What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

Bit cynical · 16-04-2021 07:01PM

astrofool wrote: »

Increased circulation of the virus would have led to multiple more deaths than we had and are still having and again, the "natural" immunity isn't as effective as that of vaccine immunity, so get a vaccine when you can.

However we are talking about a hypothetical situation where the elderly and vulnerable are already vaccinated and deaths outside this group are rare. If you think that there would still be the same amount of deaths having vaccinated these people then you don't have much faith in the vaccines you claim to be supporting!

astrofool · 16-04-2021 07:33PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

However we are talking about a hypothetical situation where the elderly and vulnerable are already vaccinated and deaths outside this group are rare. If you think that there would still be the same amount of deaths having vaccinated these people then you don't have much faith in the vaccines you claim to be supporting!

Herd immunity needs between 60-90% of the population to be vaccinated depending on transmission rates of the virus and on the transmission reduction of the vaccine, if we were to fully open then a lot of people get the virus that otherwise wouldn't and then it's enough to overwhelm the hospitals with younger people (who are still being hospitalised daily even during lockdown).

Everyone is vulnerable, if enough 20 year old's get infected, lots will end up in hospital and some will die.

Bit cynical · 16-04-2021 07:46PM

astrofool wrote: »

Herd immunity needs between 60-90% of the population to be vaccinated depending on transmission rates of the virus and on the transmission reduction of the vaccine, if we were to fully open then a lot of people get the virus that otherwise wouldn't and then it's enough to overwhelm the hospitals with younger people (who are still being hospitalised daily even during lockdown).

Everyone is vulnerable, if enough 20 year old's get infected, lots will end up in hospital and some will die.

Your're still failing to address the central point however which is that, in the hypothetical scenario being discussed, those vulnerable to die from the virus have already been been vaccinated.

16-04-2021 07:56PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

Your're still failing to address the central point however which is that, in the hypothetical scenario being discussed, those vulnerable to die from the virus have already been been vaccinated.

Thats not how it works.

The vulnerable probably dont respond as well to vaccines than younger healthier people. Herd immunity protects the people were vaccines dont work as well for them.

When Ronan Glynn says two fully vaccinated people can meet up indoors. Risk of infection in this scenario is beyond tiny. Both are protecting each other. Risk of being infected and then infect a vaccinated person is tiny.

Your looking at it too simplistically.

astrofool · 16-04-2021 07:58PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

Your're still failing to address the central point however which is that, in the hypothetical scenario being discussed, those vulnerable to die from the virus have already been been vaccinated.

I'm not sure what your central point is, yes, the people vaccinated will be protected, but the virus will spread readily among the unvaccinated, and even though they're less vulnerable, the number of cases will be so high that a lot will end up in hospital and some will die. We have vaccinated the most vulnerable, and moving through the list to those still highly vulnerable. We haven't really vaccinated any of the groups that are most likely to spread the disease apart from healthcare workers.

odyssey06 · 16-04-2021 08:00PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

Your're still failing to address the central point however which is that, in the hypothetical scenario being discussed, those vulnerable to die from the virus have already been been vaccinated.

The unvaccinated u60s without other conditions are not invulnerable to the virus... less vulnerable for sure but it can still put some of them into hospital and ICU. The new variants are three times more dangerous in that regard.

Bit cynical · 16-04-2021 08:40PM

odyssey06 wrote: »

The unvaccinated u60s without other conditions are not invulnerable to the virus... less vulnerable for sure but it can still put some of them into hospital and ICU. The new variants are three times more dangerous in that regard.

Yes but the point remains that those most at risk, once vaccinated, have most of that risk removed.

If we remember, originally, the reason younger people were asked to stay indoors was because they risked contracting the disease and passing it on to an elderly or vulnerable person. It was not out direct personal risk to themselves, which was and still is astonishingly small.

