Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[roydo]

So the solution was to go with a company that had never made a vaccine

AZ? Would love to see the evidence for that. They currently have 170 projects in their research/delivery pipeline.

 

[davek]

Dave there is no such thing as 100% effective medicine anywhere in the world for any ailment, look how low that number is. It is an unfortunate side effect of a global pandemic.

If there was no emergency this vaccine would be back to the drawing board given the incidents it's had so far.

 

[davek]

AZ? Would love to see the evidence for that. They currently have 170 projects in their research/delivery pipeline.

But never made a vaccine.

 

[Terrarian]

If there was no emergency this vaccine would be back to the drawing board given the incidents it's had so far.

Of course, we all know that, i don't think anyone is daft enough by now to not realise this has been rushed through due to circumstance, we don't have the time to test it for ten years unfortunately unless you want lockdowns to carry on.

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

Why are they off the table? Is £28 too much to save a person's life?

U.K. govt ordered 17 million doses - that’s enough for 8.5 million people.

Small number in comparison to the other vaccines ordered

 

[roydo]

But never made a vaccine.

Then why all the manufacturing facilities? Like, you may be correct, and from a standing start, with no experience, they delivered the first (?) vaccine on the planet.

Just be interested in where you claim is evidenced.

 

[roydo]

But never made a vaccine.

Then why all the manufacturing facilities? Like, you may be correct, and from a standing start, with no experience, they delivered the first (?) vaccine on the planet.

Just be interested in where you claim is evidenced.

 

[Barnfred 55]

I read Oxford had an agreement with Merck and Hancock overruled it because he was worried about them teaming up with a US company that might be susceptible to Trump's America first policy.

Here's a post I made about a month ago in the EU thread. It refers to an article from last October in the Wall Street Journal which goes into some depth on the matter. I think it's also fair to say that the WSJ deals in facts and not politics. Sorry I can't link the article but my keyboard abilities are a bit limited because I'm an old git. lol I strongly recommend you read the article though.

Yes the UK government did say they wouldn't grant the license to an American company. Their argument being there was a good chance that the Trump administration would block exports of a vaccine that we funded, back into the UK. Given what has since happened under the Biden administration, it's hard to argue with that decision. But it's more complicated than that, as the "agreement" with Merck didn't actually get to that stage where a licence was formally applied for, because there was a lot of in fighting within Oxford University itself.

The guy tasked with finding a suitor for the vaccine was an administrator (albeit a scientist himself), and I think it's fair to say that he was looking to bring in some income to the University in the process. This was seen as selling out by the scientists who were actually involved in creating the vaccine, as they wanted it to be none profit making during the pandemic itself, and also in perpetuity for the worlds poorer nations. Merck weren't doing this. These scientists were also precluded from the selection process. So they started their own selection process by appointing an Investment Bank to source an appropriate partner for them. It was they, who came up with AZ. Given AZ was totally inexperienced in vaccine production, fit's probably a given that the choices were overwhelming. But the creators of the vaccine had 2 conditions that were not negotiable, the two listed above.

You can think what you want.

The simple truth is that only one vaccine and one manufacturer in the world is producing a vaccine at cost. Not just to ourselves but to the rest of the world too (if they want). Every other manufacturer is cashing in on this and countries like the USA and organisations like the EU are stopping exports for self serving reasons.

It's all there in black and white. No white knighting required.

As regards the highlighted part of your post, it didn't take much investigation to put a bit more meat on the bones. Firstly, John Bell, the Regius chair of medicine at Oxford University, was tasked with finding a manufacturing partner for the Oxford vaccine. The senior scientist at Merck just happened to be an old friend and colleague of his, and a deal was proposed in which Oxford University would receive 1% royalties. This "altruistic" agreement, as you put it, was actually far from the non-profit making deal that Oxford ultimately put together with AZ, and it was actually the scientists involved in the development of the vaccine that feared it would go against the Oxford mantra, which was to provide a vaccine which could be rolled out worldwide at little cost. They believed Merck would not deliver this and that Bell had been trying to turn a profit for the University. It was actually the scientists that referred this to the government, who had funded the vaccine research. The government were concerned at the contract going to a US company and feared that the Trump administration would stop the export of vaccines to the UK. At that stage it was one of only a couple of vaccines that had started advanced human testing, and wanted to maintain more control over where the vaccine was produced. Given what's now happened with the less inward thinking Biden administration, I believe it showed a lot of foresight, which is not something you normally associate with UK government departments.

Anyway, the upshot was that Bell was asked to find other suitors for the vaccine. They approached Investment Bankers in this regard who, armed with Oxfords list of requirements, set up the meeting with AZ. They agreed a proper "altruistic" agreement that confirmed at cost worldwide provision of the vaccine during the pandemic, and continuing at cost vaccines to poorer countries thereafter. Richer countries would have to pay full price post pandemic, from which Oxford would receive 6% royalties.

