As we approach the end of 2020, we get closer and closer to the distribution of a working coronavirus vaccine. Two companies, Moderna and Pfizer, have been locked in a race to produce said vaccine first. Not more than two weeks ago, Pfizer and its German partner, BioNTech, reported that their coronavirus vaccine proved to be over 90 percent effective on November 9. A week later, Moderna reported its coronavirus vaccine was 95 percent effective. Pending FDA approval, we could be seeing vaccine distribution as early as December.
How did the race get so close? The answer lies in Operation Warp Speed. Warp Speed intended to create three kinds of vaccines, with two companies pursuing each kind of vaccine at once. Moderna and Pfizer were to pursue the mRNA vaccine. Moderna, a much smaller company, welcomed help from the government and was granted the money and assistance it needed to get the clinical trial for its vaccine up and running. Government aid also allowed it to overcome various transportation issues, speeding up the process, and allowing it to meet certain deadlines on time. Pfizer, one of the world's top vaccine producers, did not need any government assistance and tried to stay out of the political aspect of creating a vaccine. In the end, both companies were able to create a working vaccine in a matter of months, rather than in the years that it would normally take.
I think that this is great news. With two vaccines, both over 90 percent effective, to be distributed relatively soon, we could see many more people receive a vaccine than if there was just one available. I think the competitive aspect of vaccine development was also a likely factor in how quickly they were created. With any luck, we may have a semi-normal year in 2021.
- What do you think was the biggest influence on how quickly the vaccines were developed (urgency of the issue, wanting to be first to distribute a vaccine, political influence, etc.)?
- Do you think having two teams working "against" each other to create a vaccine is more harmful or helpful? Would having one larger team be more effective?
I think that the biggest influence on how vaccines were developed was the urgency of the situation. COVID has obviously affected the entire world on an extremely large scale, so the time it takes to develop the vaccine has been rushed to get it out quicker since the issue needs to be solved as soon as feasibly possible. I think that having two teams against each other can be beneficial and harmful. It can be beneficial because the competition can motivate each team to reach a vaccine quicker than the other.It probably would be more efficient to have a larger team because then everyone could put their ideas together, which would most likely take even less time to develop and distribute a vaccine than two separate teams.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Emma that the obvious urgency of the pandemic was one of the biggest influences on how the vaccines were developed, but I would also say that a huge influence would presumably have been the race to be the first to distribute the vaccine, because that would make them a LOT of money, which these pharmaceutical companies want.
ReplyDeleteThe competition of multiple teams working against one another to try and develop and distribute the first vaccine is great because it pushes them to work faster as Emma mentioned, but I also think that it wouldn't necessarily be better to have a larger team together because I think that at this point, each team has enough intelligent people on them where the things holding them back are largely clinical trials and just testing, although I acknowledge that the development process is extremely hard. Also I think it's just good to have a bunch of separate ideas, so that the public can end up with the best product by the end, as well as some variety in case things go wrong with one product.
The economic aspect of the race is something that I actually didn't think about, but you're totally right-- money is always a really strong motivating factor for people trying to get things done.
DeleteI also agree that one large thing isn't necessarily a benefit for all involved. You make a good point that both teams have enough intelligent people individually that they don't need to be collaborating to produce a product, and I'd add that having more opinions isn't always the best case scenario. Most times it's very helpful, but if you have too many opinions getting thrown around, you'll never get anything done. Having variety is also definitely a benefit. If one team does something that goes terribly wrong, it's nice to have another team working as well so that not all progress is completely halted.
I think that a major influence as to the speed of production lies in the factors of profit and situations urgency. With Covid-19 being as widespread as it is, the need for these treatments would be massively high. This not only speeds up production need, but also makes the one to get one out first a decent paycheck.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to competition, I think that it was a rather smart play. The companies know that if they put out a harmful product, then there would be hell to pay from the feds. So, they had to produce a product that worked. Market competition between the two companies would help to speed up production as the companies vied for the money that producing it would entail while still making it quality in order to have it used. While they could've worked together on it, I think that a competitive approach was, given the state of the Corporate and Pharmaceutical world, the best choice.
2020 has been a wild and completely terrible year in many many regards. It's an unprecedented time that's effected everybody in some shape or form, and that's before you even realize that this is a global pandemic. Not only on such a large scale, COVID was also a very big consideration in this year's election, so throw in politics to the mix and it's a very tricky situation. Just based solely off the sheer scale of the virus, as well as the precedence it plays in our country with politics, means that there is such a big push for a vaccine.
