The Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine is poised to be globally discontinued, almost 3.5 years after its initial authorization. The vaccine’s discontinuation has attracted attention due to its notorious reputation. However, what is the underlying reason for this decision? It is not as sensational as some may imply.

As per a statement observed by the BBC, the decision was made for commercial reasons due to an excess of updated vaccines that has resulted in a decrease in demand.

Viruses have the ability to undergo mutations and evolutionary changes, and this holds true for SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for causing COVID-19. Consequently, a wide array of distinct variations has emerged, prompting certain vaccine manufacturers to develop revised vaccines specifically designed to combat these variations.

Nevertheless, AstraZeneca has not taken the same action. Professor Adam Finn from the University of Bristol stated to the Science Media Centre (SMC) that this implies that the vaccine, currently known as Vaxzevria, is likely significantly less efficacious than its initial effectiveness.

Therefore, it is highly unlikely that there is any economic justification for the ongoing production and distribution of the vaccine. This is likely the primary factor influencing the company’s decision to cease manufacturing and selling it.

The company has emphasized the effects of Vaxzevria since its implementation. The statement indicated that independent estimates showed that more than 6.5 million lives were preserved solely in the initial year of implementation. “Governments worldwide have acknowledged our endeavors and consider them to be a crucial element in bringing an end to the global pandemic.”

However, the vaccine did encounter some issues. In 2021, multiple countries halted the use of Vaxzevria as a precautionary measure due to reports of individuals experiencing a rare condition called thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) after receiving the vaccine.

The incidence of vaccine-induced TTS, however, has been determined to be significantly low. According to data from the UK, the likelihood of developing it after receiving the vaccination is estimated to be approximately 4 cases per 1 million individuals.

A comprehensive study of more than 29 million individuals revealed that contracting COVID-19 carries a significantly higher likelihood of developing blood clots compared to receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine.

“When considering our actions, we must always weigh the potential harm against the potential benefits. During the height of the pandemic, the AZ vaccine provided greater benefits than harm. However, now there are more effective and safer options available,” stated Professor Jonathan Ball, Deputy Director of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, in an interview with the SMC.

“Maybe its relevance has diminished,” commented Dr. Michael Head, a global health researcher. The Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine has been instrumental in the global pandemic response for the majority of countries.

Here is a lesser-known piece of startup history that may not be widely known outside of the technology companies themselves: Google itself developed the initial iterations of well-known Android applications, such as Twitter. The revelation was made during a recent podcast featuring Sara Beykpour, the former senior director of product management at Twitter and current co-founder of the AI news startup Particle.

Beykpour discusses her involvement in Twitter’s past in a podcast with Lightspeed partner Michael Mignano. She details her employment at Twitter in 2009, where she started as a tools engineer, during a time when the company had a workforce of approximately 75 individuals. Subsequently, Beykpour transitioned to working on mobile applications at Twitter during a period when third-party applications were gaining traction on different platforms, such as BlackBerry and iOS. Twitter bought one of those applications, called Loren Brichter’s Tweetie, and used it as the basis for its initial official iOS app.

Beykpour stated that Twitter’s Android app originated from Google.

The Twitter for Android client was a prototype app that Google created and gave to them, according to her statement on the podcast. “During that period, Google developed all the popular social apps such as Foursquare and Twitter, resulting in a similar appearance among them.”

Mignano interrupted, requesting clarification on the matter. Did Google develop applications in order to encourage companies to adopt Android?

“Yes, precisely,” Beykpour replied.

Following that, Twitter took over control of the Google-developed Android app and started to improve its features. According to her, Beykpour was the company’s second Android engineer.

Google documented its efforts on the Android Twitter client in a blog post in 2010. However, the media coverage during that time failed to acknowledge Google’s contribution, resulting in this aspect of internet history being overlooked. Google’s post details the integration of early Android best practices into the Twitter app. Beykpour informed TechCrunch that Virgil Dobjanschi, the post’s author, held the primary role of software engineer.

“We were expected to direct any inquiries to him,” she recalls.

Beykpour also recounted additional anecdotes regarding Twitter’s early stages. As an example, she was involved in the development of Vine, Twitter’s video app, after returning to Twitter from working at Secret. She faced pressure to release Vine on Android before Instagram launched its own video product. According to her, she managed to meet the deadline by introducing Vine approximately two weeks prior to the release of Instagram Video.

The latter had a significant impact on Vine’s metrics, and according to Beykpour, it was the main factor that caused the downfall of the popular app.

She claimed that, even though it took several years for Vine to finally shut down, “that was the day when the signs of its demise became evident.”

At Twitter, Beykpour spearheaded the discontinuation of Vine’s product—an application that remains highly popular, to the extent that even Elon Musk, the new owner of Twitter/X, continues to playfully hint at its potential revival. However, Beykpour believes that Twitter made a sound decision regarding Vine, as he acknowledges that the app was not experiencing growth and was costly to maintain. She concedes that others may have a different perspective, possibly contending that Vine lacked sufficient resources or support from leadership. However, the ultimate reason for the closure was Vine’s effect on Twitter’s financial performance.

