What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

Hurrache wrote: »

Not a sleight on you but pointing out the amusement of the wild variances in how people view what's happening, some say the EU are a bit blasé, others implying they're (as if we're not the EU) throwing a childish strop over not getting a contracted number of doses of a vacine for which they part funded.

My point is that the EU response has been weak regardless of what Astra Zeneca can deliver or promised to deliver.

I hope the EU gut them from nuts to neck if they pulled a fast one.

All we know for certain is that the EU vaccination program is now a problem for all of us in the EU.

People are either being vaccinated or not. It's that basic. As things stand for the last month in the EU, they are not.

Who or why doesn't beat results.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

My issue with this angle is, why are we to assume that the UK's scientists would be spineless yes-men who would allow their independence to be trampled upon by the government? Governments putting independents individuals or organisations under pressure to deliver a particular outcome doesn't have to lead to those organisations necessarily complying with such demands.

In Ireland, it more often than not seems to. I don't know if this is the case in other countries but I have no reason to assume that it is - I've always assumed that Ireland's issue with this is down to how socially tiny the upper echelons are and therefore how personal these things become. I doubt that's the case in a country with a significantly larger population. But I have no evidence either way.

This angle, on the other hand, is based entirely on the assumption that organisations in the UK do, indeed, kowtow to politicians running their mouths.

I don't think the UK emergency approval of Oxford /Astra Zeneca is that hard to understand really.
They gave the approval on a balance of probability, as far as I understand it the Oxford trials weren't well designed for passing regulators but they put out a good bit of data, data indicated.
1) The vaccine doesn't cause harm and is safe
2) The vaccine has between 60%-90% effectiveness
3) This is the important bit, it reduced massively/eliminated severe symptoms/hospitalisation in the trial group.

In a non crisis situation the UK might not have given emergency authorisation, however it is an emergency. It's better on balance to have a vaccine out there that reduces very significantly hospilisation that's being rolled out fast, than leaving your population vulnerable because you want have something your even more sure about.

We should wait to see what the best thing is, we don't want to give out a sub-standard vaccine that doesn't halt infection completely is what the EMA are presumably thinking. I don't think they are factoring in other aspects. Same way NPHET doesn't care about financial costs etc.

UK emergency approval is a balanced one, where even if it's not as good as it could be, people are dying now, the vaccine at a minimum is safe, and the social tensions and economic costs are unprecedented.

Sonic the Shaghog wrote: »

Every tweet lads have linked here about it only being 8% have all become unavailable so have they been deleted? Bit suss to be taking them down if they can back up their claim surely

Author of the story only posted an English thread 2 posts above yours.

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

So, my view being that it’s suspect timing to release currently unsubstantiated data is one side, the other view is that we’re saying the U.K. half of AZ have falsified figures, under instruction of the U.K. scientists on the orders of the U.K. government in the presumable hope that no one else would order the vaccine and therefore find out.

I’ll happily admit I’m wrong, it happens a lot just ask the wife, if it turns out that the over 65’s efficacy is only 8% but Jesus, that’s some alternative theory!

“For example, it could be that a lower confidence interval was calculated on very preliminary data based on very few cases with a very wide interval, then a very low value of efficacy would be found, which would be misleading. The authors of The Lancet paper say additional data will become available and it will be best to rely on those data.”

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-reports-from-germany-that-the-oxford-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-has-8-efficacy-in-over-65s/

...Ghost... wrote: »

Well no. I clearly said in my first post that most of what we have is speculation. My opinions are derived from experience on how these political games usually play out and I strongly suspect AZ will be shown to be at fault with a likelihood of UK involvement. You don't find it odd that their supply is not hampered even though the next biggest player has reported supply issues?

If AZ can show they had manufacturing issues resulting in the current delay are they not in the clear? Yes it might be a bit unfair that the UK's supply was unaffected, but are AZ in fact under any obligation to be fair with allocations? AZ can argue that the allocation was made before the the manufacturing problems and it was simply unfortunate that the EU's supply got hit.

