The EU v UK vaccine tussle
Discussion
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
Mortarboard said:
JSF - I am not suggesting you have to batch match.
I'm saying that you cannot get approval to mix doses between manufacturers. Not under emergency approval, and not under approval under ANY pharmacopeia.
I have worked with/for pharma for over 20 years. And currently work with dozens of pharma companies - both directly and indirectly. My last FDA approval audit was three months ago.
M.
I was not suggesting that.I'm saying that you cannot get approval to mix doses between manufacturers. Not under emergency approval, and not under approval under ANY pharmacopeia.
I have worked with/for pharma for over 20 years. And currently work with dozens of pharma companies - both directly and indirectly. My last FDA approval audit was three months ago.
M.
Seems you've gone off on a tangent.
So we are good, no issues with AZ-AZ or PF-Pf, marvelous.
Earthdweller said:
Are these the vaccines seized by the Italian Police that were produced in a Factory the EU have yet to approve for use in the EU and were being stored waiting for regularity approval by the EU ?
Those were manufactured outside the EU and sent to Italy for filling and final testing. Some for Covax, some for EU.The Dutch stuff isn't yet approved.
Mortarboard said:
Ah, I get you now.
We were at cross purposes.
However, SII may not be making AZ jabs with the same stuff, and not made the same way as the UK AZ jab. It all has to be exactly the same (as in same qualified supply source), in order for it to be even considered under the same approval.
e.g. "Tea with two sugars" may be the same in the UK and India
But for approval reasons, it has to be "PG Tips from the humberside plant, with tap water with less than x impurities, and Tate & lyle sugar from jamaican sourced cane" in both places for it to be considered "the same"
So for SII and AZ UK doses to be interchangeable, the materials would have to not only be the same, but from the same validated source. In other words, exactly the same material.
If you have any links showing or suggesting that they have the same validated approvals, I'd appreciate it. I'm based in a CMO plant, this is exactly hte ste we have to prove we're doing.
M.
They are all PG tips.We were at cross purposes.
However, SII may not be making AZ jabs with the same stuff, and not made the same way as the UK AZ jab. It all has to be exactly the same (as in same qualified supply source), in order for it to be even considered under the same approval.
e.g. "Tea with two sugars" may be the same in the UK and India
But for approval reasons, it has to be "PG Tips from the humberside plant, with tap water with less than x impurities, and Tate & lyle sugar from jamaican sourced cane" in both places for it to be considered "the same"
So for SII and AZ UK doses to be interchangeable, the materials would have to not only be the same, but from the same validated source. In other words, exactly the same material.
If you have any links showing or suggesting that they have the same validated approvals, I'd appreciate it. I'm based in a CMO plant, this is exactly hte s
te we have to prove we're doing.M.
Can i suggest you drop this as you are tying yourself in knots.
Mortarboard said:
You’re talking bks jsf.
A supply has to be validated, not just type or quality, but producer and site.
We make the same stuff the same way, at different sites. Each individual site has to be validated, separately.
This is the exact business I’m in(well, the EHS side of it)
M.
Oh boy.ks jsf. A supply has to be validated, not just type or quality, but producer and site.
We make the same stuff the same way, at different sites. Each individual site has to be validated, separately.
This is the exact business I’m in(well, the EHS side of it)
M.
Which part of the UK (or anyone else) being able to use vaccines from more than one source don't you understand?
SlimJim16v said:
UvdL still talking tough, but some of the individual countries being sensible and against it.
Apparently they have agreed to having more information but have agreed not to use it.That's about the size of the EU, spend days on producing nothing useful for the people of Europe whilst poisoning the well. Bunch of pillocks.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff