What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

runawaybishop

...Ghost... wrote: »

I'm not aware of that, so I can't comment. It could be coincidence. My main concern is not so much a mutation, but specifically a mutation which is vaccine resistant. The chances of this happening are much higher when people are not properly vaccinated.

This is one of the main reasons you are always told to finish a course of antibiotics. Otherwise you risk leaving some behind and helping selective pressure along in producing more resistant viruses.

is_that_so

...Ghost... wrote: »

I'm not aware of that, so I can't comment. It could be coincidence. My main concern is not so much a mutation, but specifically a mutation which is vaccine resistant. The chances of this happening are much higher when people are not properly vaccinated.

It may happen anyway. Even with 80%+ vaccinated, cases will emerge but people will still have a level of protection. Vaccines will be tweaked.

JFK2000

Wolf359f wrote: »

Worst case scenario, if AZ done a deal with the EU for €3 a dose and got paid millions in advance to upscale production and then decided to sell millions of doses to another country outside the EU for €6 a dose and cite a supply issue or maybe they sign a contract with that other country stating their order will be fulfilled before the EU, ergo the EU have to wait etc....

It's not an export ban, but it's an extremely firm notice to vaccine companies to fulfill their EU contract as agreed.

Worth noting that AZs license from Oxford for their vaccine stipulates it has to be sold without profit (or loss) to low and middle income countries in perpetuity. So them reselling for a higher amount would invalidate their license.

Wealthy economies have it at cost now (but that's not in perpetuity, can't find when that switches, but there is a future revenue stream there somewhere.)

Its wider transparency to allow the optional edict "forfill our contract before others", where the producers may have been delivering reduced yield to all its customers. Some of which are exported.

Joe_ Public

JFK2000 wrote: »

Worth noting that AZs license from Oxford for their vaccine stipulates it has to be sold without profit (or loss) to low and middle income countries in perpetuity. So them reselling for a higher amount would invalidate their license.

Wealthy economies have it at cost now (but that's not in perpetuity, can't find when that switches, but there is a future revenue stream there somewhere.)

Its wider transparency to allow the optional edict "forfill our contract before others", where the producers may have been delivering reduced yield to all its customers. Some of which are exported.

Not sure of what the oxford contract fully stipulates, but the fact South Africa reportedly paid up to double what others paid per dose would make you wonder what leverage there is regarding price.

The below link may be paywalled but it is based on a memorandum of understanding AZ signed in Brazil and suggests the costs stipulation ends when the pandemic is over and that is scheduled to be July unless AZ themselves declare otherwise. I dont know about low or middle income countries but it does suggest AZ arent exactly "like a charity" as one tory mp claimed on the Claire Byrne show last week.

https://www.ft.com/content/c474f9e1-8807-4e57-9c79-6f4af145b686

...Ghost...

is_that_so wrote: »

It may happen anyway. Even with 80%+ vaccinated, cases will emerge but people will still have a level of protection. Vaccines will be tweaked.

Absolutely true, but the chances of a vaccine resistant variance increases greatly if the correct dose is not administered on time. The UK are playing with fire by doing this and they are putting the rest of the world at risk by deciding to give the second dose 9 weeks late.

Speculation: They are only doing it this way to report higher numbers vaccinated.

JFK2000

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Not sure of what the oxford contract fully stipulates, but the fact South Africa reportedly paid up to double what others paid per dose would make you wonder what leverage there is regarding price.

The below link may be paywalled but it is based on a memorandum of understanding AZ signed in Brazil and suggests the costs stipulation ends when the pandemic is over and that is scheduled to be July unless AZ themselves declare otherwise. I dont know about low or middle income countries but it does suggest AZ arent exactly "like a charity" as one tory mp claimed on the Claire Byrne show last week.

July is optimistic !

Really interesting interview with AZ CEO from last week . can't post link as i'm a newbie google search for "AZ repubblica IT Pascal"

From that article their AZ CEO said
"It's actually even written in a contract we have with Oxford University: that we will be at no profit. We have slightly different prices from one geographic to the other because the cost of goods may be different. We have a supply chain in Brazil, we have another one in Latin America, another one in South Asia. We have one in Japan. Of course, you know, local costs are different. "

Donald Trump

Aegir wrote: »

What does that have to do with anything?