Well at the end of the summer we may well have everyone 50 or older vaccinated and everyone will long term illnesses that make them susceptible to the virus fully vaccinated, but it is likely it will not be everyone.

In such a scenario (which I think is quite likely), cases are going to rise but there will be very few associated deaths. Most likely, also, will be a continuation of the current thinking which will be to reimpose restrictions. This, in my opinion will be a mistake and the reason it is a mistake is that it is forgetting why restrictions were imposed in the first place which was because there was a vulnerable unvaccinated group we were trying to protect. If it was not for this group we would just have let the virus run through the population, the resulting immunity eventually leading to natural herd immunity and the end of the virus.

However, because of this group and the lack of vaccines we locked down. The problem is that we're still stuck in a certain way of thinking which we will need to change as the vaccinations proceed.

Turtwig · 16-04-2021 08:56PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

a vulnerable unvaccinated group we were trying to protect. If it was not for this group we would just have let the virus run through the population, the resulting immunity eventually leading to natural herd immunity and the end of the virus.

Jesus no we wouldn't!

You have completely misunderstood the fundamental reason for restrictions. Vulnerable demographics were more likely to end up hospital or die. Deaths aren't the limitation. The limiting factor for society is actually hospitalisations. The vulnerable population is a very small group compared to the entire population. Even if there is a tiny % of non vulnerable hospitalised the population pool is so much larger you could end up with an equivalent amount of people or more in hospital. Social contacts have to be limited to some degree until herd immunity levels starts impacting transmission.

odyssey06 · 16-04-2021 08:57PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

Yes but the point remains that those most at risk, once vaccinated, have most of that risk removed.
If we remember, originally, the reason younger people were asked to stay indoors was because they risked contracting the disease and passing it on to an elderly or vulnerable person. It was not out direct personal risk to themselves, which was and still is astonishingly small.
Well at the end of the summer we may well have everyone 50 or older vaccinated and everyone will long term illnesses that make them susceptible to the virus fully vaccinated, but it is likely it will not be everyone.
In such a scenario (which I think is quite likely), cases are going to rise but there will be very few associated deaths. Most likely, also, will be a continuation of the current thinking which will be to reimpose restrictions. This, in my opinion will be a mistake and the reason it is a mistake is that it is forgetting why restrictions were imposed in the first place which was because there was a vulnerable unvaccinated group we were trying to protect. If it was not for this group we would just have let the virus run through the population, the resulting immunity eventually leading to natural herd immunity and the end of the virus.
However, because of this group and the lack of vaccines we locked down. The problem is that we're still stuck in a certain way of thinking which we will need to change as the vaccinations proceed.

We don't know that it would have led to natural herd immunity and the end of the virus. It could have led to the virus mutating through more hosts in directions more contagious or more severe - or less.
The risk from the variants that did mutate is a higher level of threat to the under 60s. The figure I heard quoted for under 60s with the new variants was 35 cases out of 1000 that end up in hospitalisation. Those are not sustainable numbers for the HSE. Really we were trying to protect the health service capacity.

As there are now vaccines becoming available, of which AZ is one, it changes the equation. Unfortunately due to the side effects we're not using AZ for the under 60 group...

Bit cynical · 16-04-2021 09:21PM

Turtwig wrote: »

You have completely misunderstood the fundamental reason for restrictions. Vulnerable demographics were more likely to end up hospital or die. Deaths aren't the limitation. The limiting factor for society is actually hospitalisations.

However the two are closely related. An elderly or vulnerable vaccinated person is much more likely to end up in hospital with the virus than a vaccinated person of the same group or an unvaccinated person outside of that group. Therefore by vaccinating this group alone you have changed the equation. We can disagree about which groups need to be vaccinated an the impact on hospitals but my problem is that no account seems to be taken of the fact that this group is now far less likely to end up in hospital. We're still ploughing on with restrictions regardless targeting case numbers rather than the effect those cases have on the system.

Bit cynical · 16-04-2021 09:27PM

odyssey06 wrote: »

We don't know that it would have led to natural herd immunity and the end of the virus. It could have led to the virus mutating through more hosts in directions more contagious or more severe - or less.
The risk from the variants that did mutate is a higher level of threat to the under 60s.

While some varients are indeed more dangerous, the general trend is towards increased virulence over time rather than fatality I believe.

The figure I heard quoted for under 60s with the new variants was 35 cases out of 1000 that end up in hospitalisation. Those are not sustainable numbers for the HSE. Really we were trying to protect the health service capacity.

I take your point but I was thinking more 50 and over for vaccinations rather than just over 60s. Plus a lot of others will have had their first shot but not fully vaccinated.

As there are now vaccines becoming available, of which AZ is one, it changes the equation. Unfortunately due to the side effects we're not using AZ for the under 60 group...

Like I said in another post, if we had all the vaccines ready to go, then sure a pure vaccination policy would be the way to go. But that is not the case. We may be looking at a scenario (quite likely imo) where cases are rising in Autumn. These may not lead to high numbers of deaths or hospitalisations but, due to the thinking being exhibited here, will lead to continued restrictions into 2022.

astrofool · 16-04-2021 09:32PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

However the two are closely related. An elderly or vulnerable vaccinated person is much more likely to end up in hospital with the virus than a vaccinated person of the same group or an unvaccinated person outside of that group. Therefore by vaccinating this group alone you have changed the equation. We can disagree about which groups need to be vaccinated an the impact on hospitals but my problem is that no account seems to be taken of the fact that this group is now far less likely to end up in hospital. We're still ploughing on with restrictions regardless targeting case numbers rather than the effect those cases have on the system.

Because:
Those most vulnerable to the virus were also cocooning, so the % chance of them catching the virus was very low, but when they did a relatively high % of them had severe symptoms up to and including death.
Those not most vulnerable still have a % going to hospital and some die, that is even with our low case count now, were we to open up today, the case count would go so high that just as many of the not most vulnerable end up with severe symptoms up to and including death. This would overwhelm the hospital system and lead to a lot more deaths due to people not being able to be treated.

This is why we're ploughing on with restrictions, a lot of young people transmitting SARS-COV2 will then lead to a lot of young people developing severe COVID-19 and dying, the % of young people will be lower, but they'll make up for it by a lot of them transmitting a highly infectious disease.

On top of this, there is no way of telling who will develop severe COVID-19 and who will not beyond the basic risk factors, we know a % will, but there's no test to say who it will be (and bringing it back to AZ, the issue is we don't know who of the population will be vulnerable to clotting events yet, if and when we do, we can issue updated guidance and start using AZ on the young population again).

Do bring this up on the relaxing of restrictions or vaccination thread as it's nothing to do with AstraZeneca.

By June, 80% of adults will have first dose, by July, the remaining % should also, providing we can keep vaccine uptake high in all age groups, we shouldn't have any need to lockdown come August/September, Winter will be interesting depending on how long immunity lasts.

Goldengirl · 16-04-2021 09:44PM

astrofool wrote: »

Because:
Those most vulnerable to the virus were also cocooning, so the % chance of them catching the virus was very low, but when they did a relatively high % of them had severe symptoms up to and including death.
Those not most vulnerable still have a % going to hospital and some die, that is even with our low case count now, were we to open up today, the case count would go so high that just as many of the not most vulnerable end up with severe symptoms up to and including death. This would overwhelm the hospital system and lead to a lot more deaths due to people not being able to be treated.

This is why we're ploughing on with restrictions, a lot of young people transmitting SARS-COV2 will then lead to a lot of young people developing severe COVID-19 and dying, the % of young people will be lower, but they'll make up for it by a lot of them transmitting a highly infectious disease.

On top of this, there is no way of telling who will develop severe COVID-19 and who will not beyond the basic risk factors, we know a % will, but there's no test to say who it will be (and bringing it back to AZ, the issue is we don't know who of the population will be vulnerable to clotting events yet, if and when we do, we can issue updated guidance and start using AZ on the young population again).

