Merged: Covid vaccines - supply, distribution and rollout / Beginning of the end

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by EHocking

Isnt it only touted as 52% effective after one jab and only 95% effective after the second jab?
That article seems to support that, as does a Dec 11 article in the BMJ.

Blair is wrong (as well as being a war criminal).

This graph may help:

https://d2eehagpk5cl65.cloudfront.ne...1.50.41-AM.png

The 52% effectiveness is only for the 3 week period between the first dose and the second dose, but if you look carefully at the graph, you can see that the trend for the vaccine group and the placebo group diverge 2 weeks after the first shot (maybe around 10 days actually; this is where there is a clear divergence). This suggests that immunity generally kicks in around 2 weeks after the first shot is administered. The second shot is given on day 21, but the graph is already mostly flat there, while the placebo group continues to rise. Most of those who were infected after receiving the vaccine were infected within the 2-week period after receiving the first shot, but very few after that.

[Mader Levap]

Reverse Engineering the source code of the BioNTech/Pfizer SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine

Quite fascinating article.

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Ooh ooh! Let me conduct an exercise in my ability to explain a technical subject in non-technical terms. I'm sure others can fact-check me if I make a mistake.

Messenger RNA (mRNA) is the molecule inside cells that carries genetic information from the DNA to the ribosome, where that information is turned into proteins, which are the molecules that constitute living tissues - the literal building blocks that make a person. An mRNA vaccine uses this mechanism so that the genetic information that is carried by your mRNA doesn't come from the DNA, but from the vaccine. This means that when the mRNA gets to the ribosome, instead of making a regular protein determined by your DNA, it makes the Coronavirus spike protein. This protein can be recognised by the body's immune system and can provoke an immune response against the complete virus.

Contrary to some fearmongering claims on the internet, this cannot change your DNA. In fact, your DNA is not involved at all, only the mechanism which otherwise would be reading your DNA.

How'd I do?

Originally Posted by Chanakya

Thanks arthwollipot!

To be very honest, I did NOT understand all of that! But that's entirely on my lack of basic knowledge (and on having forgotten what little about all of this they'd teach us back in school!), and does not reflect on your cool summarizing itself.

There's only so much you can spoon-feed someone, without that someone doing some forking up from the buffet themselves, but what, would you say, is the one essential difference between mRNA vaccines and the regular vaccines, in terms of what they ARE? (As opposed to these ancilliary things like the temperature and the efficacy and et cetera?)...

I'd been meaning to read up a bit on this, get to understand at least the basics of what the signficance of that mRNA part is, but never did. (No surprise there!)

So anyway, I happened to come across this explanation of what the whole deal is with mRNA. I'm posting what I understood of it here, so that if I've ended up misunderstanding anything then someone here who's more knowledgeable can correct me:



How vaccines normally work is you put limited quantities (and less dangerous strains) of the pathogen itself into the body, and our body dutifully charges up its defense mechanism, produces the antibodies, to fight this (light, simulated) attack. Those same antibodies, having once been produced, can, afterwards, be easily produced by the body (drawing on "memory"), to fight off any actual pathogens that might at some later time enter the body.

What's different with the mRNA deal is that "messenger" RNA is manufactured, artificially produced, and introduced into the body, so that, instead of having to bring in external pathogens, the body itself is made to produce pathogen-like stuff, to which the body then reacts by producing antibodies. And those antibodies, as earlier, are effective in helping ward off actual pathogens attacking the body subsequently.

And this new method, this new technology, is a big deal, for two reasons: First, since the body itself is producing the pathogen-like stuff, therefore it is probably safer than bringing in external pathogens. Second, the process is much faster, the process of developing these vaccines, which explains why Pfizer and Moderna could move in as quickly as they did. (Although Oxford came close enough as to make little difference, in terms of speed, so that might negate this second point I suppose?) And finally, this same technique might be used in future also, in applications other than for the corona virus, so that this probably has far wider application.