ReplyDeleteAs for whether competition is necessary is a really fascinating question. In this case, I don't think it's as much of "friendly competition" as it is about accessibility and resources. Sure, looking at it from a completely pragmatic, business-like approach means finding the COVID vaccine first means more sales, but I think that for such a severe case as COVID, it's more about finding a solution at all. As in, I think it's less about who is able to solve the problem first, but much more about if we can even create a solution to begin with.
In our economies, the complete fluxing state gives an incentive to those who can produce the vaccine first. There is a large amount of pride in being the "first" for something as life changing as Covid 19 and Moderna, Pfizer and other companies are all looking for this title. Money is a huge driving factor but pride goes a longer way. Having people refer to the company as the "company that solved Covid 19" is a huge boost on market production and trust in the drugs which are made. Take for example the stock market, Pfizer and Moderna have went up in shares simply because the news gave them coverage of their vaccine. Its free advertisement and recognition. As for competition, it ties into the market, people still get greedy and competition is good. It speeds up the process and forces one company to think different from other.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I agree. The profit that making the vaccine first would provide is definitely a big incentive to trying to be first, and the recognition you get for "being first" definitely plays into peoples' pride. That's not to say that the companies are doing this solely for the money, though. I think a good amount (or most of) of their motivation comes from genuinely wanting to help to world combat this virus and being the first is a nice little extra motivator.
DeleteI think a major influence on development is the urgency of the issue, as well as the desire to be the first to release the vaccine in order to profit as much as possible. I think that companies would be much more effective if they worked together, as if they were to share knowledge and findings, development of drugs and vaccines have the potential to be made much faster. However, this is really unlikely to happen because every company has financial incentive to keep their findings secret to profit as much as possible. Also, if all drug companies were to merge into one, it's likely that their products would become extremely overpriced, which would be really inconvenient for the general public.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the biggest influence on how the vaccines were developed were due to the urgency of the issue. For the past nine months, the whole world has been negatively affected by the spread of COVID-19. However, there is a financial aspect of how quickly the vaccines were created since both teams wanted to reach the finish line first to claim the glory and fortune of solving one of the biggest global problems in this century. I believe that the competition between these two teams to create the vaccine might have been more harmful, as each team could have found valuable information that could have helped the other develop a vaccine. I believe that teams working separately would be able to produce a vaccine with more efficacy as long as they share findings, research, and results amongst each other.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest influence on the vaccines production was 100% the profit one could make off of it. The only reason any company would focus on a vaccine would be that it is profitable, businesses don't run off of good faith of the world as evident with global warming and other key issues, and only care about profit. The first one to come out with a vaccine will be able to cash out big and have significant influence over the world for decades following. Competition is always good, it keeps one motivated and striving to work harder everyday. You want to beat the competition and make something better in order to come out on top and be seen as better in order to profit more. However competition can lead to cutting corners and leaving millions affected, but i trust that many world organizations, including the FDA, will not rush their approval and take the necessary precautions.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Iva that the competitive atmosphere surrounding creating a vaccine and the profit reward is what lead the two companies to innovate so quickly. I also agree that the lack of collaboration is creating more bad than good, however there is no way to mitigate that in our competition based economy. I am mostly worried about the distribution of the vaccine, since as you have mentioned, Maderno is working with operation Warp Speed which means they will be providing their vaccine for free nationwide. However, Pfizer is working independently meaning they can distribute the vaccine as they please for as much money as they want, essentially capitalizing on citizen's health. In this case, it is actually benefitting the American public to have two companies producing the virus, as if they were working together there is a high chance they would both be independent, raising the prices astronomically.
ReplyDeleteI think the biggest influence for the speedy creation of this vaccine is the idea of recognization. Especially for something as big as this pandemic, whoever manages to create the vaccine that's endorsed by governments are going to be considered decently famous, hence why there was so much speed; who's gonna be known as the "hero" who created the vaccine? Competition, on the other hand, isn't that bad of an idea. It comes with 2 pros, a sense of urgency for both competitors and that if one fails, the other could still prevail with the vaccine.
ReplyDeleteThis post is closed.
ReplyDelete