Do bring this up on the relaxing of restrictions or vaccination thread as it's nothing to do with AstraZeneca.

By June, 80% of adults will have first dose, by July, the remaining % should also, providing we can keep vaccine uptake high in all age groups, we shouldn't have any need to lockdown come August/September, Winter will be interesting depending on how long immunity lasts.

Exactly .
In any of the countries that have large out of control case numbers, severe illness and deaths in younger age groups have gone up also .

Bit cynical · 16-04-2021 10:06PM

astrofool wrote: »

Do bring this up on the relaxing of restrictions or vaccination thread as it's nothing to do with AstraZeneca.

I agree with you on this point at least and will not post further on this thread lest it be seen as off-topic!

McGiver · 17-04-2021 07:07AM

Woody79 wrote:

So basically in general population 5 in a million people will get cvst in a given year and if you take az you have a 4 in a million chance of getting it. With one of those 4 being a fatality. Sure if you dont have any of the risk factors for cvst very little risk. Whos to say these people would not have gone on to get cvst anyhow? They clearly are more at risk anyhow than average Joe.

Incorrect data, incorrect inference, incorrect analogy, ignoring the time factor.

Natural incidence of CVST (as per FDA) - 0.2 to 2 per million per year, let's go with the mean 1.1 per 1 million per year

Natiral incidence of CVST AND thrombocytopenia - approaching zero

Vaccine induced CVST AND thrombocytopenia (AZ) - 5 per 1 million per 0.33 of a year (4 months) - simple and almost certainly incorrect annualised figure is 15 per 1 million per year

That is already 15 times higher than the background incidence. And it's irrelevant anyway because they are of a different type, the natural one doesn't involve low blood platelet count and may not be immune mediated. So it's 15 versus practically zero.

Now, why the annualised figure is almost certainly incorrect because this data was collected before mass vaccination of the most affected group (female, 20-55 years) happened.

The incidence in the affected group was as high as 50 per million per 0.25 of the year (3 months, Norway) through 30 per million per 0.25 of year (3 months, Germany). And again that's before the affected group would have been vaccinated en masse.

This the reason EMA has been investigating utilising its pharmacovigilance procedures, age restrictions have been put into place and Denmark pulling out.

This a clear safety, pharmacovigilance issue and your simple mathematics using incorrect data downplaying the seriousness of the issue is unhelpful.

17-04-2021 08:05AM

McGiver wrote: »

Incorrect data, incorrect inference, incorrect analogy, ignoring the time factor.

Natural incidence of CVST (as per FDA) - 0.2 to 2 per million per year, let's go with the mean 1.1 per 1 million per year

Natiral incidence of CVST AND thrombocytopenia - approaching zero

Vaccine induced CVST AND thrombocytopenia (AZ) - 5 per 1 million per 0.33 of a year (4 months) - simple and almost certainly incorrect annualised figure is 15 per 1 million per year

That is already 15 times higher than the background incidence. And it's irrelevant anyway because they are of a different type, the natural one doesn't involve low blood platelet count and may not be immune mediated. So it's 15 versus practically zero.

Now, why the annualised figure is almost certainly incorrect because this data was collected before mass vaccination of the most affected group (female, 20-55 years) happened.

The incidence in the affected group was as high as 50 per million per 0.25 of the year (3 months, Norway) through 30 per million per 0.25 of year (3 months, Germany). And again that's before the affected group would have been vaccinated en masse.

This the reason EMA has been investigating utilising its pharmacovigilance procedures, age restrictions have been put into place and Denmark pulling out.

This a clear safety, pharmacovigilance issue and your simple mathematics using incorrect data downplaying the seriousness of the issue is unhelpful.

