Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[Neiler]

They are, but remember what he tried to do with CureVac?

Very true, he was bannanarama - on the subject heard a whisper today Curevac will apply for approval from the EMA in Q2. Else wise Novavax struggling to agree deals with companies to source ingredients to supply for their EU deal to finalise, Sputnik is also under rolling review.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

UK medicine regulator at now with its anti Oxford vaccine mantra bleedin foreigners hating the Ingerlish, knobends.

 

[Billy Dean]

Very true, he was bannanarama - on the subject heard a whisper today Curevac will apply for approval from the EMA in Q2. Else wise Novavax struggling to agree deals with companies to source ingredients to supply for their EU deal to finalise, Sputnik is also under rolling review.

Been in the news here for weeks that. I think they're aiming to have approval by the end of June.

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

pete it’s not one in several million, it’s one in 600000 (according to the recent U.K. data)

What you’ve failed to take into account here is control data.

If you’re going to quote figures of 1 in 600000 then compare them against a control baseline of normally occurring incidences of CVT.

A recent report from the Paul Erlich institute highlighted every year we see background indicences of CVT between 2-5 cases per million (under 50’s).

so as a baseline without the AZ vaccine we would expect to see annually between 1 in every 500k and 1 in every 200K.

So now when you look at the AZ figure of 1 case of CVT in every 600k there is no real sense of alarm as the figure is less than what we would normally expect to see.

A recent study in Australia has highlighted case rates of CVT in the under 50’s as high as 15.7 cases per million or 1 in every 63000 people.

As far as I’m concerned the AZ carries no additional risk for CVT than would otherwise be expected.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

It will be interesting to see if there are elements of reporting bias at play.

 

[ForeverBlue92]

There will be no way that they'll stop AZ vaccines in the younger folk in the UK considering the sheer number of doses we have on order.

If they did it would throw the vaccine by July plan completely up in the air.

Surely there must be some kind of anti blood clot drugs people could be given to take following vaccination?

 

[tsubaki]

What you’ve failed to take into account here is control data.

If you’re going to quote figures of 1 in 600000 then compare them against a control baseline of normally occurring incidences of CVT.

A recent report from the Paul Erlich institute highlighted every year we see background indicences of CVT between 2-5 cases per million (under 50’s).

so as a baseline without the AZ vaccine we would expect to see annually between 1 in every 500k and 1 in every 200K.

So now when you look at the AZ figure of 1 case of CVT in every 600k there is no real sense of alarm as the figure is less than what we would normally expect to see.

A recent study in Australia has highlighted case rates of CVT in the under 50’s as high as 15.7 cases per million or 1 in every 63000 people.

As far as I’m concerned the AZ carries no additional risk for CVT than would otherwise be expected.

Again, the issue here is who these issues are happening to and when. It isn’t the overall rate of incidents

If the issues are happening to the same sort of people at the same rates as normal, then they probably aren’t related to AZ.

If however it’s a particular set of people who are the ones usually getting this issue after being given a dose, then it’s something they have to examine.

If it’s confirmed that the problem is only something that potentially affects a particular set of people (who can just be given another vaccine which doesn’t have the issue) and it’s perfectly fine for everyone else, I’d have thought everyone on here and in the country would want to know that.

 

[PaulPowersTash]

Welcome to the glorious age of making up statistics to validate your point.

At odds of 600000/1 I'd take a chance on it.

 

[tsubaki]

There will be no way that they'll stop AZ vaccines in the younger folk in the UK considering the sheer number of doses we have on order.

If they did it would throw the vaccine by July plan completely up in the air.

Surely there must be some kind of anti blood clot drugs people could be given to take following vaccination?

Why not? Just give the AZ to people who aren’t at risk here, or better yet to countries in Europe we want to go on holiday to

 

[ForeverBlue92]

Why not? Just give the AZ to people who aren’t at risk here, or better yet to countries in Europe we want to go on holiday to

Most here over 50 have already been done though - we dont have enough of the other vaccines to get the rest of us done before end of July which is the target.

 

[tsubaki]

Most here over 50 have already been done though - we dont have enough of the other vaccines to get the rest of us done before end of July which is the target.

the rest of us (at least those without conditions that increase their risk of complications) aren’t at an elevated risk from COVID though

plus lots of over 50s haven’t yet had second AZ jabs

 

[Barnfred 55]

[

I’d accept the scientists intentions were to sell it at cost, but I know for certain the scientists weren’t involved in the partnership deals, nor the wrangling that went with the University or British Gvoverment.

I also don’t accept that AZ are selling the vaccine at cost infact there are very different price points throughout the world. I also wouldn’t accept the WSJ doesn’t have political or financial interests - I happened to live in NY for a bit.

The BMJ would be a far more objective publication https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n281

You keep going on about selling at cost as if that is a get out of jail card for incompetence, poor research data and the myriad of avoidable errors that have tainted what should been a world leading vaccine when clearly the above shows AZ are selling at different prices to different markets.

When we speak about altruistic intentions, it’s not just about price. You need a vaccine that works without risk, people have confidence in and can be supplied by an experienced company with mass production, with a global supply chain to meet demand particularly to those in the most poverty. Merck was that company and I’ve no doubt had they produced the Oxford vaccine it wouldn’t have been dogged by the problems it has been under the AZ partnership.

So in summary, the Oxford scientists are all good eggs - I don’t doubt at all their intention, let’s be frank though that intention got sucked up by a self serving entitled political system rank of vaccine nationalism (capitalism & greed) and forced a partnership away from the lead vaccine producer in the world to one with no experience to ensure domestic supply. I don’t blame the U.K. Goverment for that, it’s their job - I’m calling it as I see it. But that pathway and intervention in my opinion, has seen the Oxford vaccine dogged by issues - we all know about due to AZ incompetence and has hindered the core intention of the scientists to have a vaccine for the world. I mean they can’t even produce enough for the EU/U.K. safely or competently.

Where do I start with this?

Firstly, you are still confusing what is me providing information with me giving an opinion. As regards AZ for instance, I don't know enough about them to have an overall opinion of them. You do, you work in the medical industry, you clearly have a beef with them, and I respect that. For my part I've criticised them for making promises they've been unable to fulfill, and I've said they should be given more credit for not making mass profits out of this (both opinions). As regards the at cost matter, apart from saying it's a venerable notion, all I've said, repeatedly, is that it was a requirement of the vaccine designers in their suitor. That's a statement of fact that you have declined, so far, to disagree with.

I know that the scientists involved in designing the vaccine were not involved in the Merck negotiations. That's why there was so much upheaval within Oxford University itself, something you are conveniently ignoring. Do I believe that was wrong? Well yes I do if they were deliberately excluded because their humanistic beliefs were being sidelined for monetary gain. That's an opinion.

I've never lived in New York and am not overly familiar with the WSJ. However I've seen 3 or 4 of their articles recently and they all seemed pretty factual and unbiased to me. As regards the BMJ being none political, it is owned by the BMA and since when has any union been none political. In that particular article you linked, the cost of US$2.15 per dose to the EU is either incorrect or deliberately misleading. That is the cost of the AZ jab to individual countries within the EU, but does not take account of the Euro 336m paid up front to AZ by the EU, and which the latter have decided not to pass on to individual countries. The actual cost to the EU is Euro2.90 and it's all outlined in a Reuters article dated 1.2.21

This is still a discount though on the cost per dose of £3 (which is what the UK is paying). The cost at different production sites around the world will differ slightly but will be roughly the same I would imagine when you offset cheaper labour costs for more expensive shipping costs. The fact that the EU has negotiated a lower than cost price means that the cost to the rest of the world will be higher. I don't expect you to agree but I think this is a disgrace (an opinion by the way), another example of the EU needing to justify it's existence. AZ are also at fault by the way. They should have told the EU to sod off, but then they were over a barrel really having already been handed E336m up front. But if you're looking for a reason for the differential in prices, look no further than EU selfishness, not AZ incompetence.

The issue with Merck/Oxford were 3 fold. They were linked obviously, but at the same time were 3 distinct issues. There was the fact that the UK government didn't want the Oxford vaccine manufactured in the US. Given the way the US have banned exports there's no way I'm going to criticise them for that. There was then the internal wrangling between the producers of the vaccine, and the University administrator over his "old boy" choice of suitor. And finally there was the requirement of the vaccine designers that the suitor produce at cost. These all played out at the same time but independently of each other, which made the whole affair a lot more complex than is being reported.

Just one more thing. You made a point about AZ not producing the vaccine safely. What exactly did you mean by this.?

 

[ForeverBlue92]

the rest of us (at least those without conditions that increase their risk of complications) aren’t at an elevated risk from COVID though

plus lots of over 50s haven’t yet had second AZ jabs

Im not fussed either way tbh stuck in between a rock and a hard place! be shocked if anything comes of the blood clots though certainly the UK we have too much invested in AZ to not give it out to the remaining population imo considering they want the economy moving fully again on 21st June...

 

[Barnfred 55]

Well that is a kind of bizarre statement, given the sources I cited come from across the political spectrum but especially given who owns the WSJ.

In terms of the governments deal, yes I think Hancock was 100% right to not hand it over if there were no cast iron guarantees; Trump would have screwed us over completely, then sold us small amounts at a vastly inflated cost and finally boasted how smart he was.

Ha. Point well and truly taken on the chin Sir. I didn't know that.

I've seen a few of their articles recently and they seemed factual to me. I'll be more careful when reading their articles in future.

 

[Barnfred 55]

[

I’d accept the scientists intentions were to sell it at cost, but I know for certain the scientists weren’t involved in the partnership deals, nor the wrangling that went with the University or British Gvoverment.

I also don’t accept that AZ are selling the vaccine at cost infact there are very different price points throughout the world. I also wouldn’t accept the WSJ doesn’t have political or financial interests - I happened to live in NY for a bit.

The BMJ would be a far more objective publication https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n281

You keep going on about selling at cost as if that is a get out of jail card for incompetence, poor research data and the myriad of avoidable errors that have tainted what should been a world leading vaccine when clearly the above shows AZ are selling at different prices to different markets.

When we speak about altruistic intentions, it’s not just about price. You need a vaccine that works without risk, people have confidence in and can be supplied by an experienced company with mass production, with a global supply chain to meet demand particularly to those in the most poverty. Merck was that company and I’ve no doubt had they produced the Oxford vaccine it wouldn’t have been dogged by the problems it has been under the AZ partnership.

So in summary, the Oxford scientists are all good eggs - I don’t doubt at all their intention, let’s be frank though that intention got sucked up by a self serving entitled political system rank of vaccine nationalism (capitalism & greed) and forced a partnership away from the lead vaccine producer in the world to one with no experience to ensure domestic supply. I don’t blame the U.K. Goverment for that, it’s their job - I’m calling it as I see it. But that pathway and intervention in my opinion, has seen the Oxford vaccine dogged by issues - we all know about due to AZ incompetence and has hindered the core intention of the scientists to have a vaccine for the world. I mean they can’t even produce enough for the EU/U.K. safely or competently.

I've just been made aware of who owns WSJ. So what I said of BMJ also applies to them. Whilst both may be given editorial license I think we both know that doesn't exist in the real world.