The EU v UK vaccine tussle
Discussion
isaldiri said:
jsf said:
As i posted before, the USA funding came after the initial research and productionisation development paid for by Oxford and the UK government. Others have posted this info in this thread.
Operation warp speed was used to fund mass production after the vaccine and processes had been developed. Being such a huge economy, the USA has been able to pump in a great deal of money for production, which is very welcome. Hopefully they soon approve it for use in the USA so they can benefit from that investment.
Well you said this earlierOperation warp speed was used to fund mass production after the vaccine and processes had been developed. Being such a huge economy, the USA has been able to pump in a great deal of money for production, which is very welcome. Hopefully they soon approve it for use in the USA so they can benefit from that investment.
""It's also difficult to work out because a lot of research and development fund came from the UK taxpayer so that is part of the reason why AZ vaccine is so comparatively cheaper. """
I tend to think in terms of total tax dollars AZN have taken irrespective of when in the process that was. Given the amount of public funds involved, it's the least they could do to price it cheaper and it isn't primarily due to the UK contribution that it is comparatively cheaper given the relative amounts involved I'd suggest.
leef44 said:
There is a lot of friction on this point and it seems depending on what forum you are reading. I caught up with someone yesterday who is a total pro-EU remainer. He's reading reddit threads and it's totally one-sided in favour of the EU.
There are comments saying the blocking of vaccine exports from Italy to Australia was the doing of AZ. I asked why would AZ do that when they prepared all that batch ready for export. I didn't get a proper response.
There are talks of how AZ have shot themselves in the foot with their poor PR.
There are talks of how AZ tried to cheat the U.S. system with out-of-date data.
So on other threads, pro-EU look at AZ as manipulative, cheating, lying and up to no good.
All this misunderstanding is not helping anyone. We just need to work together globally to accelerate this vaccine programme.
Remember where this all started.There are comments saying the blocking of vaccine exports from Italy to Australia was the doing of AZ. I asked why would AZ do that when they prepared all that batch ready for export. I didn't get a proper response.
There are talks of how AZ have shot themselves in the foot with their poor PR.
There are talks of how AZ tried to cheat the U.S. system with out-of-date data.
So on other threads, pro-EU look at AZ as manipulative, cheating, lying and up to no good.
All this misunderstanding is not helping anyone. We just need to work together globally to accelerate this vaccine programme.
A swanky podium in the EU with VDL and the utterly inept Greek commissioner for EU health slagging off AZ.
Vanden Saab said:
There is not enough mind bleach in the world to deal with putting stovey, maitlis and swinging in the same sentence please edit your post 
Sadly I expect you’re fumbling with your old man incontinence pants as you type aren’t you? Whatever helps you I suppose. . . . Well there I was back in the 90s in the humid Far Eastern tropical evening and Emily was looking all yoga-like, it was just before the handover to China and people were both excited and scared about the upcoming handover to China.
(Top Tory) Chris Patten was governor and the sun was setting on the British empire, there was a feeling of excitement and trepidation in the air . . .
That’s probably enough for you at the moment.
El stovey said:
(Top Tory) Chris Patten was governor and the sun was setting on the British empire, there was a feeling of excitement and trepidation in the air . . .
And look where Hong Kong is now, sliding ever more into the hell of Chinese control. Huge migration incoming from there to the UK.isaldiri said:
Fair cop. I mixed up your post with another poster, apologies.
My point however remains - the UK wasn't the biggest contributor of public funds for AZN/Oxford.
It was during design and initial productionisation design.My point however remains - the UK wasn't the biggest contributor of public funds for AZN/Oxford.
It doesn't matter anyway, does it. The main thing that matters is a UK based university created a very helpful vaccine the whole world is now using and can use relatively easily. Well done Oxford.
isaldiri said:
jsf said:
isaldiri said:
jsf said:
As i posted before, the USA funding came after the initial research and productionisation development paid for by Oxford and the UK government. Others have posted this info in this thread.
Operation warp speed was used to fund mass production after the vaccine and processes had been developed. Being such a huge economy, the USA has been able to pump in a great deal of money for production, which is very welcome. Hopefully they soon approve it for use in the USA so they can benefit from that investment.
Well you said this earlierOperation warp speed was used to fund mass production after the vaccine and processes had been developed. Being such a huge economy, the USA has been able to pump in a great deal of money for production, which is very welcome. Hopefully they soon approve it for use in the USA so they can benefit from that investment.
""It's also difficult to work out because a lot of research and development fund came from the UK taxpayer so that is part of the reason why AZ vaccine is so comparatively cheaper. """
I tend to think in terms of total tax dollars AZN have taken irrespective of when in the process that was. Given the amount of public funds involved, it's the least they could do to price it cheaper and it isn't primarily due to the UK contribution that it is comparatively cheaper given the relative amounts involved I'd suggest.
My point however remains - the UK wasn't the biggest contributor of public funds for AZN/Oxford.
Maybe your post wasn’t wrong or made up it was just “an illustration” of a point?
And JSFs nitpicking doesn’t disprove the overall truth of your post?
Latest AZ info for the USA approval now released. It's even better at keeping people out of hospital than the initial results slagged off a few days ago.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavi...
76% at stopping infections, the initial claim was 79%
100% at stopping severe illness.
in the crucial over 65's, the figures are 85% efficacy, higher than the 80% rate reported on Monday.
Quasi ineffective my arse.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavi...
76% at stopping infections, the initial claim was 79%
100% at stopping severe illness.
in the crucial over 65's, the figures are 85% efficacy, higher than the 80% rate reported on Monday.
Quasi ineffective my arse.
isaldiri said:
Read the AZN press release a few days ago a bit harder will you?