And RNA is more difficult to preserve, which explains the ultra-cold freezing. This also means that probably this is a fundamental difference, not just a matter of something to fix with these two specific vaccines; so that mRNA based medication/vaccination is likely to need such ultra-cold storage in future also. (This last part Planigale also did touch on already, upthread.)



Seems reasonable. And understandable, even to someone with little knowledge of these things. Except, I hope I haven't got anything wrong here?

[Puppycow]

This vaccine tracker from Bloomberg shows how many people have been vaccinated in real time. Supposedly gets updated multiple times per day:

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/c...-distribution/

Quote:

The biggest vaccination campaign in history has begun. More than 4.6 million doses in 16 countries have been administered, according to data collected by Bloomberg. Delivering billions more will be one of the greatest logistical challenges ever undertaken.

Vaccinations in the U.S. began Dec. 14 with health-care workers, and so far 2.13 million doses have been administered, according to a nationwide tally from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Bloomberg is also tracking doses at the state and territory level to give a picture of how the rollout is going nationwide.

US officials had been aiming to give 20 million doses by the end of 2020, but obviously that's not going to happen.

Let's say, to pick a round number, that the goal is to vaccinate 200 million Americans (61% of the total, or 328 million). Since it requires 2 doses, that's 400 million, so we're still at only about half a percent.

If we count people who have already had the disease and recovered as being immune already and not needing a vaccine, that number is 11 million so far. But they seem to be giving those people the vaccine anyway, even though they probably don't need it.

Here's an alternative tracker:

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

You can compare different countries. So far, Israel seems to have made the most progress, at 4.37 doses per 100 people, followed by Bahrain at 3.23, UK at 1.18 and USA at 0.64. Russia, meanwhile, which claimed to have it's "Sputnik V" vaccine ready before anyone else is still only at 0.04. So it seems like more of a propaganda announcement because the actual doses given remain very small, and their manufacturing capacity seems to be rather limited.

There's some information in this New York Times article too, about how many vaccines have actually been received by states so far. It seems that most of the doses received have not actually been administered yet, for some reason.

Quote:

The federal government said Monday that it has delivered more than 11.4 million doses to states, territories and federal agencies.

11.4 million doses received, but only 2.1 million actually administered so far. Why? Could it be that they are having trouble getting them to the people with the highest priority to receive them first? I really hope they pick up the pace because at this rate (call it about 1 million doses per week) it would take years to vaccinate a majority of the population.

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

This vaccine tracker from Bloomberg shows how many people have been vaccinated in real time. Supposedly gets updated multiple times per day:

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/c...-distribution/



US officials had been aiming to give 20 million doses by the end of 2020, but obviously that's not going to happen.

Let's say, to pick a round number, that the goal is to vaccinate 200 million Americans (61% of the total, or 328 million). Since it requires 2 doses, that's 400 million, so we're still at only about half a percent.

If we count people who have already had the disease and recovered as being immune already and not needing a vaccine, that number is 11 million so far. But they seem to be giving those people the vaccine anyway, even though they probably don't need it.

Here's an alternative tracker:

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

You can compare different countries. So far, Israel seems to have made the most progress, at 4.37 doses per 100 people, followed by Bahrain at 3.23, UK at 1.18 and USA at 0.64. Russia, meanwhile, which claimed to have it's "Sputnik V" vaccine ready before anyone else is still only at 0.04. So it seems like more of a propaganda announcement because the actual doses given remain very small, and their manufacturing capacity seems to be rather limited.

There's some information in this New York Times article too, about how many vaccines have actually been received by states so far. It seems that most of the doses received have not actually been administered yet, for some reason.



11.4 million doses received, but only 2.1 million actually administered so far. Why? Could it be that they are having trouble getting them to the people with the highest priority to receive them first? I really hope they pick up the pace because at this rate (call it about 1 million doses per week) it would take years to vaccinate a majority of the population.

The UK number would rise dramatically if the regulator would get its finger out of its orifice and approve the AZ vaccine. In this sort of emergency it isn't a question of proving it's safe but a question of it being demonstrably unsafe. So far I've heard nothing about the AZ vaccine that suggests it is unsafe.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Lplus

The UK number would rise dramatically if the regulator would get its finger out of its orifice and approve the AZ vaccine. In this sort of emergency it isn't a question of proving it's safe but a question of it being demonstrably unsafe. So far I've heard nothing about the AZ vaccine that suggests it is unsafe.

