COVID-19: Vaccine and testing procedures Megathread Part 3 - Read OP

User142 wrote: »

When they have surplus that is.

That's not going to be any time soon and by then we probably wouldn't need them

hynesie08 wrote: »

We need a guarantee of vaccines actually arriving, but if we had enough to mop up the remaining over 85s I'd be all for it.

I’d agree with this, seemingly any home bound people over 85, getting an mRNA vaccine to them is proving very very difficult. Better off give them AZ and hold back a few vials for the second dose. I’d be against changing tact with the general rollout unless there was more certainty of supply. If a 60 year old was left short a second dose I’d be a lot less concerned than on an 80 year old.

jackryan34 wrote: »

Not sure I'd blame EU

If Oxford hadn't sold out to a shaddy pharmaceutical company like AZ we could be swimming in that vaccine.Back in April 20 when Oxford announced the vaccine, they promised it would be open source and any company could manufacturer it, they then sold out to AZ and no other company produces the vaccine

Could have been so different if they didn't partner up with AZ exclusively and we had independent manufacturing all over the world with that formula

1 vaccine and a global effort to produce it by all nations would have got us out of this a long time ago

Instead we have this mess, which is pure greed

AZ are doing this at cost - or so we are told. It wasn't about greed.
Astrazeneca approach might actually re-enforce the idea that open source would have been an a bad idea. AZ are using a regional model and are using lots partners with small factories compared to Pfizer which has a small number of larger facilities. AZ are having to face the same issues in plant after plant. It is more like a hybrid - AZ aren't doing all the work but they do need to provide technical know how in a lot of different locations. They also need approval for all those locations. It seems they are struggling to meet those demands.

Wolf359f wrote: »

Pfizer and J&J have brought on other major players to help, Sanofi & Merck. Pfizer seem to be bringing new plants online in various countries. AZ just seem to be.... well not doing much tbh. If the likes of Oxford went with an open source, you would have multiple plants all over the world producing it. From China & Russia etc...

Why don't Pfizer or Moderna go non profit like AZ and J&J ? Why don't they license to India so other poorer countries can get some benefit ?

Wolf359f wrote: »

I don't know. Why does AZ being 'non profit' have a different price per dose depending on the country who purchased it?

It depends who purchases it. Some countries buy it and some are donated and delivered for free.

Wolf359f wrote: »

Pfizer and J&J have brought on other major players to help, Sanofi & Merck. Pfizer seem to be bringing new plants online in various countries. AZ just seem to be.... well not doing much tbh. If the likes of Oxford went with an open source, you would have multiple plants all over the world producing it. From China & Russia etc...

Sanofi are partnering with BioNtech, not Pfizer.
My point is that AZ were/are bringing online a lot of sites at the same time. They had two plants in the UK, 2 plants in the EU, plants in the US, Australia and Pune. They also have partner's in Russia, China, South America but I am less sure on those timelines.

A partner with access to bigger plants might have been a better fit. However most of the big players had their own candidate - AZ weren't a vaccine producer so they jumped at the opportunity.

brickster69 wrote: »

Well EU paid less than the UK. But EU had to pay 350 million to increase capacity in EU plants. Plus they have to pay those companies to finish the product which will not of been free and also the cost to distribute them. So it may seem that the EU paid 1.7 euro each but when you add all the extra costs on per unit it will be more than 1.7 euro.

Australia are making it's own under license so they won't be making a profit, USA will be doing the same. Canada will of purchased at the set price.

If they are making it under licence, that sounds like AZ are not involved and of course that licence would be free, otherwise if the licence was even $1 it would not be non profit.

If it was truly non profit, it would have been given to any and all manufacturers, like you alluded to with Australia and the US.
It seems more like Oxford which received millions to develop the vaccine, then licenced it to AZ to manufacturer, of which AZ didn't pay a fee, that seems as far as the non profit went.

jackryan34 wrote: »

Not sure I'd blame EU

If Oxford hadn't sold out to a shaddy pharmaceutical company like AZ we could be swimming in that vaccine.Back in April 20 when Oxford announced the vaccine, they promised it would be open source and any company could manufacturer it, they then sold out to AZ and no other company produces the vaccine

Could have been so different if they didn't partner up with AZ exclusively and we had independent manufacturing all over the world with that formula

1 vaccine and a global effort to produce it by all nations would have got us out of this a long time ago

Instead we have this mess, which is pure greed

Oxford made a mess of things, but pure greed doesn't quite describe it.

