ACitizenErased wrote: » Very naive to say nationality doesn't matter - AstraZeneca and Moderna have proved that it very much does.
Melanchthon wrote: » Well on that note then. Any word about Valneva in the EU. We know they started production of the UK supply a few months back at this stage. Haven't seen any news relating to pre-approval production in the EU. Is this going to be another thing where the Commission is slow handing out the cash so the company isn't starting production for the EU supply? Its not super relevant for this stage of the rollout but an interesting comparison considering its a French company I do not speak french so maybe I missed stuff.
ACitizenErased wrote: » Curevac is an mRNA vaccine, the same as Pfizer and Moderna, produced by a European company and with phase 3 results expected this month. To say Novavax is 'better' is likely very wrong. Very naive to say nationality doesn't matter - AstraZeneca and Moderna have proved that it very much does.
eoinbn wrote: » Novavax is 96% effective against the original strain - higher than any other vaccine. Curevac was reported to be trigger a weaker immune response than BioNtech so it is unlikely to be better than Novavax. It might have a higher figure in the P3 trial but that was because Novavax was dragged down by the results against variants. Most of Curevac trial will be in Europe and Mexico so it won't face the same variants. Anyway we are splitting hairs - both are likely to very effective. I doubt we will see much from Curevac this month - the CEO doesn't expect it to be approved until May/June so that would suggest that the P3 results won't be until late April or May. Novavax will likely be approved and used in the UK before the US. It is down to planning, not just nationality.
ACitizenErased wrote: » Valneva production is happening in Scotland - UK have already began producing it, looks like we're not gonna be involved in it. Even if we are, exploratory talks were only for 60 mill doses which is 'small'.
Melanchthon wrote: » Thats my point, despite being a French company there's already ringfenced UK production happening now. Its not so much to do with nationality of the parent company as willingness to put money down quickly at the start to bring production online. I am not sure Valneva itself will be important to the UK due to probably not having full approval till the summer but the production will be a good backup and if not needed you could buy some serious political good will with a gift of enough vaccine to do the entire population of somewhere like Angola.
Apogee wrote: » Paul Reid interview on yesterday's This Week:https://www.rte.ie/radio1/this-week/
Sanjuro wrote: » Is that correct about the last day of the quarter? 200,000 done in one day? That seems wildly optimistic at current rates. If I'm not mistaken, isn't the last day of the first quarter the 31st March?
plodder wrote: » You mean adjuvants I presume. Afaik, none of the three currently licensed contain adjuvants, which are substances intended to enhance the effect of the vaccine. They do contain "excipients" which are inactive substances used to stabilise or assist in the delivery of the vaccine. You can see lists of these at the following links. Search for the word excipient. (Pfizer) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/information-for-healthcare-professionals-on-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine (Moderna) https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-epar-product-information_en.pdf (AZ) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca/information-for-uk-recipients-on-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca
stefanovich wrote: » Which contain aborted foetal cells?
ACitizenErased wrote: » Curevac Phase 3 expected in March - https://www.wmdt.com/i/the-latest-curevac-begins-phase-3-study-of-possible-vaccine/ Novavax haven't even applied for approval in Europe - that's hardly the EU's fault. Also, on the bolded part, that's just not true, no immune comparisons to other vaccines were made after phase 1/2a. Curevac is using a different mRNA approach, completely natural with no chemically modified RNA which is expected to produce higher immune response, not less. (More info here)
Sconsey wrote: » None, do some research.
To make their virus vector vaccine, Johnson & Johnson infects PER.C6 fetal cell line cells with adenovirus. All PER.C6 cells used to manufacture the Johnson & Johnson vaccine are descended from tissue taken from a 1985 elective abortion that also took place in the Netherlands. They use this cell line because it is a well-studied industry standard for safe and reliable production of viral vector vaccines.
eigrod wrote: » Hopefully this will hold truehttps://twitter.com/fergalbowers/status/1368929325756674051?s=21
stefanovich wrote: » https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/you-asked-we-answered-do-the-covid-19-vaccines-contain-aborted-fetal-cells Okay so they just use them in production in the case of J&J and testing for the others.
But it's important to have the full context: Fetal cell lines are not the same as fetal tissue. Fetal cell lines are cells that grow in a laboratory. They descend from cells taken from elective abortions in the 1970s and 1980s. Those individual cells from the 1970s and 1980s have since multiplied into many new cells over the past four or five decades, creating fetal cell lines. Current fetal cell lines are thousands of generations removed from the original fetal tissue. They do not contain any tissue from a fetus.
SheepsClothing wrote: » If the EU hasn't ordered any Novavax vaccines, why in the world would they apply for approval?
ACitizenErased wrote: » The poster blamed planning on the UK and US approving it before us. They haven't even applied so it's obviously going to be approved there first.
SheepsClothing wrote: » But they haven't applied, because the EU hasn't ordered any vaccines. Just another case of the EU being outflanked when it comes to vaccine procurement.
ACitizenErased wrote: » What does that have to do with anything? Applying for approval would allow countries to do their own orders. The EU doesn't need to have a deal to get approval, that's a bizarre way of thinking.
stephenjmcd wrote: » Don't need a deal done to apply for approval. For example the EU doesn't have a deal for Sputnik but the rolling review is underway, in the fullness of time if the EMA like what they see they could approve it without a bloc purchasing deal and each country could do their own thing in that case
Sconsey wrote: » First off why did you ask if you are capable of looking for yourself, why not just come straight out and say what your motives are? Second, from the article you linked to...
Deleted User wrote: » Have they even applied for UK approval?
stefanovich wrote: » I have zero faith in von der Leyen.
stefanovich wrote: » Please enlighten me as to my motives. Why were you not forthcoming with the whole truth? This could be important data for some. Are you aware of any that don't leverage these cells for production or test?
timsey tiger wrote: » What's wrong with the sputnik guys then, why are they wasting everybodies time applying for approval?
Deleted User wrote: » The important data is if the vaccine works
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/5117ec177439400b1e5944f4d30acdda.svg)