...Ghost... wrote: »

AZ will have very detailed reports on their entire manufacturing regime, past present and future. This is why the EU want to investigate not withstanding less than satisfactory answers thus far. So, if AZ have indeed had manufacturing issues tied to and equating to the sum of the losses to the EU inventory, then they will have quelled some suspicion, but it does not put them in the clear.

I suspect that they did have some manufacturing issues and that question will come down to why it was the EU that was mainly affected. Were AZ obliged by contract to prioritize the EU in the event of supply issues; were they obliged to spread the burden equally or was there simply no clause in the contract dealing with this eventuality?

Danzy wrote:

As things stand for the last month in the EU, they are not.

What???
9M EU citizens were vaccinated as of yesterday. Some countries' data are few days old so in reality it could be up to 9.5M.

The EMA is approving products for one of the largest and very well regulated markets in the world. There is nothing to speed up. The approval process may be a bit slower than in the US due to more rigorous and careful approach. But that's it.

The reality is - AZ applied to EMA late after the UK emergency approval, the data was dodgy, they were asked to provide more data, however the EMA starting a rolling review and still expecting more data from AZ because what they provided so far is insufficient.
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-starts-first-rolling-review-covid-19-vaccine-eu
And on top they are potentially breaching contract with the EU by selling EU pre ordered stuff elsewhere.

But sure it's the EU's fault that they diversified the vaccine portfolio as much as possible, that Sanofi got issues in the clinical trial and that AZ presented crap data to EMA late and that the UK approved their own vaccine without proper scrutiny.

Too many euro bashing trolls and eurosceptic drivel on this thread. Daily Express quoted, really??? Should be tagged by mods as fake news.

Ficheall wrote: »

Wasn't the AZ data always a bit iffy? Not testing enough people over 65, deciding half a dose was best based on a tiny sample, and iirc some vagueness over what they counted as an post-vaccine infection? I'd assumed there'd have been more rigorous investigation since - is this just 8% thing just poking at the how the original data was used?

8% comes from Bild.

That's enough to put in it the trash heap.

I haven't seen a more creditable source backing it.

I do have doubts about the Astra Zenaca vaccine but it's definitely got better efficacy at all ages than 8%. It wouldn't have made it this far if it was that bad.

I haven't read the original German language article as its behind a pay wall and I'm not going to pay for Bild.

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

8% comes from Bild.

That's enough to put in it the trash heap.

I haven't seen a more creditable source backing it.

Other sources have been linked to a few times, most recently on the previous page.

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

I still haven't seen another source repeating the 8% claim even looking at the last few pages. A Twitter poster who sums up articles on his new feed is the only source of the 8% on the previous page.

I repeat there is some dodgy data with AZ but the 8% seems to come out of left field.

Articles I've read credits the 8% to Bild.

I think the twitter posts were based on a journalist from the Handelsblaat newspaper which ran the story concurrently with bild. Whatever about bild, Handelsblaat would seem a very reputable publication, a kind of German equivalent of the Financial Times.

mick087 wrote: »

Once again it's everyone else to blame except the EU.

Why some countries was out buying vaccines the EU was trying to negotiate a better deal

This is an appalling mess.

This organization know as the EU has only itself to blame.
Who from the EU will be accountable ?

Erm, they had ordered and funded the vaccines, hence the problem. They weren't trying to negotiate a better deal. You don't seem to understand the story at all.

Hurrache wrote: »

Erm, they had ordered and funded the vaccines, hence the problem. They weren't trying to negotiate a better deal. You don't seem to understand the story at all.

So eveyone else is to blame again except anyone from the EU.
Who is accountable from the EU?

Ficheall wrote: »

You know when you order a pizza and it arrives two hours late? That's actually your own fault.

I have never had a pizza arrive 2 hours late.

ixoy wrote: »

Why would they be accountable for AZ's production issues?

Exactly why would they indeed.