What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

Dyr · 07-02-2021 11:51AM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Political pressure from someone. Not sure who.

Sounds spicy, any proof?

Sam Russell · 07-02-2021 11:54AM

Bambi wrote: »

Sounds spicy, any proof?

I said I did not know, but the Russians approved their vaccine ahead of anyone, the Americans approved their vaccine ahead of anyone, the Chinese approved their vaccine ahead of anyone, and the UK approved their vaccine ahead of anyone.

Now is that evidence? I don't know.

mista11 · 07-02-2021 12:03PM

MrMusician18 wrote: »

There was no prioritisation in the contract and AZ didn't notify the EU of an external impediment to deliver, so that rain you suggest is incorrect

I wasnt talking about prioriisation, if the EU had ordered three months earlier like some other countries AZ would have had time to iron out the issues in their supply chain and we wouldnt have any delays

So my original replay - "EU messed up and ordered too late" still stands

If you dont belive me go and read De Bild - the current german chanellor is saying the same thing in their cabinent

Dyr · 07-02-2021 12:03PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

I said I did not know, but the Russians approved their vaccine ahead of anyone, the Americans approved their vaccine ahead of anyone, the Chinese approved their vaccine ahead of anyone, and the UK approved their vaccine ahead of anyone.

Now is that evidence? I don't know.

You said there was politcal pressure from someone. Quite different from "I don't know"

Sounds like you're throwing out conspiracy theories.

Brits are going great guns with vaccine rollout, EU are not and managed to impose a hard border on this Island without telling anyone in a fit of pique. They then admitted that the EU is generally slower to act than nation states are

I would say the circumstantial evidence points to the EU not being very good at this rather than the Brits being at it again.

is_that_so · 07-02-2021 12:04PM

mista11 wrote: »

I wasn't talking about prioritisation, if the EU had ordered three months earlier like some other countries AZ would have had time to iron out the issues in their supply chain and we wouldn't have any delays

So my original replay - "EU messed up and ordered too late" still stands

If you don't believe me go and read De Bild - the current German chancellor is saying the same thing in their cabinet

Bild make The Sun look like quality literature!

Sam Russell · 07-02-2021 12:11PM

Bambi wrote: »

You said there was politcal pressure from someone. Quite different from "I don't know"

Sounds like you're throwing out conspiracy theories.

Brits are going great guns with vaccine rollout, EU are not and managed to impose a hard border on this Island without telling anyone in a fit of pique. They then admitted that the EU is generally slower to act than nation states are

I would say the circumstantial evidence points to the EU not being very good at this rather than the Brits being at it again.

Not at all. Politics apply to things like this, because they do. It is not a conspiracy - it is real politics.

They are doing well with vaccine roll out - or at least on the first shot. Not so good on deaths though - still nearly a thousand per day. I just hope that the vaccine works well for them, and quickly, because it affects us.

Pete_Cavan · 07-02-2021 12:50PM

mista11 wrote: »

I wasnt talking about prioriisation, if the EU had ordered three months earlier like some other countries AZ would have had time to iron out the issues in their supply chain and we wouldnt have any delays

So my original replay - "EU messed up and ordered too late" still stands

If you dont belive me go and read De Bild - the current german chanellor is saying the same thing in their cabinent

This is nonsense, AZ signed up to a delivery schedule and are liable for that from the day of signing. You can't come back months after signing up to a contract and say the other side signed too late. AZ had been working towards fulfilling that supply since June, if there were any concerns that they couldn't meet those terms they shouldn't have signed up to those terms in August.

Mods really need to stop posters constantly pushing this.

brickster69 · 07-02-2021 12:54PM

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Have we gotten to the bottom of why AZ have not been fulfilling EU orders but UK orders appear unaffected?

That investigation into one of the EU plants had shown there was a shortage of one or two components to enable production to start.

robinph · 07-02-2021 01:59PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

I said I did not know, but the Russians approved their vaccine ahead of anyone, the Americans approved their vaccine ahead of anyone, the Chinese approved their vaccine ahead of anyone, and the UK approved their vaccine ahead of anyone.

Now is that evidence? I don't know.

The UK approved the Pfizer vaccine before anyone else. What does that show?

MrMusician18 · 07-02-2021 02:02PM

brickster69 wrote: »

That investigation into one of the EU plants had shown there was a shortage of one or two components to enable production to start.