What? No, if you're giving a shot to tens of millions of healthy people, it has to be proven safe. "Maybe it'll be okay" is not the standard. It also has to be proven effective. You don't want people thinking they're protected when they aren't.

Apparently the AZ vaccine hasn't been approved anywhere. It's not just UK authorities that are still looking at the data.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Bob001

What? No, if you're giving a shot to tens of millions of healthy people, it has to be proven safe. "Maybe it'll be okay" is not the standard. It also has to be proven effective. You don't want people thinking they're protected when they aren't.

Apparently the AZ vaccine hasn't been approved anywhere. It's not just UK authorities that are still looking at the data.

There's no platitude that makes it obvious what the right thing is.

"Proven" and "safe" are both words that carry a lot of baggage. Is it "safe" if one person in a million dies from it? One person in 10 million? One person in 100,000? What if they don't die, but have long lasting side effects?

And how many people do we have to test it on before we decide that the death rate or complication rate is accurate, i.e. that the side effects are "proven"?

The fact that it is going to so many people argues that extra caution should be taken. The fact that so many people cannot lead normal lives until a vaccine is given argues for proceeding with haste. It's not an obvious answer.

Scientists should study the data, and put together a risk/reward assessment about what will happen if various scenarios are followed, along with confidence estimates for those scenarios, and worst case assessments of what might be wrong. Policy makers should read those documents and make the decision about whether the risks are worth the rewards.

That's a bit optimistic to expect that from our policy makers, but that is what ought to happen.

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by Bob001

What? No, if you're giving a shot to tens of millions of healthy people, it has to be proven safe. "Maybe it'll be okay" is not the standard. It also has to be proven effective. You don't want people thinking they're protected when they aren't.

Apparently the AZ vaccine hasn't been approved anywhere. It's not just UK authorities that are still looking at the data.

It has been proven to be effective.

As to long term effects, just how long do you think it should be tested? 1 year? 2 years? 5 years? And how long will those healthy people stay healthy without a vaccine?

Come to that, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines haven't been tested for any longer than the AZ vaccine - should we stop using them?

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Lplus

It has been proven to be effective.

As to long term effects, just how long do you think it should be tested? 1 year? 2 years? 5 years? And how long will those healthy people stay healthy without a vaccine?

Come to that, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines haven't been tested for any longer than the AZ vaccine - should we stop using them?

Why would you think I'm against vaccines? I'm looking forward to getting the Moderna or Pfizer vaccine as soon as I can. Experts have observed that bad effects from vaccines are usually apparent almost immediately, and almost always within a few weeks. Two or three months of testing on 30,000 people should be more than adequate for that purpose. How long they will remain effective is a question no one can answer now. Some experts seem to think regular boosters will be necessary. Numerous other vaccines are also in the testing stages and are expected to be available fairly soon.

It appears that there are specific unanswered questions about the AZ vaccine, including things as basic as correct dosage. That's why authorities aren't rushing to approve it anywhere.

Quote:

AMSTERDAM (REUTERS) - The European Medicines Authority (EMA) will most likely not be able to approve the COVID-19 vaccine developed by drug maker AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford in January, the watchdog's Deputy Executive Director Noel Wathion said.

"They have not even filed an application with us yet", Wathion said in an interview with Belgian newspaper Het Nieuwsblad published on Tuesday.

European regulators have only received some information about the vaccine, Wathion said.

"Not even enough to warrant a conditional marketing licence", he said. "We need additional data about the quality of the vaccine. And after that, the company has to formally apply."

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/ar...-official-says

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Didn't you say your daughter got the vaccine?

No, she has not.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by xjx388

No, she has not.

Excuse me, your son.

Originally Posted by xjx388

...
In the meantime, just about every employee and clinician has gotten the vaccine in the first wave of 10,000 vaccines in our county, including my wife and my son. ...