Nothing in there that sounds dodgy to me mate. If anything it's the Merck deal that was the dodgy one. My source for that was the Wall Street Journal by the way. Is that another one of your right wing media outlets that you don't take any notice of?

this is what Hancock did, though I think it was because Merck wouldn’t guarantee we would get the vaccine first (or at all)

See above. The source is the Wall Street Journal. What's the source for yours?

 

[jinkyali]

Raise it over what - being factually correct?

They are not directly killing people.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

But never made a vaccine.

They didn't make this one, Dave, Oxford Uni did.

 

[tsubaki]

Here's a post I made about a month ago in the EU thread. It refers to an article from last October in the Wall Street Journal which goes into some depth on the matter. I think it's also fair to say that the WSJ deals in facts and not politics. Sorry I can't link the article but my keyboard abilities are a bit limited because I'm an old git. lol I strongly recommend you read the article though.

Yes the UK government did say they wouldn't grant the license to an American company. Their argument being there was a good chance that the Trump administration would block exports of a vaccine that we funded, back into the UK. Given what has since happened under the Biden administration, it's hard to argue with that decision. But it's more complicated than that, as the "agreement" with Merck didn't actually get to that stage where a licence was formally applied for, because there was a lot of in fighting within Oxford University itself.

The guy tasked with finding a suitor for the vaccine was an administrator (albeit a scientist himself), and I think it's fair to say that he was looking to bring in some income to the University in the process. This was seen as selling out by the scientists who were actually involved in creating the vaccine, as they wanted it to be none profit making during the pandemic itself, and also in perpetuity for the worlds poorer nations. Merck weren't doing this. These scientists were also precluded from the selection process. So they started their own selection process by appointing an Investment Bank to source an appropriate partner for them. It was they, who came up with AZ. Given AZ was totally inexperienced in vaccine production, fit's probably a given that the choices were overwhelming. But the creators of the vaccine had 2 conditions that were not negotiable, the two listed above.




See above. The source is the Wall Street Journal. What's the source for yours?

the guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/society...ow-the-uk-got-ahead-in-the-covid-vaccine-race

sky news:

COVID-19: Rejected contracts and a Hollywood movie - how UK struck deal to guarantee vaccine supply

As the row over vaccine supplies heated up this week, the UK government stuck to a simple line.

news.sky.com

the Mail:

Matt Hancock 'vetoed UK-US vaccine deal over Trump export ban fears'

The Health Secretary torpedoed a deal between the University of Oxford and American pharma giant Merck over fears that Donald Trump could ban exports of the live-saving drug.

www.dailymail.co.uk

want any more?

 

[Barnfred 55]

We differ on opinion on it mate and thats fine. I never accepted your opinion, nor I’d assume you mine! That’s all good the two things can exist together, I’m just sharing my analysis and opinion!

Mine isn't an opinion though. I've never once said that Oxford were right to give the contract to AZ. Now that would be an opinion.

All I've ever said is that Oxford made it a condition of their suitor that they made the vaccine available at cost during the pandemic itself, and at cost to poorer countries thereafter. Do you think that statement is false?. If so, do you have anything to back that up.

Moving on from there, if you accept that statement is true, do you think that Oxford are wrong to want their vaccine manufactured and distributed at cost? Personally I think it's a very noble and benevolent stance to take.

The third alternative of course, is that you believe that Merck had agreed to manufacture the vaccine at cost but the agreement was stopped by the UK government. Again, can you come up with any evidence or reliable source to support this view.

 

[roydo]

They didn't make this one, Dave, Oxford Uni did.

I keep forgetting them ffs!

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

I keep forgetting them ffs!

As does David.

 

[Jebus_lives]

Mine isn't an opinion though. I've never once said that Oxford were right to give the contract to AZ. Now that would be an opinion.

All I've ever said is that Oxford made it a condition of their suitor that they made the vaccine available at cost during the pandemic itself, and at cost to poorer countries thereafter. Do you think that statement is false?. If so, do you have anything to back that up.

Moving on from there, if you accept that statement is true, do you think that Oxford are wrong to want their vaccine manufactured and distributed at cost? Personally I think it's a very noble and benevolent stance to take.

The third alternative of course, is that you believe that Merck had agreed to manufacture the vaccine at cost but the agreement was stopped by the UK government. Again, can you come up with any evidence or reliable source to support this view.

A consideration could be that as AZ reserve the right to change their prices once the 'pandemic phase' is over, which I think is July, that countries are undermining the credibility of the vaccine against others to keep the price relatively low.