There could be a number of reasons for that, a much older population for starters. Certain ethnic groups appear to have higher risk levels as well.

Far lower testing rates and no published excess mortality details in Ireland could also mean deaths not being counted.

What does it have to do with anything? You were claiming that the UK has much better chance of finding infected people. Deaths are categorised as covid related there based on a positive test in the preceding 28 days. And you implied that they are finding those people. The stats would suggest otherwise.



In Ireland, number of covid fatalities is far less than excess deaths. In the UK it is a good bit more. Excess deaths cannot be manipulated.


Figures to Oct 2020. Excess deaths to that point were 900-1200. Reported covid deaths to that date was 1800.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/1102/1175417-excess-mortality-rate/





Not exactly the same date, but about two weeks out. That doesn't matter as I am comparing excess deaths with covid reported death.
The UK excess deaths to 13th Nov was about 64,900. https://www.actuaries.org.uk/news-and-insights/news/cmi-s-2020-excess-deaths-estimate-reaches-new-high

Reported deaths due to corona to the same date were 43,000

JFK2000

runawaybishop wrote: »

This is one of the main reasons you are always told to finish a course of antibiotics. Otherwise you risk leaving some behind and helping selective pressure along in producing more resistant viruses.

On this topic , heard an interesting interview on radio with some UK Prof concerned about Africa as a human source for new mutations. The reason being the high prevalence of HIV in the population. While that will hasten the demise of some victims, others lets say asymptomatic hosts will have the virus reproducing in them for much much longer (without a efficient immune system to expel it) which adds to the mutation opportunities.

Joe_ Public

JFK2000 wrote: »

July is optimistic !

Really interesting interview with AZ CEO from last week . can't post link as i'm a newbie google search for "AZ repubblica IT Pascal"

From that article their AZ CEO said
"It's actually even written in a contract we have with Oxford University: that we will be at no profit. We have slightly different prices from one geographic to the other because the cost of goods may be different. We have a supply chain in Brazil, we have another one in Latin America, another one in South Asia. We have one in Japan. Of course, you know, local costs are different. "

The point is, though, that the pandemic is over in July if AZ says it is - according to the terms of its contract anyway. The below unpaywalled link has details.

https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/astrazeneca-could-profit-from-covid-19-vaccine-as-early-as-july-ft-3

The interview in repubblica was interesting but as i'm very cynical, i find it hard to take the words of a pharma ceo entirely at face value. Both AZ and uk government are talking a lot about poor countries but talk is all it is. Meanwhile, china is already rolling their vaccine out among poorer asian countries and, unlike the west, has backed moves to persuade the WTO to waive covid vaccine patent rights which would be the real gamechanger for low income countries.

Thats not to say west bad, china good or anything. China is obviously keen to promote its political and economic interests across the developing world, but the point they are already doing it, not just talking about it.

monkeybutter

...Ghost... wrote: »

Absolutely true, but the chances of a vaccine resistant variance increases greatly if the correct dose is not administered on time. The UK are playing with fire by doing this and they are putting the rest of the world at risk by deciding to give the second dose 9 weeks late.

Speculation: They are only doing it this way to report higher numbers vaccinated.

I think that antibiotics doses are directed to be completed even though you might feel better to stop a re-infection more so than to prevent the development of resistant strains resistance is more linked to overuse in humans and animals. In animals it is used as a prevention rather than just a cure, increasing by hundreds if not thousands the chances of a mutation randomly getting past

...Ghost...

monkeybutter wrote: »

I think that antibiotics doses are directed to be completed even though you might feel better to stop a re-infection more so than to prevent the development of resistant strains resistance is more linked to overuse in humans and animals. In animals it is used as a prevention rather than just a cure, increasing by hundreds if not thousands the chances of a mutation randomly getting past

Precisely. Worth noting that as consumers of meat, we are inducing these "preventative measure" anti-biotics. It is believed that this has caused a number of "super bugs" which are highly resistant to drugs.

Although it is rare, the same can happen with vaccines.

Donald Trump

Donald Trump wrote: »

What does it have to do with anything? You were claiming that the UK has much better chance of finding infected people. Deaths are categorised as covid related there based on a positive test in the preceding 28 days. And you implied that they are finding those people. The stats would suggest otherwise.



In Ireland, number of covid fatalities is far less than excess deaths. In the UK it is a good bit more. Excess deaths cannot be manipulated.