It’s a mistake to scale the incident rates up to per year. The risk is only for a short period of time after vaccination and therefore is associated with the number of people vaccinated and not a period of time

17-04-2021 11:26AM

https://youtu.be/_jFYrpAkQwA

Have a listen to this for balance.

How surprising there's increased blood clot risk with mrna vaccines.

No covid infection or vaccine is free from risk.

People should decide themselves.

Vaccines are not risk free.

Let people decide though.

They way our lot keep flip flopping at every turn would
concern anyone.

UK alot more calm and measured. The way a vaccine rollout should be. Not the hysteria every week by irish powers that be.

UK vaccination comes across as mature grown up, ours hysterical teenager.

This would be funny if it was not so serious. These people have our lives in their hands.

17-04-2021 11:29AM

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/asked-irish-people-willing-take-23921124.amp

This is how I feel and by the looks of it alot of others.

17-04-2021 11:55AM

McGiver wrote: »

Incorrect data, incorrect inference, incorrect analogy, ignoring the time factor.

Natural incidence of CVST (as per FDA) - 0.2 to 2 per million per year, let's go with the mean 1.1 per 1 million per year

Natiral incidence of CVST AND thrombocytopenia - approaching zero

Vaccine induced CVST AND thrombocytopenia (AZ) - 5 per 1 million per 0.33 of a year (4 months) - simple and almost certainly incorrect annualised figure is 15 per 1 million per year

That is already 15 times higher than the background incidence. And it's irrelevant anyway because they are of a different type, the natural one doesn't involve low blood platelet count and may not be immune mediated. So it's 15 versus practically zero.

Now, why the annualised figure is almost certainly incorrect because this data was collected before mass vaccination of the most affected group (female, 20-55 years) happened.

The incidence in the affected group was as high as 50 per million per 0.25 of the year (3 months, Norway) through 30 per million per 0.25 of year (3 months, Germany). And again that's before the affected group would have been vaccinated en masse.

This the reason EMA has been investigating utilising its pharmacovigilance procedures, age restrictions have been put into place and Denmark pulling out.

This a clear safety, pharmacovigilance issue and your simple mathematics using incorrect data downplaying the seriousness of the issue is unhelpful.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/asked-irish-people-willing-take-23921124.amp

Have a listen to below for balance.

SURPRISE SURPRISE who would have thought?

Increased risk of blood clots from mrna vaccines.

Increased risk of blood clots from covid infection.

Vaccines are not risk free.

Medicine is not risk free.

Neither is covid.

Neither is life.

You seem very angry in your posts.

The general public dont appear to share your negative view point.
They are able to assess risk and decide themselves. See link above.

Leo told us two weeks ago a 40 year old has a 1 in 1000 chance of dieing of covid.

NIAC said this week no az vaccine for under 60s due to risk of blood clotting death of 1 in a million.

The public can assess the above risks and decide themselves. Some nonsense talked on this over last few weeks. People reading into things excessively. It is a safe vaccine for 99.999% of the popopulation as is mrna vaccines.

There is actually too much discourse, too much noise.

UK showing us we have alot of growing up to do.

I see Angela Merckle got her AZ recently. If it is good enough for the leaders of two of the largest economies in europe (Boris and Angela) it would be good enough for me. Much smarter people than me have taken it and lived to tell the tale

.

https://youtu.be/_jFYrpAkQwA

deeperlearning · 17-04-2021 12:40PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Much smarter people than me have taken it and lived to tell the tale .

Hear, hear.

17-04-2021 02:14PM

https://mobile.twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/1383421734712274944?s=21

Take that AZ doubters

Enzokk · 17-04-2021 02:45PM

Deleted User wrote: »

https://mobile.twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/1383421734712274944?s=21

Take that AZ doubters

Writing is on the wall for AZ in Europe. We will not be using it after the initial contract has been fulfilled (who knows, could take years I suppose) and the EU will be looking at mRNA vaccines for the future. Tough luck for AZ as the J&J vaccine will be there that does the same thing so its not like they have created a novel vaccine that cannot be replicated. If the EU needs that type of vaccine I doubt they will be knocking on the AZ door anytime soon.