Beykpour also recounted a captivating anecdote regarding his experience working on Periscope. She left Secret and joined the startup just as Twitter purchased it. She recalls the necessity of rejoining Twitter using an alias in order to maintain secrecy about the acquisition for a period of time.

During her presentation on Twitter, she also discussed the challenges associated with acquiring the necessary resources to create and enhance products and features specifically designed for power users, such as journalists.

“Twitter faced difficulties in defining its user,” she stated, as it “relied heavily on conventional OKRs and metrics.” However, it was a reality that only a small proportion of individuals engage in tweeting, and within this subset, only a portion of them are responsible for creating the content that is truly desired by everyone. Beykpour acknowledges that quantifying this subset was a challenging task.

Currently at Particle, her expertise in developing Twitter is influencing the approach for the AI news application, which aims to facilitate the connection between individuals and the news that is relevant to their interests and happening in their vicinity.

“Particle represents a new approach to consuming your daily news,” Beykpour states in the podcast. The objective of the app is to offer a comprehensive and diverse outlook on news while also granting users access to journalism of exceptional quality. The startup is seeking alternative methods to generate revenue from reporting, in addition to advertisements, subscriptions, or micropayments. Nevertheless, the precise details of Particle’s approach are still under deliberation. The startup is presently engaging in discussions with potential publisher partners regarding the remuneration for their contributions.

What specifically did Apple demolish?
I wonder if Apple CEO Tim Cook was surprised by the overwhelming disgust that many people felt after watching the most recent iPad advertisement. A mechanical press within it compresses a large number of inventive instruments. Observing a piano, which, if properly cared for, can endure for approximately 50 years, being compressed to promote a device that is intentionally designed to become outdated in less than 10 years, is exasperating. There was an immediate negative reaction.

The conveyed message was that Apple, a company with a market value of one trillion dollars, will completely dominate and eliminate all aesthetically pleasing and human elements, leaving only a thin, sleek device made of glass and metal.

Remarkably, the purpose of this is to promote and market a product. Apple promotes the purchase of the product that is causing harm to everything you hold dear. This represents a significant departure from the well-known “1984” advertisement, in which Apple portrayed itself as actively opposing dull uniformity. Indeed, the new advertisement is lacking in sensitivity and awareness – especially considering that Apple gained popularity by associating itself with individuals who are artistic and imaginative. However, it also adopts an excessively limited perspective on technology. Consider the scenario where one is so naive that they hold the belief that only recently developed technology is valuable.

That perspective on technology is inherently disrespectful. Long-lasting objects are all around us. Technology, in a more expansive context, is inherently optimistic. It serves as a luminous and valuable connection, linking our previous experiences to our forthcoming possibilities.

Language is the fundamental tool that enables us to construct all other forms of technology. Documenting our thoughts allowed us to tap into a wealth of accumulated knowledge and experience. The Pythagorean theorem’s initial discovery was of such great significance that it led to the formation of a cult. I acquired knowledge of this theorem during my sixth-grade education due to its fundamental role in the development of various subsequent concepts. The fundamental disciplines of language and mathematics set in motion a series of connected events that led to the creation of Apple.

There is still a role for the technology that Apple dominates in its advertisements. A television display offers a greater size and enhanced user experience compared to an iPad, particularly when mobility is not a requirement. This is why the majority of individuals still possess a television. A record player facilitates the additional pleasure of exchanging tangible items and social gatherings at record stores. Arcade video games are typically found in communal spaces where individuals congregate.

The iPad does not serve as a substitute for those experiences. At its optimal state, it enhances and harmonizes with them. I have yet to encounter a professional carpenter who exclusively relies on a multi-tool to complete their tasks. However, if your goal is to minimize the weight of your belongings while traveling, opting for a Swiss Army knife would likely be more advantageous compared to carrying an entire toolkit.

This advertisement exemplifies a specific mindset prevalent in Silicon Valley: it dismisses the past as antiquated rather than appreciating it as ingenious. These companies are compelled to do so because they have products to market. If Apple were to manufacture a product with the same level of sturdiness as a piano, their sales of computers would significantly decrease. Indeed, the company has a track record of intentionally impairing the performance of its own products, such as deliberately reducing the speed of its older iPhones, with the aim of boosting sales. Additionally, it has a track record of creating challenges when it comes to repairing and maintaining its products.

This advertisement portrays technology as expendable. I reacted with a sudden, involuntary movement when the piano was forcefully destroyed. However, it seems that none of the individuals within the company were aware of this, despite the fact that numerous people were required to approve this advertisement. The emotional significance of crushing is evident; by reversing the advertisement, as Reza Sixo Safai did, so that all the creative tools originate from the iPad, it immediately enhances the ad. Indeed, the iPad can serve as a creative instrument, which aligns with the intended implication of the commercial, doesn’t it?

Apple often implies that its older devices are outdated by introducing new versions that only modify their exteriors and aesthetics while keeping their functionality essentially unchanged. The primary focus of this advertisement is not on the iPad’s innovative applications but rather on its slim design. The main attractive feature is its unprecedented slimness. Apple’s preoccupation with its captivating new marketing feature caused it to overlook the essential tools that are integral to our enjoyment.