ignore the last clause which makes it meaningless
Remember this is a virus with a 99% survival rate. Billions will take the vaccine. Can’t skimp on safety.
Treatments for severe cases, testing technology, etc. is where you skirt normal processes.
-
@jon-nyc I have no idea what typical safety guidelines are for a vaccine and how they're made.
If this immunizes 9999/10000 and infects 1/10000 - is that good enough (I don't know). Where is that line drawn? I don't know.
Is 999/1000 good enough, is 99999999/100000000?
Is that even the right trade-off to think about?
My point statement about loosening any rules here would be relative the expected damage this disease is already poised to do.
Other than that - my second statement was the only thing I can think of off the top of my head that I would change.
The FDA process is one-size-fits-all. Set up a streamlined process to ensure that paper/pushing and reviews are never the bottleneck. (Similar to how the CDC was slowing stuff down on testing earlier to adhere to normal process)
-
@xenon said in Moderna's experimental coronavirus vaccine shows promise in early-stage study:
@jon-nyc I have no idea what typical safety guidelines are for a vaccine and how they're made.
If this immunizes 9999/10000 and infects 1/10000 - is that good enough
It's more like what if it does severe brain damage 6 months after use?
FDA regulations are written in blood.
-
@Copper said in Moderna's experimental coronavirus vaccine shows promise in early-stage study:
@xenon said in Moderna's experimental coronavirus vaccine shows promise in early-stage study:
@jon-nyc I have no idea what typical safety guidelines are for a vaccine and how they're made.
If this immunizes 9999/10000 and infects 1/10000 - is that good enough
It's more like what if it does severe brain damage 6 months after use?
FDA regulations are written in blood.
Enter in any safety metric you like. I don’t know what the FDA bar is.
How about brain damage after 3 years?
-
Any government agency writes testing rules for a reason. In the FDA's case I assume a lot of those reasons are related to undesired side-effects.
A massive overreaction is really fun for the media and everyone loves telling a scary story.
Injecting people with a new vaccine is a different story.
I say they should do any and all normal tests. Maybe they can cut some red tape but the substantive testing should take place.
-
I actually agree with copper. I mean, the FDA doesn't do any testing. But they should be pretty firm on what protocols they'll approve.
The good news is the vaccine manufacturers should have no trouble recruiting for this.
-
@xenon said in Moderna's experimental coronavirus vaccine shows promise in early-stage study:
Sure - I'd actually agree with that. That's the right thing to do and he's doing it.
Though, I'm not sure if that's a super courageous action given the circumstances.
Does anywhere here think we shouldn't loosen the regular process - or at least tailor it to make it as fast as possible for this specific vaccine?
Would Obama or Bush be pumping the brakes here?
Also - given Trump's recent over-exuberance on drugs, would you rather have the "Trump seal of approval" or Phase IV trial results before you decide to inject yourself with this?
If it was super corageous, the Dems would have done it, and then I'm sure you would damn them with faint praise, also.
I'm sorry, your objective credit on Trump is shot. Thank you for playing, though.
-
@xenon said in Moderna's experimental coronavirus vaccine shows promise in early-stage study:
@jon-nyc I have no idea what typical safety guidelines are for a vaccine and how they're made.
If this immunizes 9999/10000 and infects 1/10000 - is that good enough (I don't know). Where is that line drawn? I don't know.
Is 999/1000 good enough, is 99999999/100000000?
Is that even the right trade-off to think about?
My point statement about loosening any rules here would be relative the expected damage this disease is already poised to do.
Other than that - my second statement was the only thing I can think of off the top of my head that I would change.
The FDA process is one-size-fits-all. Set up a streamlined process to ensure that paper/pushing and reviews are never the bottleneck. (Similar to how the CDC was slowing stuff down on testing earlier to adhere to normal process)
The FDA process has had its butt kicked by Trump. I've never seen anything close to it.
Another star you have to give him, sadly.