What will be important in the future is vaccines that prevent spread and not just severe illness. If people are still being infected it means the virus can mutate to survive, but if you can prevent it from spreading that will be key. Maybe the AZ and J&J vaccines will come out on top when more data is known, who knows how it will work out. But for the moment there is just not enough trust of the AZ vaccine due to the issues they have had. Some of that was their own fault so you cannot even blame scaremongering from the EU for it. They drew a target on their back when they messed the EU around on deliveries and that allowed the bad press reporting on their name.

17-04-2021 02:55PM

Enzokk wrote: »

Writing is on the wall for AZ in Europe. We will not be using it after the initial contract has been fulfilled (who knows, could take years I suppose) and the EU will be looking at mRNA vaccines for the future. Tough luck for AZ as the J&J vaccine will be there that does the same thing so its not like they have created a novel vaccine that cannot be replicated. If the EU needs that type of vaccine I doubt they will be knocking on the AZ door anytime soon.

What will be important in the future is vaccines that prevent spread and not just severe illness. If people are still being infected it means the virus can mutate to survive, but if you can prevent it from spreading that will be key. Maybe the AZ and J&J vaccines will come out on top when more data is known, who knows how it will work out. But for the moment there is just not enough trust of the AZ vaccine due to the issues they have had. Some of that was their own fault so you cannot even blame scaremongering from the EU for it. They drew a target on their back when they messed the EU around on deliveries and that allowed the bad press reporting on their name.

I think you are too quick to predict its demise.

One swallow does not make a summer.

Alot of this is just noise and geopolitics.

Its safe effective cheap and easy to administer.

7 billion people have to be vaccinated.

Is Pfizer going to do that in places like the Congo.

I would take it tomorrow.

So would millions of people in ireland.

There is alot more in this story yet.

robinph · 17-04-2021 04:06PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Its safe effective cheap and easy to administer.

Those are the three important factors which determine the vaccine that will end up being the most used.

All the vaccines meet the safe criteria, only Astra Zeneca meets the cheap criteria, and Pfizer certainly doesn't meet the easy to administer one. Think they are working on making it more transportable, but until they get a vaccine to the point where an insulated box with a bag of ice stuffed down the side will work for transit then its not the solution for most of the planet.

Enzokk · 17-04-2021 04:17PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I think you are too quick to predict its demise.

One swallow does not make a summer.

Alot of this is just noise and geopolitics.

Its safe effective cheap and easy to administer.

7 billion people have to be vaccinated.

Is Pfizer going to do that in places like the Congo.

I would take it tomorrow.

So would millions of people in ireland.

There is alot more in this story yet.

I would be careful of making prediction of millions of people willing to take it when there is no data out there. If you gave them a choice between no vaccine and the AZ one, sure. But are you telling me now that people will be lining up to take it if you tell them they would have a choice a few weeks later of a different vaccine?

Also, please properly read posts before responding. You posted about people in Congo getting the vaccine. Maybe geography is a struggle for you, but when I am talking about the EU, I am excluding all countries from outside of the EU.

17-04-2021 04:29PM

Enzokk wrote: »

I would be careful of making prediction of millions of people willing to take it when there is no data out there. If you gave them a choice between no vaccine and the AZ one, sure. But are you telling me now that people will be lining up to take it if you tell them they would have a choice a few weeks later of a different vaccine?

Also, please properly read posts before responding. You posted about people in Congo getting the vaccine. Maybe geography is a struggle for you, but when I am talking about the EU, I am excluding all countries from outside of the EU.

:rolleyes: getting personal.

You should be careful yourself when predicting AZs demise in europe days after arguably the most powerful politician in europe was enoculated with it (Angela Merckle). Im putting you on ignore. You resort too easily to bash the poster than the post.

fly_agaric · 17-04-2021 04:37PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I think you are too quick to predict its demise.