The claim was 79% efficacy at preventing symptomatic disease, 100% vs severe illness. The only change today is a slight reduction of the former.
no its not.The claim was 79% efficacy at preventing symptomatic disease, 100% vs severe illness. The only change today is a slight reduction of the former.
over 65's its up 5%
"The company also said the vaccine showed 85% efficacy in adults 65 years and older, higher than the 80% rate reported on Monday."
isaldiri said:
jsf said:
no its not.
"
Their own press release dates 22 march 2021."
https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-rel...
Your own quote earlier
jsf said:
Latest AZ info for the USA approval now released. It's even better at keeping people out of hospital than the initial results slagged off a few days ago.
It isn't.
100% is pretty hard to beat, i'll give you that. Your statement "The only change today is a slight reduction of the former." was b
ks, lets call it a draw. AZ is a great vaccine, hopefully it now gets approval in the USA.
isaldiri said:
jsf said:
isaldiri said:
Well you didn't mention anything specific to the over 65s in your first post so there was no change worth mentioning about that.
I did you berk. Get your eyes tested, that's twice today you have lied about my post content.jsf said:
Latest AZ info for the USA approval now released. It's even better at keeping people out of hospital than the initial results slagged off a few days ago.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavi...
76% at stopping infections, the initial claim was 79%
100% at stopping severe illness.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavi...
76% at stopping infections, the initial claim was 79%
100% at stopping severe illness.
jsf said:
Latest AZ info for the USA approval now released. It's even better at keeping people out of hospital than the initial results slagged off a few days ago.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavi...
76% at stopping infections, the initial claim was 79%
100% at stopping severe illness.
in the crucial over 65's, the figures are 85% efficacy, higher than the 80% rate reported on Monday.
Quasi ineffective my arse.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavi...
76% at stopping infections, the initial claim was 79%
100% at stopping severe illness.
in the crucial over 65's, the figures are 85% efficacy, higher than the 80% rate reported on Monday.
Quasi ineffective my arse.
Mortarboard said:
And it appears that 2/3rds of the UK administered vaccine actually came from the EU:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-25...
Can AZ UK actually supply the UK with the required doses at the current vaccination rate?
M
The vaccine made in the EU countries factories and exported to UK is Pfizer, UK is sourcing AZ from UK and India at the moment.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-25...
Can AZ UK actually supply the UK with the required doses at the current vaccination rate?
M
UK can't make any Pfizer.
London424 said:
Someone correct me if I’m wrong but getting the second dose isn’t a complete disaster in that if you don’t get you’re back to zero. It’s just the second dose increases efficacy and longevity. Or have misunderstood?
First dose gives a large level of protection, second dose gives the level found in trials. We will know the full impact of the program later in the year, but not getting the second dose is not a good thing.The anxiety this will bring to the elderly if they don't get their second dose is damaging enough.
Mortarboard said:
Ah, ok. Can’t be used as a second AZ dose then.
I wouldn’t be rushing out to get the SII vaccine. Some sources of the materials might not be great, such as the buffer. I’d wait until it gets full approval.
M.
Edit- unless the dna source is exactly the same in both
The Oxford vaccine is being made all over the world, it's all based on the same "stuff".I wouldn’t be rushing out to get the SII vaccine. Some sources of the materials might not be great, such as the buffer. I’d wait until it gets full approval.
M.
Edit- unless the dna source is exactly the same in both
Nothing gets into arms until it's batch tested, so i have no idea what you are going on about.
Mortarboard said:
There are multiple dna sources for COVID. Most assuredly not “the same stuff” when talking about deactivated DNA based vaccines.
Emergency use clearance is not as thorough as full pharmacopeia clearance.
For the buffer material for example, China sourced material won’t pass, it needs further purification to meet US pharm and EU pharm.
The site where I’m based processes over 600 tons a year.
M.
Unless i missed something, All the Oxford vaccines used by UK are interchangeable. That's how we could use the Dutch and Indian "stuff" when it becomes available.Emergency use clearance is not as thorough as full pharmacopeia clearance.
For the buffer material for example, China sourced material won’t pass, it needs further purification to meet US pharm and EU pharm.
The site where I’m based processes over 600 tons a year.
M.
Mortarboard said:
Only if the ingredients are from the same source/supply.
Not a hope of equal approval if the API (the DNA in this case) is not from the same source. It could be, replicated DNA is old tech at this stage. But with the speed these were developed, it isn't clear if the sources are the same.
Similarly, the lipids would also need to be the same, and be DNA/Lipid mating would have to be same also.
The moderna/pfizer APIs are likely to be a closer match (as it's a CRISPR chopped mRNA) , but again, approval for one doesn't mean the other is.
Would getting a second dose of one different from the first be dangerous? Probably not. Would it be effective? Probably/maybe/should be.
But it wouldn't be approved by any certifying body. And certainly, no-one is going to pay for trials on stuff they compete with, for a start.
M.
You appear to be speculating at best and making things up at worst.Not a hope of equal approval if the API (the DNA in this case) is not from the same source. It could be, replicated DNA is old tech at this stage. But with the speed these were developed, it isn't clear if the sources are the same.
Similarly, the lipids would also need to be the same, and be DNA/Lipid mating would have to be same also.
The moderna/pfizer APIs are likely to be a closer match (as it's a CRISPR chopped mRNA) , but again, approval for one doesn't mean the other is.
Would getting a second dose of one different from the first be dangerous? Probably not. Would it be effective? Probably/maybe/should be.
But it wouldn't be approved by any certifying body. And certainly, no-one is going to pay for trials on stuff they compete with, for a start.
M.
There is nothing in public domain to suggest you have to batch match 1st and 2nd AZ or Pfizer doses.
The plan at the moment is anyone who had AZ gets a second AZ and likewise Pfizer.
Why are you muddying the waters?
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 25th March 20:47
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff