What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

astrofool

Aegir wrote: »

it really really upsets you that the UK is doing such a good job of vaccinating its population, doesn't it?

No, I have friends and family in the UK that have had the jab, but I do understand how to look at something objectively rather than from a nationalistic standpoint. I do find it scandalous that they misled and concealed both how they procured their vaccine supply and then deciding to send much needed vaccines to a territory with 0 COVID, as well as the various debacle around PPE and not protecting healthcare staff (of which I also have some family members).

astrofool

Sono Topolino wrote: »

The UK relied primarily on theory instead of hypotheses which had been tested on data. The EU did the exact opposite. It's not to say that the UK didn't use data and hypotheses tested on data, they were just much more comfortable using theoretical models when data wasn't available.

Data driven decision-making is great, but you need to wait for data to be collected. That takes time, and in a pandemic, wasitng time costs lives. It seemed (based on commentary from Ireland/EU) in January and February the UK was taking wild risks, increasing the waiting time between vaccine doses etc. However, looking at what medical professionals already knew (or claimed to know) about the immune system, it actually seems like a fairly sensible decision. Now everybody is doing it, because we have the data.

They took wild risks because the situation was dire, not because of theoretical models. The EU didn't take those risks because the situation wasn't dire and as the third wave is starting in the EU, the most vulnerable have already been vaccinated.

Dyr

astrofool wrote: »

I've seen a few people saying this, but people don't understand how inextricably linked the UK failures in 2020 are to their vaccination rollout, one informed the other and led to them taking chances that other countries didn't need to take, trying to separate the timelines doesn't make sense.

You're going to explain this inextricable link right?

Multipass

astrofool wrote: »

They took wild risks because the situation was dire, not because of theoretical models. The EU didn't take those risks because the situation wasn't dire and as the third wave is starting in the EU, the most vulnerable have already been vaccinated.

You don’t think delaying vaccination is a risk?

Pelezico

I feel really good. Just had my first AZN vaccine.

All this hysteria is ridiculous.

BonnieSituation

Pelezico wrote: »

I feel really good. Just had my first AZN vaccine.

All this hysteria is ridiculous.

Give it 6 hours.

Have paracetamol to hand and get ready for bed.

Grats

The wonderful expert group, NIAC, spent two days, Thursday and Friday, discussing this issue. Then postponed a final decision until they met today, Monday. Do they realise that we're in a pandemic and time is critical? They clearly don't as they took Saturday and Sunday off when they should have stayed at it over the weekend until they finalised matters. How could one have any confidence in them with such carry-on.

Pelezico

Pelezico wrote: »

I feel really good. Just had my first AZN vaccine.

All this hysteria is ridiculous.

n=1

astrofool

Bambi wrote: »

You're going to explain this inextricable link right?

You don't think the highest death and case rate in Europe in December/January informed their vaccine rollout?

But look, to put it in plain English for some:

The UK made a hash of protecting their healthcare workers, they initially tried to go with herd immunity and failed, and closed down their economy much later than other countries (such as Ireland) but a lot of damage was already done, their lack of PPE (Ireland donated to them) also led to a lot of cases and deaths in the hospital system.

They then tried to open too soon and got caught badly over December and January with very high case counts and a very high death rate, their only way out of it was to start taking risks on the vaccination process. They did a few things to allow this:

• They approved medicines with emergency approval taking full liability onto the British government
• Where trial data was missing they used lab tests to fill in that data for efficacy for the over 70's
• They sent a story out about their domestic supply and about helping ramp up production that turned out to be false
• They didn't follow the manufacturers guidelines on dosing schedule (this was actually the most surprising as it is where the most risk was and completely unnecessary except if you look at their high death and case count)

Even after all of that, they're still just opening up today just as we are, and they're still living in very restricted measures, with opening up just a few weeks ahead of Europe who mostly managed to avoid a 3rd wave until the most vulnerable were vaccinated. They had a shocker of a pandemic, and the risks they took around vaccine rollout are linked to their own previous incompetence.

iamwhoiam

Grats wrote: »

The wonderful expert group, NIAC, spent two days, Thursday and Friday, discussing this issue. Then postponed a final decision until they met today, Monday. Do they realise that we're in a pandemic and time is critical? They clearly don't as they took Saturday and Sunday off when they should have stayed at it over the weekend until they finalised matters. How could one have any confidence in them with such carry-on.