One swallow does not make a summer.

Alot of this is just noise and geopolitics.

Its safe effective cheap and easy to administer.

7 billion people have to be vaccinated.

Is Pfizer going to do that in places like the Congo.

I would take it tomorrow.

So would millions of people in ireland.

There is alot more in this story yet.

Production needs to be increased substantially to be capable of vaccinating "billions" all around the world given the failure to cope with a mere 150 m in relatively wealthy and developed Europe.

Feel like a broken record saying this...but these willing "millions" in Ireland (for example) could not take it even if they wished to because AZ had delivered 228 k doses at end of March. I doubt now they will manage to deliver what was expected/promised for the EU (the 300m doses) before people get the chance of another vaccine [even if AZ age restrictions were relaxed later].

Whatever about the rare side effects that emerged since, I think we'd be generally better off if AZ had largely delivered and most of those missing vaccines had been administered by now.

brickster69 · 17-04-2021 04:44PM

It does make you wonder on the peculiar goings on with AZ. Probably just a coincidence how any mistrust came about really.

First German newspapers printing articles from politicians saying it is only 8% effective in older people

German health minister saying it won't be suitable for older people in Germany and he expects the EMA to do likewise

French President states the vaccine is " quasi effective " for older people.

Countries going against the EMA who said it was suitable for all ages.

Italian armed forces raiding a plant on a tip off from a EU commissioner and media reports go around the world saying they uncovered 29 mln hidden doses which were heading to the UK. It later turns out that 20 mln of the doses were in fact EU's own vaccines and a few for Covax.

Pfizer put prices for 2022 up 60% and say booster doses now needed

EU cancel further orders of non profit making AZ & J&J and order 1.2 billion doses of Pfizer for 2022

McGiver · 17-04-2021 05:46PM

Deleted User wrote:

Itâ€™s a mistake to scale the incident rates up to per year. The risk is only for a short period of time after vaccination and therefore is associated with the number of people vaccinated and not a period of time

Absolutely but at the same time annualised figure would take lower aged and affected groups vaccinated into account. If we waited 9 more months of vaccinations so that the affected group was fully vaccinated. Which was kind of my point.

Norway, Germany etc figures are just after 2-3 months of vaccination before mass vaccination of 20-55 year old females. The "annualised" per million figures taken in 9 months time were bound to rise rapidly, if there was no intervention made.

McGiver · 17-04-2021 06:12PM

fly_agaric wrote:

Production needs to be increased substantially to be capable of vaccinating "billions" all around the world given the failure to cope with a mere 150 m in relatively wealthy and developed Europe.

Yes and to compare...

Moderna alone has 18.4 billion APAs just for 2021. That's a billion doses minimum.

2021 Vaccine Manufacturing: Raises lower end of global manufacturing plan for 2021 from 600 million doses to 700 million doses; manufacturing is still working to supply up to 1 billion doses for 2021

https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/moderna-reports-fourth-quarter-and-fiscal-year-2020-financial

Pfizer Biontech is aiming for 2.4 billion doses by the end of 2021.

More than 200 million doses of BNT162b2 supplied as of March 23, 2021, with signed orders for 1.4 billion doses to date for delivery in 2021. BioNTech and Pfizer expect to expand manufacturing capacity to up to 2.5 billion doses by end of 2021.

https://investors.biontech.de/news-releases/news-release-details/biontech-announces-full-year-2020-financial-results-and

As it stands these two companies will be vaccinating most of the world. The rest could be JJ as and where applicable. Before Curevac kicks in.

mRNA is the way to go forward and both the US and the EU have recognised this.

AZ is a third league player and failed to deliver even 120M doses to the EU. No way it can deliver vaccines for a significant % of world population. EU is pulling out of the contract and FDA won't approve it, that's game over in pharma terms.

What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

Comments