I was shocked to discover, several months after the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were approved in America and trumpeted as proof of the speed and efficacy of our modern, capitalist medical system... that the Sinopharm and Sputnik V vaccines were both released much earlier, and they actually work very well.

All of those vaccines were created within weeks of the genetic sequence being released. The release dates you are referring to is only about regulatory oversight. Countries like the US and EU (and a long list of others) where Pfizer and Moderna targeted their sales are very careful to not allow the release of anything until they have evidence it works and is safe. For Sputnik V they released it before being sure it worked - which allowed them to release much faster, but there is a reason the rest of the world cried foul - even countries with few regulations didn't allow it to be used until more study was done - study that takes time.

This was 100% a decision based on regulations. The first clinical trial for Pfizer was done in April of 2020, Sputnik was started in June. The difference was Pfizer went through far more and more time consuming clinical trials.

I don't know if you can blame FDA's risk adverse views on capitalism.

Do we know how well they work yet, really? (Genuine question)

They were released earlier, though I got the impression they were released really without very much phase 2/3 testing at all. If you think the anti-vax folks are having a field day with the current western vaccines being given special accelerated roll-out...

It's been approved in a number of countries but still doesn't have WHO or European approval.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01813-2

Not being approved could very well be a political move on Europe's part - they have plenty of motives not to approve it, and equally they have plenty of reasons not to trust Russia's claims. In my country it was a running joke that if it's ever available here, the viles would be laced with novichok.

The paper is somewhat questionable though as it shows a 100% effectiveness against severe infection.

Most likely it is a similar effectiveness to other adenovirus based vaccines, which is less than mRNA vaccines, but still better than no vaccine. It has been reported that some countries are paying close to $20 per dose, so it's not any cheaper than mRNA vaccines.

I think that captures a difference in regulatory regimes, which is different from the medical systems they manage.

Moderna and Pfizer both had their vaccines ready almost as soon as Chinese scientists unveiled the genetic sequence.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/03/how-moderna-made-its-mrna-co...

> That with out capitalism you would have no vaccine to complain about people refusing to take?

Cuba, which is as far away from capitalism as you can get these days, has created five different vaccines. And in any case it wasn't capitalism that created the popular vaccines... the mRNA vaccines build up on decades of public-funded research, the Oxford/AZ vaccine was funded by the university endowment IIRC.

>Oxford/AZ vaccine was funded by the university endowment

According to Wikipedia, that vaccine was developed with Venture Capital money from Oxford Sciences Innovation, Google Ventures, and Sequoia Capital, among others. However even if it was "public funding", that public funding is only possible due to the tax base created by the capital system the governments of the world tax to get their funding.

As to Cuba, I believe only 2 has passed Phase II Trials, and none are approved for international use by the World Health Organization. Time will tell if they are effective as they claim.

Oxford University was going to open source its vaccine, then the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation stepped in and convinced them to sell exclusive rights to AstraZeneca.

https://twitter.com/parismarx/status/1353330538292121602?lan...

So capitalism is the only economic system capable of producing vaccines? If we had any other system of production, we would just be S.O.L because it takes an kleptocratic, imperialist oligarchy to make stuff?

It never fails to surprise me how little thinking technolibertarians do outside of their professional domains. I so wish we trained more generalists capable of recognising at a glance how ludicrous an argument like that is. People who's only qualification is that they're good with computers should really just stop thinking their opinions are useful on topics outside of their domains of expertise.