And have they any idea how this is messing with peoples heads .

Sono Topolino

astrofool wrote: »

They took wild risks because the situation was dire, not because of theoretical models. The EU didn't take those risks because the situation wasn't dire and as the third wave is starting in the EU, the most vulnerable have already been vaccinated.

No, the EU didn't take this risk because the EU doesn't have the same political capital and legitimacy as a national government. They also have to take into account the levels of vaccine scepticism in certain member states like France, and the knowledge that member state governments will blame it for everything it does wrong and take credit for everything it does right. It is therefore being very cautious.

astrofool

astrofool wrote: »

No, I have friends and family in the UK that have had the jab, but I do understand how to look at something objectively rather than from a nationalistic standpoint.

your other posts would suggest otherwise.

astrofool wrote: »

They took wild risks because the situation was dire, not because of theoretical models. The EU didn't take those risks because the situation wasn't dire and as the third wave is starting in the EU, the most vulnerable have already been vaccinated.

no wild risks were taken

astrofool wrote: »

You don't think the highest death and case rate in Europe in December/January informed their vaccine rollout?

planning for the vaccine rollout started in April 2020.

astrofool wrote: »

The UK made a hash of protecting their healthcare workers,

No more so than any other country in europe.

astrofool wrote: »

they initially tried to go with herd immunity and failed,

that is nothing more than a tabloid fallacy. The Chief Science Officer talked about herd immunity at a press conference and it got the media over excited.

astrofool wrote: »

closed down their economy much later than other countries (such as Ireland) but a lot of damage was already done

about a week after Ireland, which was the only actual decision the Irish government have made to date.

astrofool wrote: »

their lack of PPE (Ireland donated to them) also led to a lot of cases and deaths in the hospital system.

the lack of PPE was the same as every other country, including Ireland. The big difference here though, is that HSE staff going to the press would be bullied mercilessly by HSE management.

astrofool wrote: »

They then tried to open too soon and got caught badly over December and January with very high case counts and a very high death rate, their only way out of it was to start taking risks on the vaccination process.

They opened up around the same time as Ireland and put tougher restrictions in place sooner. The big difference is that new variant caught everyone off guard, which is why the UK and Ireland were the first to experience the wave currently sweeping europe.

astrofool wrote: »

They did a few things to allow this:

• They approved medicines with emergency approval taking full liability onto the British government As every government in Europe has also done, what's the difference?
• Where trial data was missing they used lab tests to fill in that data for efficacy for the over 70's lab tests that showed that the immune response was very high, so it was a safe bet. Oddly enough, Oxford University weren't all that keen about giving placebos to the over 70s knowing how vulnerable they were
• They sent a story out about their domestic supply and about helping ramp up production that turned out to be false what was wrong about it? that is exactly what they did do and what the EU should have done
• They didn't follow the manufacturers guidelines on dosing schedule (this was actually the most surprising as it is where the most risk was and completely unnecessary except if you look at their high death and case count) what risk? they had all the data and interpreted it correctly.

astrofool wrote: »

Even after all of that, they're still just opening up today just as we are, and they're still living in very restricted measures, with opening up just a few weeks ahead of Europe who mostly managed to avoid a 3rd wave until the most vulnerable were vaccinated. They had a shocker of a pandemic, and the risks they took around vaccine rollout are linked to their own previous incompetence.

most of europe is imposing tougher lockdowns and witnessing levels of mortality no seen before. maybe they should have followed the UK's example rather than played politics?

Sono Topolino

astrofool wrote: »

You don't think the highest death and case rate in Europe in December/January informed their vaccine rollout?

But look, to put it in plain English for some:

The UK made a hash of protecting their healthcare workers, they initially tried to go with herd immunity and failed, and closed down their economy much later than other countries (such as Ireland) but a lot of damage was already done, their lack of PPE (Ireland donated to them) also led to a lot of cases and deaths in the hospital system.

They then tried to open too soon and got caught badly over December and January with very high case counts and a very high death rate, their only way out of it was to start taking risks on the vaccination process. They did a few things to allow this:

• They approved medicines with emergency approval taking full liability onto the British government
• Where trial data was missing they used lab tests to fill in that data for efficacy for the over 70's
• They sent a story out about their domestic supply and about helping ramp up production that turned out to be false
• They didn't follow the manufacturers guidelines on dosing schedule (this was actually the most surprising as it is where the most risk was and completely unnecessary except if you look at their high death and case count)

Even after all of that, they're still just opening up today just as we are, and they're still living in very restricted measures, with opening up just a few weeks ahead of Europe who mostly managed to avoid a 3rd wave until the most vulnerable were vaccinated. They had a shocker of a pandemic, and the risks they took around vaccine rollout are linked to their own previous incompetence.