So that raises further questions, where have the materials gone and of they're was limited supply why weren't they assigned to EU contract production

mista11 · 07-02-2021 02:08PM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

This is nonsense, AZ signed up to a delivery schedule and are liable for that from the day of signing. You can't come back months after signing up to a contract and say the other side signed too late. AZ had been working towards fulfilling that supply since June, if there were any concerns that they couldn't meet those terms they shouldn't have signed up to those terms in August.

Mods really need to stop posters constantly pushing this.

People pushing out that there are liabiliies in a the AZ contract when they dont exist deserve mods review

They had concerns so thats why they wrote "Best Reasonable efforts" if they had no conerns that would have put guarante, simple really

I dont know why posters are so pro eurpoean on this, they screwed up, just accept it - Even ursula said so earlier in the week

robinph · 07-02-2021 02:23PM

Pfizer has also reduced capacity for Europe, in order to enable them to increase capacity. Who is to blame for the timing of that upgrade being carried out when the EU doesn't have a supply coming in from elsewhere to replace it?

Icantthinkof1 · 07-02-2021 02:39PM

The U.K. are leaving it up to 12 weeks for 2nd doses of the AZ vaccine.
Has it been confirmed yet how long doses will be spaced out here?
It’s a bit ridiculous they’re expecting doctors and frontline health workers to roll up their sleeves from Tuesday and take this.
These people won’t even know if they’ll have to wait until March/ April/ May or beyond to get their 2nd shot

Sam Russell · 07-02-2021 02:42PM

Icantthinkof1 wrote: »

The U.K. are leaving it up to 12 weeks for 2nd doses of the AZ vaccine.
Has it been confirmed yet how long doses will be spaced out here?
It’s a bit ridiculous they’re expecting doctors and frontline health workers to roll up their sleeves from Tuesday and take this.
These people won’t even know if they’ll have to wait until March/ April/ May or beyond to get their 2nd shot

I think the HSE are sticking to the 21 day second dose. That might change.

07-02-2021 03:06PM

Icantthinkof1 wrote: »

The U.K. are leaving it up to 12 weeks for 2nd doses of the AZ vaccine.
Has it been confirmed yet how long doses will be spaced out here?
It’s a bit ridiculous they’re expecting doctors and frontline health workers to roll up their sleeves from Tuesday and take this.
These people won’t even know if they’ll have to wait until March/ April/ May or beyond to get their 2nd shot

Here’s what Prof Luke says about it

https://www.newstalk.com/news/luke-oneill-astrazeneca-vaccine-likely-to-be-proven-effective-in-the-elderly-within-days-1145520

Stark · 07-02-2021 03:39PM

“They just published a big trial,” he said. “So, there was 76% efficacy with a single dose – which is very high.

“When they gave a second dose after three months, they got 82.4% efficacy.

“That three-month gap seems to be important. With less than six weeks of a gap it was only 54% efficacious so leaving it three months really boosted the efficacy.

So it actually sounds like the second shot undoes some of the goodness of the first shot if given too soon. And 76% is great for one shot.

Not to mention waiting 3 months is better all round for getting more people vaccinated sooner.

Really hope they don't mess up on that one and insist on giving people second shot a month later.

plodder · 07-02-2021 04:15PM

Stark wrote: »

So it actually sounds like the second shot undoes some of the goodness of the first shot if given too soon.

That seems to be the implication but it sounds completely bizarre. I wonder is there any precedent for that with a vaccine.

I see the CI for both schedules was pretty wide (62.7% - 91.7% for the 12 week gap) and (32.7%, 69.7% for the < 6 week gap). They even overlap. Maybe they need to wait longer for more data?

volchitsa · 07-02-2021 04:44PM

plodder wrote: »

That seems to be the implication but it sounds completely bizarre. I wonder is there any precedent for that with a vaccine.

I see the CI for both schedules was pretty wide (62.7% - 91.7% for the 12 week gap) and (32.7%, 69.7% for the < 6 week gap). They even overlap. Maybe they need to wait longer for more data?

Sounds completely inconsistent, and given their previous errors, such as accidentally giving half the dose to one group, I think simple human error has to be one possibility.

brickster69 · 07-02-2021 06:59PM

MrMusician18 wrote: »

So that raises further questions, where have the materials gone and of they're was limited supply why weren't they assigned to EU contract production

Probably needed to know they had approval before purchasing the ingredients.

Danzy · 07-02-2021 09:26PM

If the EU had received the Astra Zeneca one as planned, would they have rolled it out.

Skeptical on that idea. Who knows.