As I understand it, and am happy to be corrected, Oxford wanted the vaccine distributed at cost and only AZ would do this. Where Oxifrd made a mistake was in not getting production going at higher prices in the developed countries and then selling to everyone else at cost.

brickster69 wrote: »

No idea. But i know a lot of those countries put a hell of a lot of cash into the R&D of the vaccine and ordered very early on, and if the vaccine went tits up they lost their cash. The US production is from AZ plants in the USA, Australia is like a sub contractor and no idea about Canada.

So in effect they are making at cost but had substantial costs and risks before it was even developed. Same as the EU in a away but without the R&D costs and risk.

Just break that down for me.... countries put a lot of cash into R&D (obviously not the EU, despite funding Oxford, but that was UK EU contributions, so that doesn't count) and if the vaccine went tits up the countries involved would have lost their money?

So.... if AZ were paid vast sums up front and the vaccine failed, they were off the hook. So where does the substantial costs and risks come into play?
Neither Oxford or AZ would be out of pocket, the only ones out of pocket would be the countries funding it.

Wolf359f wrote: »

Just break that down for me.... countries put a lot of cash into R&D (obviously not the EU, despite funding Oxford, but that was UK EU contributions, so that doesn't count) and if the vaccine went tits up the countries involved would have lost their money?

So.... if AZ were paid vast sums up front and the vaccine failed, they were off the hook. So where does the substantial costs and risks come into play?
Neither Oxford or AZ would be out of pocket, the only ones out of pocket would be the countries funding it.

Yes basically. Well if these countries never invested in R&D there would be no vaccines. So when countries are moaning about deliveries and things they should thank God that certain countries actually did that or they would have nothing.

Wolf359f wrote: »

I think it was a lot more political than that. Oxford had agreed in principle to use Merck to manufacturer the vaccine, but the UK government wanted iron clad guarantees the UK would get all their doses first so they choose AZ. I don't remember BionTech being told who they can licence the production to.

It was not political. Why should a countries taxpayers fund and develop a vaccine and not get a guaranteed supply ? UK never gave exclusivity to AZ that is why India are making it now as well as others. Bion Tech gave exclusivity to Pfizer so it is in Pfizers control now to produce.

Sunday Independent reports here that the Irish government is considering Russia's Sputnik vaccine.

Although there are doubts about Russia's ability to manufacture large numbers of doses ... a German company, IDT Biologika, is in talks about producing the Sputnik V vaccine.

Small additional supply from Sputnik on the way?

Separately, the Sunday Independent reports that the government has been unable to secure extra vaccine doses from elsewhere, despite approaches over recent days to a number of countries and pharma companies who have a presence in Ireland.

JTMan wrote: »

Sunday Independent reports here that the Irish government is considering Russia's Sputnik vaccine.

Although there are doubts about Russia's ability to manufacture large numbers of doses ... a German company, IDT Biologika, is in talks about producing the Sputnik V vaccine.

Small additional supply from Sputnik on the way?

Separately, the Sunday Independent reports that the government has been unable to secure extra vaccine doses from elsewhere, despite approaches over recent days to a number of countries and pharma companies who have a presence in Ireland.

It is most likely in the context of an EMA approval, which will probably not happen for a month or so. NIAC will make the recommendation anyway, not the government. The very frustrating AZ supply issue is fraying nerves everywhere.

AdamD wrote: »

Is Sputnik not a bit of a red herring? I don't see Russia at the top of these vaccination tables so where are the excess doses they're going to sell us?

It's the Sindo, on a bit of a wild goose chase. It could well have been a we're looking at all options comment from somebody, i.e. sources close to X type of thing.