I agree with you that the UK's risk appetite was driven by how bad a year they had in 2020, but your analysis ignores the fact that the UK and the EU are very different beasts - one is a nation state, and the other is a supranational union of countries with different political cultures, attitudes towards vaccination etc. Also the EU is perpetually one crisis away from collapsing entirely.

If the UK messed up vaccinations, they'd Borris Johnson out of office and call it a day. If Scotland and Northern Ireland secede, 3/4 of the UK (England) wouldn't notice.

If the EU made a mess of vaccinations, there's a good chance the Union would collapse entirely. This makes the EU extremely risk adverse. But the only risks the EU can directly influence are variables like contracts, pricing, approval processes for vaccines. It can't control the pandemic itself. In order to appear competent and in control, negotiated very tough deals with pharmaceutical companies regarding price and liability for damages. It hoped that by getting a good deal, member states might trust it to carry out negotiations like this in future. It also forced the companies to apply for full regulatory approval which took a lot longer. Imagine if the EU gave emergency approval to a vaccine which caused dreadful side effects among a large number of patients? The Union might collapse just over that. However, the EU did not account for the fact that pharma companies might prefer to service countries which have awarded more lucrative contracts ahead of the EU...

It seems ironic that the EU is getting criticised for being overly cautious. Yet, when you analyse the situation from their point of view, every single decision made logical sense at the time.

Astrazeneca not to be used in Cohorts 4 and 7.
Just to edit not to be used for Cohorts 4 and 7 that are under 60.

stephenjmcd

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Astrazeneca not to be used in Cohorts 4 and 7.

Not quite.

Can still be used for those over 60 in these groups and 2nd doses are still to be given for all who've got it so far.

brickster69

Aegir wrote: »

planning for the vaccine rollout started in April 2020.

Don't mean to correct you but it actually started as soon as they received some data from China in January 2020. According to the Oxford University scientist.

rm212

“Those aged under 60 years with a very high risk or high-risk medical condition should receive their second dose 12 weeks later as scheduled.”

“Those aged under 60 years without a very high risk or high-risk medical condition should have the scheduled interval between doses extended to 16 weeks to allow further assessment of the benefits and risks as more evidence becomes available.”

What even is this disgraceful carry on? How could anyone in the general public seeing this messaging feel confident in getting AZ when they’re literally saying, “if you’re not at high risk, wait 16 weeks instead of 12 just so we can collect evidence and make sure it’s safe to get a second dose, otherwise, sure go ahead and get it after 12 weeks”.

So much for trying to encourage uptake of vaccination... I think NIAC and the government are actually turning more people into vaccine skeptics.

brickster69

Fu## me, and people call Bojo a clown. Unreal !

rm212

rm212 wrote: »

“Those aged under 60 years with a very high risk or high-risk medical condition should receive their second dose 12 weeks later as scheduled.”

“Those aged under 60 years without a very high risk or high-risk medical condition should have the scheduled interval between doses extended to 16 weeks to allow further assessment of the benefits and risks as more evidence becomes available.”

What even is this disgraceful carry on? How could anyone in the general public seeing this messaging feel confident in getting AZ when they’re literally saying, “if you’re not at high risk, wait 16 weeks instead of 12 just so we can collect evidence and make sure it’s safe to get a second dose, otherwise, sure go ahead and get it after 12 weeks”.

So much for trying to encourage uptake of vaccination... I think NIAC and the government are actually turning more people into vaccine skeptics.

Disgusting for those with first doses.

Throwing them under a bus.

Yes one person got a blood clot.

If it didnt happen after first dose its not gonna happen after second.

Leaving those in total limbo.

stephenjmcd

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Not quite.

Can still be used for those over 60 in these groups and 2nd doses are still to be given for all who've got it so far.

Really?

Hurrache

brickster69 wrote: »

Fu## me, and people call Bojo a clown. Unreal !

He is, the biggest of them all. But yet again someone will have to explain what any of this has got to do with Martin?