Figures to Oct 2020. Excess deaths to that point were 900-1200. Reported covid deaths to that date was 1800.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/1102/1175417-excess-mortality-rate/





Not exactly the same date, but about two weeks out. That doesn't matter as I am comparing excess deaths with covid reported death.
The UK excess deaths to 13th Nov was about 64,900. https://www.actuaries.org.uk/news-and-insights/news/cmi-s-2020-excess-deaths-estimate-reaches-new-high

Reported deaths due to corona to the same date were 43,000

Read that article again.

The CSO had to resort to analysing data on RIP.ie to get an idea of how people had died.

That is embarrassing

monkeybutter

...Ghost... wrote: »

Precisely. Worth noting that as consumers of meat, we are inducing these "preventative measure" anti-biotics. It is believed that this has caused a number of "super bugs" which are highly resistant to drugs.

Although it is rare, the same can happen with vaccines.

but the thing is we are looking at giving as many people as possible the vaccine so it may be unlikely that delaying the booster will increase in a big way the chance versus the the virus coming up against everyone with the vaccine and like a sieve a mutation managing to get through one that defeats the vaccine versus the suppression the say 60% effective vaccine would provide inn reducing the spread etc

Pete_Cavan

Aegir wrote: »

Read that article again.

The CSO had to resort to analysing data on RIP.ie to get an idea of how people had died.

That is embarrassing

Wasn't that because people have months to officially register a death, whereas they usually put it on RIP.ie immediately?

...Ghost...

monkeybutter wrote: »

but the thing is we are looking at giving as many people as possible the vaccine so it may be unlikely that delaying the booster will increase in a big way the chance versus the the virus coming up against everyone with the vaccine and like a sieve a mutation managing to get through one that defeats the vaccine versus the suppression the say 60% effective vaccine would provide inn reducing the spread etc

Without knowing exactly how the vaccine works, I am making an educated guess on this matter.

If the vaccine requires a booster after 3 weeks to improve and/or prolong its effectiveness, then it is both incompetent and arrogant to quadruple the time between the initial dose and the vaccine booster. So, it is not unreasonable to make the assertion that such a delay in the recommended regimen would increase the chances of a virus surviving in an improperly vaccinated host which could easily replicate a new strain which is resistant to the vaccine and possibly any vaccine with similar makeup.

For the sake of getting first vaccines more quickly, I don't think it is a wise risk. Time will tell and I hope I am wrong.

mista11

...Ghost... wrote: »

Without knowing exactly how the vaccine works, I am making an educated guess on this matter.

If the vaccine requires a booster after 3 weeks to improve and/or prolong its effectiveness, then it is both incompetent and arrogant to quadruple the time between the initial dose and the vaccine booster. So, it is not unreasonable to make the assertion that such a delay in the recommended regimen would increase the chances of a virus surviving in an improperly vaccinated host which could easily replicate a new strain which is resistant to the vaccine and possibly any vaccine with similar makeup.

For the sake of getting first vaccines more quickly, I don't think it is a wise risk. Time will tell and I hope I am wrong.

On the flip side, if this works this has the potential to literally be a life saver, saving tens of thousands of lives

Like you i dont have any understanding of the risk of mutation, so as you say time will tell

astrofool

...Ghost... wrote: »

Without knowing exactly how the vaccine works, I am making an educated guess on this matter.

If the vaccine requires a booster after 3 weeks to improve and/or prolong its effectiveness, then it is both incompetent and arrogant to quadruple the time between the initial dose and the vaccine booster. So, it is not unreasonable to make the assertion that such a delay in the recommended regimen would increase the chances of a virus surviving in an improperly vaccinated host which could easily replicate a new strain which is resistant to the vaccine and possibly any vaccine with similar makeup.

For the sake of getting first vaccines more quickly, I don't think it is a wise risk. Time will tell and I hope I am wrong.

Again, given the attack vector, that is unlikely at the moment, as long as vaccines target the spike protein and as long as the spike protein is the main way to attach and attack cells, vaccines will remain effective, as long as the host can generate enough antibodies to attack the virus quickly enough.