[Puppycow]

https://www.statnews.com/2020/12/29/...ccine-rollout/

Quote:

He pledged to “move heaven and earth to get us going in the right direction,” and foreshadowed a number of policy efforts he’s likely to take in his first 100 days in office, including using the Defense Production Act to speed vaccine manufacturing, setting up a public health awareness campaign, and sending mobile vaccination units to hard-to-reach communities. Biden also reiterated his previous pledge to make sure 100 million doses of the Covid-19 vaccines are administered in his first 100 days in office.

So Biden is promising 100 million doses in 100 days. That's still just 1 million per day and remember that it takes 2 doses per person. At that rate it would take almost 2 years to vaccinate everyone in the United States.

[Planigale]

UK approves AZ / Oxford vaccine. Priority will be to give as many first doses as possible as evidence is that no one who received a single dose got a serious covid illness. Booster doses are being delayed to 3 months. Apparently AZ has not sought approval in Europe so at least initially the UK may have limited competition for supplies. The US requires that a trial be completed in the US for approval (currently underway) so the US will not be competing. India is manufacturing the AZ / Oxford vaccine as well and is expected to approve its use shortly. AZ have announced they will produce 3,000,000,000 doses in 2021.

[rjh01]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

https://www.statnews.com/2020/12/29/...ccine-rollout/



So Biden is promising 100 million doses in 100 days. That's still just 1 million per day and remember that it takes 2 doses per person. At that rate it would take almost 2 years to vaccinate everyone in the United States.

And how many doses will be produced in the next 100 days? Should be enough for everyone else to get the first dose and then in the next 100 days enough for everyone to get the second dose. Result: everyone in the USA getting a vaccine in 2021 who wants one.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by rjh01

And how many doses will be produced in the next 100 days? Should be enough for everyone else to get the first dose and then in the next 100 days enough for everyone to get the second dose. Result: everyone in the USA getting a vaccine in 2021 who wants one.

Biden is saying 100 million doses. The population of the United States is over 300 million so it would need to be 3 times that amount. Perhaps 25% of the people won't want it, but that still leaves about 250 million people to vaccinate.

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by Planigale

UK approves AZ / Oxford vaccine. Priority will be to give as many first doses as possible as evidence is that no one who received a single dose got a serious covid illness. Booster doses are being delayed to 3 months. Apparently AZ has not sought approval in Europe so at least initially the UK may have limited competition for supplies. The US requires that a trial be completed in the US for approval (currently underway) so the US will not be competing. India is manufacturing the AZ / Oxford vaccine as well and is expected to approve its use shortly. AZ have announced they will produce 3,000,000,000 doses in 2021.

At Last!
The hilighted is most interesting. Simply preventing hospitalisation and death would go a long way to solve the problem.

Let's hope AZ have been making and stockpiling supplies.

[Speedskater]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Biden is saying 100 million doses. The population of the United States is over 300 million so it would need to be 3 times that amount. Perhaps 25% of the people won't want it, but that still leaves about 250 million people to vaccinate.

I'm sure that Mrs. (Dr) Biden has explained the math to Joe. But there are long list of supply problems that need to be corrected before distribution can be expanded. 100 million doses will be a challenge in itself considering the present situation.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Here's an alternative tracker:

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

You can compare different countries. So far, Israel seems to have made the most progress, at 4.37 doses per 100 people, followed by Bahrain at 3.23, UK at 1.18 and USA at 0.64.

Meanwhile, Canada is lagging at 0.19 doses per 100, less than 1/3rd of the rate of the United States. (This, despite the fact that we approved the Pfizer vaccine days before the U.S.) So Canada really dropped the ball here.

Quote:

Russia, meanwhile, which claimed to have it's "Sputnik V" vaccine ready before anyone else is still only at 0.04. So it seems like more of a propaganda announcement because the actual doses given remain very small, and their manufacturing capacity seems to be rather limited.

Well, plus they rolled out the vaccine before they had even finished Phase 3 clinical trials. Not exactly a big confidence booster.