Kivaro

Posted this a couple of weeks ago.

Kivaro wrote: »

No surprise that the Netherlands is suspending Astrazeneca vaccine for the under 60s. I said a couple of days ago that this thread would become a popular one because of news like this and the fact that Ireland is heavily vested in AZ in our vaccine rollout. The HSE are relying on it for the substantial numbers that they expect to vaccinate in the coming 3 months. If we suspend Astrazeneca in Ireland, it will cause havoc here. But it has to be in the minds of the decision-makers on whether to suspend that particular vaccine again.

Charles Babbage wrote: »

AZ will make up less than 25% of Ireland's vaccine rollout, although it might be bigger proportion in April. So unless Boris sends a shipload of vaccine or AZ decides to honour its commitments then we can work around this problem, especially as for the next two months we will still mostly be vaccinating people over 60. So it won't cause havoc.

Not so sure about that.
It will cause disruption at the very least e.g. Astrazeneca is cancelled for all over the country tomorrow, so it is causing havoc for many thousands:
https://twitter.com/RobOHanrahan/sta...614392323?s=20

Hopefully, the HSE pre-empted that this was going to happen and has a contingency plan already in place so that it should not put our vaccination program too much off track.

astrofool

Aegir wrote: »

your other posts would suggest otherwise.

It's why you're better looking at data objectively rather than with a nationalist slant, you can go from being called a west brit to a die hard republican across a couple of posts on here. How someone can look at the death count in the UK (which is considered under reported as well) and think they did a good job is beyond me, and I'm lucky not to have lost family over there to COVID-19, mostly by luck of geography.

astrofool

astrofool wrote: »

It's why you're better looking at data objectively rather than with a nationalist slant, you can go from being called a west brit to a die hard republican across a couple of posts on here. How someone can look at the death count in the UK (which is considered under reported as well) and think they did a good job is beyond me, and I'm lucky not to have lost family over there to COVID-19, mostly by luck of geography.

Considered under reported by who? Can you provide some evidence of this or is it more of your bluster?

astrofool

Aegir wrote: »

Considered under reported by who? Can you provide some evidence of this or is it more of your bluster?

Do a quick search, there was a lot of cases of care home deaths not going into the official figures, the UK government admitted to this.

I do like how you immediately jumped to "bluster" as a defence when the information is very quickly gettable.

What's your background, are you British/English/Irish/Scottish/Welsh? Living in or outside of the UK? Should the answer shape my opinion of what you post?

astrofool

astrofool wrote: »

Do a quick search, there was a lot of cases of care home deaths not going into the official figures, the UK government admitted to this.

I do like how you immediately jumped to "bluster" as a defence when the information is very quickly gettable.

What's your background, are you British/English/Irish/Scottish/Welsh? Living in or outside of the UK? Should the answer shape my opinion of what you post?

Well to be fair, you post a lot of words, but with little to back any of it up. I’d call that bluster. Care homes weren’t included in the initial figures, but were added months ago.

You want deaths within 28 days of a positive test, death certificates that mention Covid 19 or a running comparison of excess death rates? All instantly available on the government website, as is all the information in the decision making process around vaccines. It’s all there.

Halfdane

Crosspost from the main covid thread but I feel it’s actually more relevant here:

At what point does the first dose start to become ineffective? At first there was a four week gap between shots, then 12, now 16. Surely that could have negative effects on the overall efficacy of the vaccine? I’ve seen no data related to a 16 week wait and efficacy figures.

So Leo tells us a week ago a 40 year old has 1 in a 1000 chance of death of covid.


NIAC this weeks tells us it is not safe for said person to take AZ where mortality has been 1 in a million.


Obviously?


Makes complete sense.


Good messaging overall.


I love the people in charge of our lives.


Full dystopian society at this stage.

Wolf359f

Halfdane wrote: »

Crosspost from the main covid thread but I feel it’s actually more relevant here:

At what point does the first dose start to become ineffective? At first there was a three week gap between shots, then 12, now 16. Surely that could have negative effects on the overall efficacy of the vaccine? I’ve seen no data related to a 16 week wait and efficacy figures.

Where have you seen AZ been used with 3 week ago between doses? Not in the EU, not the UK, so where?

brickster69

Halfdane wrote: »

I’ve seen no data related to a 16 week wait and efficacy figures.

Because there is none. A bit like France going to mix doses