Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
My but you’ve been awfully quiet these past 2 days while the EU vaccine procurement programme has unravelled so spectacularly. And now here you are desperately trying to argue that black is white, day is night and that we are are somehow, contrary to the opinion of almost everyone, messing things up.
|
Far from.
Quote:
A couple of things that have been lost in the noise over the last day or two that are worth picking out here:
First, in the La Repubblica interview with Pascal Soirot, he was extremely supportive of the long-gap dose strategy presently being followed in the UK - for both the Pfizer and the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines. He believes that the data shows that the first dose of either vaccine eliminates serious disease in virtually 100% of cases. Let’s say that again: a near-100% elimination of severe disease. That is a prize worth having. He also states that with the AstraZeneca vaccine there is reason to believe the longer gap actually improves the rate at which it prevents any disease at all, though obviously there isn’t conclusive data for that yet.
|
Pascal Soirot says this but does the peer-reviewed scientific data say it? If it does, fantastic. If it proves to be true, fantastic.
However, as I indicated previously a CEO batting for their product isn't new or necessarily representative of real world performance. Statements around evidence can often be selectively framed.
Quote:
|
Second, there is a suggestion the UK has paid more for vaccines. And so what if we have? We have a pretty significant problem with spread of the virus in this country, not all of which can be put down to government policy. If we can’t force people to stop infecting each other by social means, then the vaccine is our only major weapon. Every serious disease prevented is tens of thousands of £££s saved in intensive care costs. I bet, eventually, paying even double per vaccine dose that in the case of Oxford-AstraZeneca is maybe £3 per person, will be proven to have been a canny investment indeed.
|
I didn't say there was a problem with paying more I was simply framing the discussion around the article posted by Pierre. As Israel are trying to demonstrate paying a hefty price premium for the top product in the marketplace and getting it out there ASAP reaps should yield significant rewards.
As you rightly say the costs per vaccine, for any vaccine, are tiny compared to the ongoing economic costs in any case.
Quote:
Related to the second point, we are now at the centre of some of the world’s leading life sciences capability, paid for by that up-front government investment and higher per-shot vaccine, and as covid is not going away any time soon, that is a very good place for British science and industry to be.
The facts on the ground are that we are light years ahead of almost every country on earth with our vaccination programme, and particularly light years ahead of any European nation, because they all put their faith in a slow, bureaucratic process that was more interested in saving pennies than lives. There, but for the grace of Brexit, might have been us.
|
As I say the race to herd immunity is a marathon, not a sprint. There's a lot we don't know about vaccine effectiveness in known mutations, let alone those unknown or still to happen.