It does look like it could end up being a pretty decent vaccine... it might have ~90% effectiveness (assuming the numbers are valid), it doesn't have the same cold-storage requirements of the Pfizer vaccine, and it seems to be relatively cheaper. And there are dozens of countries that have either placed orders, or have shown an interest in it. Too bad they seemed to be too... aggressive... with their rollout, which will probably make a lot of people wary.

(And their do plan on allowing the vaccine to be manufactured in India, Brazil, South Korea, and Hungary.)

[zooterkin]

Here is the UK plan for vaccine roll-out.

It goes into detail on the considerations for choosing the order.

The first phase covers the following groups:

Quote:

The order of priority for each group in the population corresponds with data on the number of individuals who would need to be vaccinated to prevent one death, estimated from UK data obtained from March to June 2020 (see reference 3):

1. residents in a care home for older adults and their carers
2. all those 80 years of age and over and frontline health and social care workers
3. all those 75 years of age and over
4. all those 70 years of age and over and clinically extremely vulnerable individuals[footnote 1]
5. all those 65 years of age and over
6. all individuals aged 16 years[footnote 2] to 64 years with underlying health conditions which put them at higher risk of serious disease and mortality[footnote 3]
7. all those 60 years of age and over
8. all those 55 years of age and over
9. all those 50 years of age and over

It is estimated that taken together, these groups represent around 99% of preventable mortality from COVID-19.

My mother is over 80, and she's already had her first jab, her second is due next week.

There's a third-party provided calculator to estimate when you might expect your jab. Based on 1 million a week, I can expect mine by the end of May.

[Puppycow]

Shots are slow to reach arms as Trump administration leaves final steps of mass vaccination to beleaguered states

Quote:

In suburban Milwaukee, clinicians recently discarded 500 doses of coronavirus vaccine after vials were left unrefrigerated. In southeastern Arizona, a rural clinic has enough shots but too few employees lining up to take them. And on the coast of Maine, physicians have been left in the dark about when they will get vaccinated.

Great. So there are people who are prioritized to receive shots who don't want them. Let those of us who do want to get vaccinated have the vaccines if people don't want them.

[zooterkin]

Worse, there are even cases where the vaccine is being deliberately spoiled.

Quote:

A Wisconsin health system said Wednesday that 500 doses of coronavirus vaccine that had to be discarded after they were left unrefrigerated now appear to have been deliberately spoiled by an employee.

Aurora Medical Center first reported on the spoiled doses on Saturday, and said they had been accidentally left out overnight by an employee at Aurora Medical Center in Grafton.

In a statement late Wednesday, Aurora said the employee involved "today acknowledged that they intentionally removed the vaccine from refrigeration."

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Shots are slow to reach arms as Trump administration leaves final steps of mass vaccination to beleaguered states



Great. So there are people who are prioritized to receive shots who don't want them. Let those of us who do want to get vaccinated have the vaccines if people don't want them.

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Worse, there are even cases where the vaccine is being deliberately spoiled.

Please tell me there are criminal charges for people who do this.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Please tell me there are criminal charges for people who do this.

Charges would likely be along the lines of theft, destruction of property, etc., nowhere near commensurate with the actual impact of the crime. If 500 people couldn't be vaccinated, what percentage might die, and what percentage might spread disease to others? Maybe they could file a separate charge for each individual spoiled vial.

Question: What would motivate someone to do this, especially if he's a health-care worker? Is he an anti-vaxxer, or he wants people to get sick, or what?

Another report here:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/employee-...115723554.html

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Charges would likely be along the lines of theft, destruction of property, etc., nowhere near commensurate with the actual impact of the crime. If 500 people couldn't be vaccinated, what percentage might die, and what percentage might spread disease to others? Maybe they could file a separate charge for each individual spoiled vial.

A dose of the Pfizer vaccine is worth $20, then his actions resulted in a roughly $10,000 loss.

If it is classified as a 'theft', then a crime of that size can result in up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $25,000. (According to google.)

[William Parcher]

Headline says it was a pharmacist who deliberately spoiled the vaccine. WTF?