What the UK is doing is a bit of chest thumping and reacting to a crisis, they want the vaccine count to be high (regardless of second dose) and their "world renowned" health system is overloaded, so it makes more sense to get 1 vaccine to more people than 2 doses, the mRNA based vaccines provoke a very strong response, so are probably fine for an extended time between doses (even if against the manufacturers guidelines), AZ/Oxford seems to be at the border on producing enough of a response, which is where the second dose is really needed, especially in higher age groups, but time to get to a satisfactory immunity level seems awfully long (12+ weeks..., now younger people will probably be fine with 1 dose anyway).

It's not a strategy I'd pursue, but I understand why (apart from the chestthumping piece, but that tends to be everything Britain is doing these days, from trade deals with Asia, to vaccines, to "taking back control", but that's a different mess entirely).

Bass Reeves

...Ghost... wrote: »

Precisely. Worth noting that as consumers of meat, we are inducing these "preventative measure" anti-biotics. It is believed that this has caused a number of "super bugs" which are highly resistant to drugs.

Although it is rare, the same can happen with vaccines.

Preventive use antibiotics are no longer used in Ireland or in the EU either. They were mainly used in the pig and poultry but are no longer allowed. They are still in use in the US AFAIK but there use is not as common as it was there either. The use of antibiotics in feed is a no-no accross the EU

Parachutes

Parachutes wrote: »

People in other countries might start thinking the Brexit model isn’t such a bad idea...

Once again ROI/NI being used as a political football to get back at the UK for having the audacity to leave the bloc.

Spurious, speculative nonsense. Why would a company breaking a contract encourage others to leave the EU?

Parachutes wrote: »

UK approved AstraZeneca and contracted vaccines first, way before the EU. The EU then ordered their vaccines. AstraZeneca have to honour their contract with the UK first, that’s what’s causing the issues. It’s a bad situation but the UK have no responsibility to give vaccines to the EU.

No, they don't. It specifically says in the contract that the manufacture and rollout of the vaccine to other countries can in no way impact upon the rolout to EU countries. You either haven't been paying attention or you're refusing to see what's in front of your eyes.

brickster69 wrote: »

A little pointless talking about contracts as no one knows what is in the UK's contract.

The EU contract has been published, with redactions. There are multiple citations from it in this thread alone. There is a specific clause which states that no other contracts or deals with other countries can/should impact on the EU contract. So, with all due respect, fcuk the UK contract because it doesn't matter a jot what it says in it. AZ are either prioritising UK over EU supplies, which is in breach of the EU contract, or they knowingly signed a contract which they had no intention of honouring.

This is the EU's fault....haow, exactly?

downcow wrote: »

I see just now on the news that UK hopes to not just help developing countries with spare vaccines but is keen to help neighbours as well, as soon as all vulnerable groups are vaccinated.

What spare vaccines? How are there ANY spares if there is a contract in place, or multiple contracts, if you want to be real about it? How is it acceptable that, out of two customers, one doesn't receive what they ordered and the other gets extras?

mista11

Deleted User wrote: »

Spurious, speculative nonsense. Why would a company breaking a contract encourage others to leave the EU?



No, they don't. It specifically says in the contract that the manufacture and rollout of the vaccine to other countries can in no way impact upon the rolout to EU countries. You either haven't been paying attention or you're refusing to see what's in front of your eyes.



The EU contract has been published, with redactions. There are multiple citations from it in this thread alone. There is a specific clause which states that no other contracts or deals with other countries can/should impact on the EU contract. So, with all due respect, fcuk the UK contract because it doesn't matter a jot what it says in it. AZ are either prioritising UK over EU supplies, which is in breach of the EU contract, or they knowingly signed a contract which they had no intention of honouring.

This is the EU's fault....haow, exactly?



What spare vaccines? How are there ANY spares if there is a contract in place, or multiple contracts, if you want to be real about it? How is it acceptable that, out of two customers, one doesn't receive what they ordered and the other gets extras?

`

Bit of a rant but have you read the thread? All your issues have been covered

The Uk didnt receive what they ordered either so are in the same boat as the EU, they just had a three month head start. They just arent blaming other people

monkeybutter

mista11 wrote: »

`

Bit of a rant but have you read the thread? All your issues have been covered

The Uk didnt receive what they ordered either so are in the same boat as the EU, they just had a three month head start. They just arent blaming other people

How many Vaccines are the UK getting versus was what ordered exactly? Have they had a 70% reduction

astrofool

astrofool wrote: »

Again, given the attack vector, that is unlikely at the moment, as long as vaccines target the spike protein and as long as the spike protein is the main way to attach and attack cells, vaccines will remain effective, as long as the host can generate enough antibodies to attack the virus quickly enough.

What the UK is doing is a bit of chest thumping and reacting to a crisis, they want the vaccine count to be high (regardless of second dose) and their "world renowned" health system is overloaded, so it makes more sense to get 1 vaccine to more people than 2 doses, the mRNA based vaccines provoke a very strong response, so are probably fine for an extended time between doses (even if against the manufacturers guidelines), AZ/Oxford seems to be at the border on producing enough of a response, which is where the second dose is really needed, especially in higher age groups, but time to get to a satisfactory immunity level seems awfully long (12+ weeks..., now younger people will probably be fine with 1 dose anyway).

It's not a strategy I'd pursue, but I understand why (apart from the chestthumping piece, but that tends to be everything Britain is doing these days, from trade deals with Asia, to vaccines, to "taking back control", but that's a different mess entirely).

You need to ignore the political bluster and see where the advice is coming from.

The four chief medical officers are all agreed on this strategy as is Jonathan Van-Tam, who seems more than happy to speak his mind if he isn't happy with what the government is doing.

This is also a strategy being followed in all four countries. If the Welsh or Scottish assemblies weren't happy, you can bet your life they would be stating this publicly. The respective Labour and SNP leaders would love nothing more than to use this as another reason to have a pop at Boris, but they aren't.

Or at least, not yet.

monkeybutter

monkeybutter wrote: »

How many Vaccines are the UK getting versus was what ordered exactly? Have they had a 70% reduction

They were originally meant to get 15m for initial rollout in December and January followed by circa 2m a week.

The first delivery they got was 503,000 followed by 1.5m a week later, they seem to be getting around this every week now. So yes they are getting less than originally planned.

Donald Trump

Aegir wrote: »

Read that article again.

The CSO had to resort to analysing data on RIP.ie to get an idea of how people had died.

That is embarrassing

Would you not be more embarrassed at the 22k odd unexplained extra deaths?



That's 22k more than expected. And that even assumes that none of that 43k would have died in that period of natural causes anyway so it's extremely conservative.

One of the things seemingly being overlooked is the UK per capita, ordered twice as much AZ as the EU. 1.5 doses per head vs 0.75 doses per head.

...Ghost...

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Preventive use antibiotics are no longer used in Ireland or in the EU either. They were mainly used in the pig and poultry but are no longer allowed. They are still in use in the US AFAIK but there use is not as common as it was there either. The use of antibiotics in feed is a no-no accross the EU

Yes, but that only slows down drug resistant variants. As long as one country allows the practice and citizens of that country travel, then any pathogens they are carrying will spread. It sucks, but that's the way it is.

monkeybutter

Deleted User wrote: »

One of the things seemingly being overlooked is the UK per capita, ordered twice as much AZ as the EU. 1.5 doses per head vs 0.75 doses per head.

So they could be even more flutered it looks in reality they will have a months head start right

Bit cynical

mista11 wrote: »

`

Bit of a rant but have you read the thread? All your issues have been covered

The Uk didnt receive what they ordered either so are in the same boat as the EU, they just had a three month head start. They just arent blaming other people

I think even the EU accept this now as they seem to be happy with a fairly minor increase of 9m doses, still significantly down from the original estimate.

Donald Trump

Donald Trump wrote: »

Would you not be more embarrassed at the 22k odd unexplained extra deaths?



That's 22k more than expected. And that even assumes that none of that 43k would have died in that period of natural causes anyway so it's extremely conservative.

This is completely off topic and pretty irrelevant as well.

There is no consistent and accurate way of measuring the effects of this pandemic. Not everyone that dies from Covid will be recorded, similarly, people who died with, but not from covid will be included.

Then there are the thousands of people missing operations and treatments because the health services are over loaded, or they are too wary to present themselves for treatment. Those people need to be included as well, as do anyone who unfortunately decides they can't take the isolation any more, or being locked in doors with an abusive spouse or parent.

There is no prefect way of measuring the impact, but if you only measure people who died from covid then you are missing the mark.

NSAman

I think we can all say, the EU F***ed up.