nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Beasty

Thread 1
Thread 2

No anti-vax stuff in this thread - it's to discuss the various vaccines available and how they are getting rolled out, as well as testing procedures

Threadbans carry over

Threadbanned users:
3xh
Dr.Frost
kingbhome
nannerbenahs
skooterblue2
Fodla
Caraibh
drunkmonkey
lawrencesummers
Howard Beale
Thornysheep
Snowcat

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

ACitizenErased wrote: »

https://twitter.com/covid19dataie/status/1368509737453690881?s=21

Is that the highest day so far?

ACitizenErased

https://twitter.com/covid19dataie/status/1368509737453690881?s=21

Deusexmachina

is_that_so wrote: »

No, Thursday, April.

Thanks. Have we any idea of the likely volume of manufacture? Have they indicated any numbers. Can I get my feckin hopes up?

is_that_so

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Whats the latest with the J&J vaccine? Has it received EMA approval yet? Can it be manufactured at a volume that will help us? When is that likely to happen?

No, Thursday, April.

Deusexmachina

Whats the latest with the J&J vaccine? Has it received EMA approval yet? Can it be manufactured at a volume that will help us? When is that likely to happen?

stephenjmcd

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.

Clearly states it'll be used if approved by EMA, not much of a story there. Like every other vaccine if approved by the EMA they'll use it

is_that_so

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.

[Deleted User]

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?

is_that_so

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.

eoinbn

JTMan wrote: »

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?

If you mean from IDT, then not any time soon. It takes at least 3 months for a batch. There would also be setup time which would add months.
If you mean from an existing supply line then maybe. However there are countries that need it much more than we do - Brazil for example.

JTMan

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.

Wolf359f

brickster69 wrote: »

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.

Plenty of countries have funded the Oxford vaccine and they do not have a guaranteed supply. The UK government choose AZ over Merck to guarantee supply (regardless of what countries helped finance it), that's political.

I'm not up wiht the AZ - India arrangement, so I wont comment. It could be to do with COVAX.

BionTech did not give it Pfizer exclusivity, Sanofi are now going to produce it.
It's almost like Pfizer saw AZ as the **** show it is and told BionTech they will not be able to produce as much as is needed and Biontech looked to other manufacturers to help out.

brickster69

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.

Wolf359f

Charles Babbage wrote: »

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.

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.

brickster69

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.

brickster69

Also i think this exclusivity thing was a big concern, in that would another partner commit to supplying poorer countries. So on that point joining up with India looks a good move.

Wolf359f

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.

brickster69

Charles Babbage wrote: »

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.

Yeah i get your point. It does sound a bit like an ethical thing that sort of went wrong. It was a bit of a rush job like from the sound of things. No doubt we will look back in a few months and think everything was a little blown out of proportion.

Charles Babbage

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

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.

josip

By June, very few 'Western' countries will be focusing on supplies of vaccines, but will instead be focusing on how to maximise the uptake percentage in order to achieve herd immunity.
Some vaccine-skeptical countries, such as France were always going to struggle to achieve this.
Germany may also have to work hard, after the confusing messaging about AZ.
Countries that have used a higher percentage of the MRNA vaccines, will be able to reach herd immunity with a slightly lower uptake than those relying on AZ or J&J.

Wolf359f

eoinbn wrote: »

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.

Yeah sorry Sanofi are partnering with BioNtech (the one who developed the vaccine) to produce more vaccines. My point is, Oxford in what ever deal they done, AZ seem to have exclusive rights to do as they wish. If Oxford followed BioNtech's lead they would be looking to partner with other manufacturers.
It's just looking like AZ are in way over their head.

Wolf359f

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.

brickster69

Wolf359f wrote: »

I'm not talking about COVAX. I'm talking about the difference in price the UK, EU, Canada (excluding them taking their COVAX allowance), USA & Australia pay for a non profit vaccine.

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 but who knows who they are being supplied by.

eoinbn

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.

Wolf359f

brickster69 wrote: »

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

I'm not talking about COVAX. I'm talking about the difference in price the UK, EU, Canada (excluding them taking their COVAX allowance), USA & Australia pay for a non profit vaccine.

brickster69

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

brickster69 wrote: »

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 ?

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

brickster69

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

eoinbn wrote: »

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.

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...