[Trebuchet]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Headline says it was a pharmacist who deliberately spoiled the vaccine. WTF?

Makes sense, they'd be the ones with access. Always remember, intelligence and education do not prevent someone from becoming a loon.

[bruto]

Latest news I read says he was arrested on several counts, but still has not said why he did it. He apparently took the vaccine out of refrigeration, then put it back, then took it out again, thus exceeding the time it could go unrefrigerated, and it was given to patients before this was discovered. So though no harm is expected, the immunizing effect, if any, is unknown. It will be interesting to see, since this was the Moderna vaccine, which is, apparently, a little more tolerant of refrigeration loss than the Pfizer. But I know if I had been slated for this, along with the massive government messups and delays and shortages, I'd be royally pissed off. I hope he fries.

[Puppycow]

Goodness knows what goes through some people's heads. I hope he is punished.

Meanwhile, Israel now has vaccinated over 9% of its population. They are far ahead of any other country. Their population is around 9 million.

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

Israel nears one million coronavirus vaccinations (Jerusalem Post)

Quote:

Israel is expected to have over a million citizens vaccinated by the end of Friday, after over 153,000 Israelis received the coronavirus vaccine in Israel on Thursday, bringing the total number of vaccinations administered to 950,000, the Health Ministry announced on Friday morning.

"So how are Israel's 950,000 vaccinated citizens? Just yesterday we broke another record and vaccinated 153,430 people at 325 vaccination stations across the country. Today we will pass the [milestone of a] million vaccinated," said Health Minister Yuli Edelstein. "On behalf of all of you, I thank the medical staff for the amazing work."

[dudalb]

Pfizer is projected to make 20 Billion dollars from the vaccine.
If it works, I can't begrudge them the money.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Goodness knows what goes through some people's heads. I hope he is punished.

Meanwhile, Israel now has vaccinated over 9% of its population. They are far ahead of any other country. Their population is around 9 million.

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

Israel nears one million coronavirus vaccinations (Jerusalem Post)

Which vaccine, I wonder?

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Which vaccine, I wonder?

Looks to me like the pfizer vaccine, with Moderna still to be delivered.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/small-...nation-nation/

Still I could be misreading the report.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Which vaccine, I wonder?

Originally Posted by Lplus

Looks to me like the pfizer vaccine, with Moderna still to be delivered.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/small-...nation-nation/

Still I could be misreading the report.

Yes, I believe I also read that it was the Pfizer/BIONTech vaccine.

_________________

In the USA:
Warp Speed chief: U.S. won’t get AstraZeneca vaccine until April

Quote:

Americans likely won’t receive AstraZeneca's coronavirus vaccine before April because of lingering questions about its effectiveness in certain groups, a top Trump administration health official said hours after U.K. regulators authorized the company’s shot Wednesday.

The prediction by Moncef Slaoui, head of Operation Warp Speed, moves back the U.S. government’s timeline for greenlighting the AstraZeneca shot by at least two months. Slaoui earlier this month estimated the British drugmaker would file for emergency use authorization with the Food and Drug Administration as early as February.

Quote:

“We project, if everything goes well, that the readout and emergency use authorization may be granted somewhere early in the month of April,” Slaoui said on a press call Wednesday.

Quote:

Slaoui said that while the AstraZeneca vaccine appears very effective against severe disease, its efficacy among elderly people is “effectively unknown” because few older people were enrolled early in the trial. He said that remains his biggest question about the company’s shot, given the virus’ impact on elderly people.

The UK thinks it's OK to use it already, but apparently the US government (or at least this guy) is taking a different view.

Is there any reason to think it might not work as well in older people given that trials mostly involved younger people?

Could it be nationalism? The AstraZeneca vaccine is the so-called Oxford vaccine, isn't it? Why has only the UK approved it, and conversely, is Operation Warp Speed trying stave off the competition to benefit Pfizer and Moderna?

ETA: or even more troubling, this guy is probably going to leave his position in January when Biden takes over. Is he going to parachute into a lucrative position at Pfizer or Moderna?

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Yes, I believe I also read that it was the Pfizer/BIONTech vaccine.

_________________

In the USA:
Warp Speed chief: U.S. won’t get AstraZeneca vaccine until April



The UK thinks it's OK to use it already, but apparently the US government (or at least this guy) is taking a different view.

Is there any reason to think it might not work as well in older people given that trials mostly involved younger people?

"The English-Swedish multinational pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca said on Monday that its Astra-Oxford vaccine produced a strong immune response in elderly patients in a recent test. "

"Bloomberg reports that blood tests taken from a subset of older participants who had received the vaccine showed that it generated a robust immune response."

See here https://egyptindependent.com/astra-o...t-coronavirus/

Whilst production of an immune response may not necessarily translate to effectively blocking the virus, all any of the vaccines do is produce an immune response - so if one works the rest should.

Quote:

Could it be nationalism? The AstraZeneca vaccine is the so-called Oxford vaccine, isn't it? Why has only the UK approved it, and conversely, is Operation Warp Speed trying stave off the competition to benefit Pfizer and Moderna?

ETA: or even more troubling, this guy is probably going to leave his position in January when Biden takes over. Is he going to parachute into a lucrative position at Pfizer or Moderna?

And now you're heading for CT territory -

or are you?

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Lplus

And now you're heading for CT territory -

or are you?

Yep. But I would argue not a totally implausible one.

It's a fact that the United Kingdom has already approved this vaccine, whereas in the US, the head of "Operation Warp Speed" is suggesting that approval may take over three more months, during which time Pfizer and Moderna wouldn't have any competition. This will undoubtedly affect their bottom lines. Pfizer is an American multinational company, Moderna is a newer American company, and AstraZeneca is a British-Swedish company.

Are you familiar with the term "Revolving Door"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)

I'm not even saying that there is necessarily a secret explicit quid pro quo arrangement here. It could just be done with hints and a mutual understanding that regulators who make decisions that are favorable to the companies they regulate can expect to find employment at those same companies when they leave their positions. A sort of unspoken understanding. Hints may have been dropped, but nothing so blatant as to prove criminal intent.

I don't think this is so outlandish that it cannot possibly be true. And of course, they may be perfectly valid reasons to be cautious. But if that's the case, then why can't the UK authorities recognize those same reasons?

Because they can't really both be right, can they? If it's premature to approve it based on the available evidence, then the UK has acted rashly by approving too early, and if not, then the US is unnecessarily delaying approval of a lifesaving vaccine, and thus allowing unnecessary deaths. It's a mathematical certainty that every delay will cost lives. About 3000 people are dying per day. People who might have lived if they had a vaccine available on time.

They cannot both be right when they have reached opposite conclusions on this question.

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Yep. But I would argue not a totally implausible one.

It's a fact that the United Kingdom has already approved this vaccine, whereas in the US, the head of "Operation Warp Speed" is suggesting that approval may take over three more months, during which time Pfizer and Moderna wouldn't have any competition. This will undoubtedly affect their bottom lines. Pfizer is an American multinational company, Moderna is a newer American company, and AstraZeneca is a British-Swedish company.

Are you familiar with the term "Revolving Door"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)

I'm not even saying that there is necessarily a secret explicit quid pro quo arrangement here. It could just be done with hints and a mutual understanding that regulators who make decisions that are favorable to the companies they regulate can expect to find employment at those same companies when they leave their positions. A sort of unspoken understanding. Hints may have been dropped, but nothing so blatant as to prove criminal intent.

I don't think this is so outlandish that it cannot possibly be true. And of course, they may be perfectly valid reasons to be cautious. But if that's the case, then why can't the UK authorities recognize those same reasons?

Because they can't really both be right, can they? If it's premature to approve it based on the available evidence, then the UK has acted rashly by approving too early, and if not, then the US is unnecessarily delaying approval of a lifesaving vaccine, and thus allowing unnecessary deaths. It's a mathematical certainty that every delay will cost lives. About 3000 people are dying per day. People who might have lived if they had a vine available on time.

They cannot both be right when they have reached opposite conclusions on this question.

Yes they can, if their definition of right differs. As I understand it the US requires a trial performed in the US to license use. This is primarily an economic policy to enforce research investment in the US, since trials on humans resident outside the US are scientifically as valid as those on humans resident in the US. The AZ / Oxford vaccine is completing but has not yet completed the required US trial.

There may be also suspicions that the vaccine is unamerican as it is being produced on a not for profit basis, this will undermine the profits of the US companies and their far more expensive for profit products. (In reply to Dudalb, yes I can begrudge Pfizer their profits, it is not their research that developed the vaccine, they had no financial risk as the vaccine was pre-purchased.)

Often it depends how you spin things

e.g. we cannot approve the vaccine because there is some uncertainty about the dose that is effective.

we cannot approve this because the company agreed to submit based on a single trial and they have done more than one trial (yes I have seen a US journalist make this argument!)

or

We know that even if half the dose that is intended to be given is given by accident the vaccine is still highly effective.

We have trials performed in the UK, South Africa and Brazil that all show the same efficacy given to disparate ethnic groups in disparate settings.

[dann]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Goodness knows what goes through some people's heads.

He probably thought it would ruin the microchips and thus Bill Gates' Project Mind Control.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Excuse me, your son.

Yes. My son works in my clinic as the tech who collects samples for Covid testing.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Planigale

Yes they can, if their definition of right differs. As I understand it the US requires a trial performed in the US to license use. This is primarily an economic policy to enforce research investment in the US, since trials on humans resident outside the US are scientifically as valid as those on humans resident in the US. The AZ / Oxford vaccine is completing but has not yet completed the required US trial.

There may be also suspicions that the vaccine is unamerican as it is being produced on a not for profit basis, this will undermine the profits of the US companies and their far more expensive for profit products. (In reply to Dudalb, yes I can begrudge Pfizer their profits, it is not their research that developed the vaccine, they had no financial risk as the vaccine was pre-purchased.)

Often it depends how you spin things

Yes, if the definition of "right" differs, you could come up with different answers, but personally I would prefer if saving as many lives as possible were given priority over maximizing profits.

It sounds awful to put it that way, and I know that nobody would ever admit to prioritizing profits over lives, but the way I see it, tens of thousands of people may die unnecessarily if a good vaccine is not made available for several months.

Almost 3,000 people are dying every day now in the US. If, in fact, the vaccine works and is safe and could be made available if approved, then a 3 month delay would inevitably result in thousands of unnecessary deaths. Rough calculation, using a 0.5% IFR, for every 1 million people vaccinated, you save about 5,000 lives. So I think that people's lives literally hang in the balance. If the vaccine is safe and effective, it should be approved as soon as possible. The benefit (in terms of harm prevented) easily outweighs the risk.

The US surpassed 300,000 Covid deaths on December 14th and the figure now stands at 354,000. We seem to be on pace to pass 400,000 deaths in the middle of January, assuming it doesn't get even worse. Which is a possibility if hospitals are overwhelmed by too many patients.

It could be the difference between, for example, 500,000 deaths and 600,000. 100,000 lives might be saved if we can reach herd immunity a month earlier. I just honestly think that the prudent thing would be to approve it sooner rather than later.

On the other hand, in countries that have done a better job of controlling the virus through other means (New Zealand, Australia, for example), it may be prudent to spend more time investigating, and seeing how effective it is in other countries first. The US does not have that luxury. Hospitals are already full up in some areas, such as Los Angeles. There's no time to dilly-dally. Thousands of people are dying every day.

[Puppycow]

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Video is only 3 and a half minutes long. It's about the single dose first approach in the UK.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Goodness knows what goes through some people's heads. I hope he is punished.

Latest news says potentially three felonies. Altering a prescription drug is one of the specific potential charges. No word of motive yet that I know of. It has now also been discovered that they were out longer than previously known so the administered doses that were thought be viable were not likely to have been. Hopefully the vials have safe guards to rule out that he altered them in other ways.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/31/us/wi...als/index.html