It's not like a great campaign was upended by one company's shenanigans.

Danzy · 07-02-2021 09:27PM

If the EU had received the Astra Zeneca one as planned, would they have rolled it out.

Skeptical on that idea. Who knows.

It's not like a great campaign was upended by one company's shenanigans.

astrofool · 07-02-2021 11:28PM

Danzy wrote: »

If the EU had received the Astra Zeneca one as planned, would they have rolled it out.

Skeptical on that idea. Who knows.

It's not like a great campaign was upended by one company's shenanigans.

The efficacy issues were known about long before the production issues.

If I had to bet, I'd imagine it will be approved for over 70's in the next few weeks, but I'm glad we're waiting on the data to drive that decision, and not basing it o feelings and emotions.

07-02-2021 11:28PM

Bring in the Sputnik asap.

Wolf359f · 07-02-2021 11:49PM

robinph wrote: »

Pfizer has also reduced capacity for Europe, in order to enable them to increase capacity. Who is to blame for the timing of that upgrade being carried out when the EU doesn't have a supply coming in from elsewhere to replace it?

It wasn't just the EU who saw a reduced delivery of Pfizer while they upgraded, the EU, Canada & the UK saw all a reduction. Pfizer didn't choose one country over another to reduce supply to, it was all reduced.

Tyrone212 · 07-02-2021 11:50PM

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-55975052

South Africa has put its roll-out of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine on hold after a study showed "disappointing" results against its new Covid variant.

astrofool · 08-02-2021 10:28AM

Tyrone212 wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-55975052

South Africa has put its roll-out of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine on hold after a study showed "disappointing" results against its new Covid variant.

That's to be expected as people are getting moderate symptoms with the jab, it shouldn't be too much of a concern as it still prevents hospitalisation and severe symptoms, what's worrying is that SA itself hasn't got any other vaccine supplies yet, so no vaccination happening at all there.

robinph · 08-02-2021 10:35AM

Tyrone212 wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-55975052

South Africa has put its roll-out of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine on hold after a study showed "disappointing" results against its new Covid variant.

Doesn't make sense for them to stop the vaccination if it is preventing severe cases, but not mild cases. Unless someone has been reporting things back to front then that is exactly what you want a vaccine to be doing.

The whole point is to stop the severe cases, if you can also stop the mild cases then that is a bonus, and if you can also stop the transmission that is another bonus. But for now surely the main thing they should be worrying about in the absence of another vaccine being used in SA is using something to slow the severe cases in the extremely vulnerable.

Melanchthon · 08-02-2021 12:22PM

robinph wrote: »

Doesn't make sense for them to stop the vaccination if it is preventing severe cases, but not mild cases. Unless someone has been reporting things back to front then that is exactly what you want a vaccine to be doing.

The whole point is to stop the severe cases, if you can also stop the mild cases then that is a bonus, and if you can also stop the transmission that is another bonus. But for now surely the main thing they should be worrying about in the absence of another vaccine being used in SA is using something to slow the severe cases in the extremely vulnerable.

South Africa had some pretty kneejerky reactions during the pandemic hasn't it. They banned the sale of tobacco in their first lockdown for example.

tesla1989 · 08-02-2021 12:38PM

astrofool wrote: »

That's to be expected as people are getting moderate symptoms with the jab, it shouldn't be too much of a concern as it still prevents hospitalisation and severe symptoms, what's worrying is that SA itself hasn't got any other vaccine supplies yet, so no vaccination happening at all there.

That trial they had was in young people, mean age of 31 and they had mild to moderate symptoms which is what you expect from young people, mild and moderate for a 31 year old might not be mild for a 61 or 71 year old, could easily be severe, they suspended rollout to get data on older people and plan next move.

They'll probably do like us and give pfizer to older people, it's a spanner in the works for them.

Mild to moderate means not in hospital, that can still be very severe and have long lasting disabling effects, I woouldn't be so quick to blow it off like you did either.

Guardian is saying today that oxford covid vaccine is 10% effective against South African variant, with very little efficiency against mild and moderate symptoms - they hope (no data yet) is that it is efficient against severe cases and death, not still prevents like you have claimed.

drunkmonkey · 08-02-2021 12:51PM

Melanchthon wrote: »

South Africa had some pretty kneejerky reactions during the pandemic hasn't it. They banned the sale of tobacco in their first lockdown for example.

and Alcohol, in fairness they were up front, it was to stop a&e admissions from alcohol.

What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

Comments