Coronavirus

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by Chris

This is bovine excreta of the highest order, and frankly looks suspiciously like something you’ve had ready and waiting in Notepad to copy and paste at the earliest opportunity.

Yes, no surprise really, forever the pessimist.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Mr K

We didn't order any till today, and then in a last minute panic realising we cocked up. 'Hancocks half hour' again..... Then only 5 million doses which will only treat 2.5 million people and not until spring. The EU got 160 million doses ordered...

Lets hope the Oxford vaccine delivers or we've backed the wrong horse.

IIRC previously the UK had signed up deals with half a dozen companies already. You can't sign up deals with each and every one around the world.
Link

We have secured early access to over 350 million vaccines doses through agreements with several separate vaccine developers at various stages of trials, including:

• 100 million doses of University of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine – phase 3 clinical trials
• 40 million doses of BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine – phase 3 clinical trials
• 60 million doses of Novavax vaccine – phase 3 clinical trials
• 60 million doses of Valneva vaccine – pre-clinical trials
• 60 million doses of GSK/Sanofi Pasteur vaccine – phase 1 clinical trials
• 30 million doses of Janssen vaccine – phase 2 clinical trials

Seven deals in place for early access.

---------- Post added at 20:13 ---------- Previous post was at 20:00 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr K

Just a shame we've made the isolationist choices we've made over the past few years. This is a classic example on why acting together with other countries makes us stronger. On our own we're weaker and vulnerable in the marketplace.

The UK was signing deals before the EU.
Eg
UK in July

NEW YORK & MAINZ, Germany--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE) and BioNTech SE (Nasdaq: BNTX) today announced an agreement with the United Kingdom to supply 30 million doses of their BNT162 mRNA-based vaccine candidate against SARS-CoV-2, currently in development, subject to clinical success and regulatory approval. Financial details of the agreement were not disclosed, but the terms were based on the timing of delivery and the volume of doses.

EU this month

Last week the Commission reached a deal with Pfizer and BioNTech on the supply of their potential COVID-19 vaccine hours after the companies announced their positive results, EU officials said, adding that the timing was a coincidence.
The formal signing of that contract is expected later this week.

The UK is well ahead of the EU on this.

Originally Posted by nomadking

IIRC previously the UK had signed up deals with half a dozen companies already. You can't sign up deals with each and every one around the world.
Link

Seven deals in place for early access.

Indeed. Which is why it would be churlish to point out that whereas the U.K. had preordered the Pfizer vaccine, the EU had not. It would also be churlish to accuse the EU of ordering a batch of the Pfizer vaccine in a “last minute panic” having not previously done so. It would be entirely unfair to point out that the UK and the EU each backed a different RNA vaccine and, based on which vaccine declared results first, and which is likely to be able to deliver in quantity first, the U.K. made the better call.

But I won’t make any of those observations because there’s inevitably an element of risk and gambling in a situation like this. What this shows us is that you win some and you lose some. What it doesn’t tell us is anything remotely useful about the supposed benefit of a common European medicines procurement policy.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Chris

Indeed. Which is why it would be churlish to point out that whereas the U.K. had preordered the Pfizer vaccine, the EU had not. It would also be churlish to accuse the EU of ordering a batch of the Pfizer vaccine in a “last minute panic” having not previously done so. It would be entirely unfair to point out that the UK and the EU each backed a different RNA vaccine and, based on which vaccine declared results first, and which is likely to be able to deliver in quantity first, the U.K. made the better call.

But I won’t make any of those observations because there’s inevitably an element of risk and gambling in a situation like this. What this shows us is that you win some and you lose some. What it doesn’t tell us is anything remotely useful about the supposed benefit of a common European medicines procurement policy.

The accusation was made that somehow the UK was in a worse position than the EU on vaccines. The truth of the matter is that the UK is still well ahead of the EU. We don't have to wait around for Germany to agree to anything.

Originally Posted by nomadking

The accusation was made that somehow the UK was in a worse position than the EU on vaccines. The truth of the matter is that the UK is still well ahead of the EU. We don't have to wait around for Germany to agree to anything.

Indeed. However Mr K has made his drive-by EU butt-kissing post of the day and has now cleared off. It’s unlikely he’s going to return to acknowledge his error.

The interesting thing about Germany here isn’t just that they failed to secure early backing for the RNA vaccine part-developed by a German company (BioNTech), but now the EU has bought in to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine Germany is getting the lion’s share of the first delivery. It strikes me as a strange definition of “acting together” given that Germany’s Covid transmission rate is and always has been far lower than many other places. A cynic might say that the EU’s much trumpeted joint approach is a fig leaf covering the unedifying (but entirely understandable) spectacle of member states looking after their own interests in an area where there isn’t actually any EU competency, but because it’s a crisis they feel like they should be seen to be Doing Something.

Germany is more or less getting what it has paid for, with lip service paid to pooling and sharing resources and precious little evidence of the vaccine going exactly where it’s needed.

[jfman]

https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-...blic-health_en

The EU look in a good position to me. I hope they are in a good position because they're ordering significant numbers of many of the same products and it's in our mutual interests to get the virus under control. The more products the better as there's a likelihood we could all be scraping around in 12-24 months for additional doses.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-...blic-health_en

The EU look in a good position to me. I hope they are in a good position because they're ordering significant numbers of many of the same products and it's in our mutual interests to get the virus under control. The more products the better as there's a likelihood we could all be scraping around in 12-24 months for additional doses.

The UK was signing deals months before the EU.

On 11 November, the European Commission approved a fourth contract with a pharmaceutical company, BioNTech-Pfizer, which provides for the initial purchase of 200 million doses on behalf of all EU Member States, plus an option to purchase up to a further 100 million doses, to be supplied once a vaccine has proven to be safe and effective against COVID-19.

UK July

40 million doses of BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine – phase 3 clinical trials

It's not so much whether the EU is in a bad position, but the totally ridiculous claim that the UK is somehow in a bad position. The UKs early access deals mean we get first or near first, call on anything.

Originally Posted by jfman

https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-...blic-health_en

The EU look in a good position to me. I hope they are in a good position because they're ordering significant numbers of many of the same products and it's in our mutual interests to get the virus under control. The more products the better as there's a likelihood we could all be scraping around in 12-24 months for additional doses.

Indeed - they have access to the same data as us, the same level of expertise and a similar assessment of risk. Where there are differences in our portfolios, that really just is the result of the inevitable gambling component of a situation like this. It’s why there’s even a portfolio in the first place and not just an order for one vaccine from one manufacturer.

The EU plausibly has a price per unit advantage if it is able to put down significantly larger orders, but given that no vaccines have yet been produced, demand massively outstrips supply and the politics of where vaccines are being developed and manufactured also plays a part, that’s by no means guaranteed.

What interests me most here is the EU’s internal politics. Who pays for the vaccine and who gets it first? From what I’ve read so far, it isn’t likely to be down to plain and simple pooling and sharing.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

Indeed. However Mr K has made his drive-by EU butt-kissing post of the day and has now cleared off. It’s unlikely he’s going to return to acknowledge his error.

The interesting thing about Germany here isn’t just that they failed to secure early backing for the RNA vaccine part-developed by a German company (BioNTech), but now the EU has bought in to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine Germany is getting the lion’s share of the first delivery. It strikes me as a strange definition of “acting together” given that Germany’s Covid transmission rate is and always has been far lower than many other places. A cynic might say that the EU’s much trumpeted joint approach is a fig leaf covering the unedifying (but entirely understandable) spectacle of member states looking after their own interests in an area where there isn’t actually any EU competency, but because it’s a crisis they feel like they should be seen to be Doing Something.

Germany is more or less getting what it has paid for, with lip service paid to pooling and sharing resources and precious little evidence of the vaccine going exactly where it’s needed.

Does that not make it the best place to deploy a vaccine? If most of the population are still susceptible.

I'd also expect Germany to be better placed to immediately distribute massive numbers of a vaccine that requires such cold storage throughout it's distribution chains. Scattering it round the continent is going to be a logistical challenge that I'd imagine is undesirable and perhaps unnecessary is other vaccines are in the pipeline that don't have the same issues.

I agree with you on the UK vs EU part of this though - pointless as you say everyone is gambling to a greater or lesser degree on big names and smaller companies.

---------- Post added at 20:58 ---------- Previous post was at 20:57 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

What interests me most here is the EU’s internal politics. Who pays for the vaccine and who gets it first? From what I’ve read so far, it isn’t likely to be down to plain and simple pooling and sharing.

I do agree it's interesting, and I'm not saying you are wrong just playing devil's advocate slightly. Everyone is going to have to make judgement calls on where the vaccine goes first.

On the per unit cost point I'm inclined to agree that even where it arises it's going to be so small compared to the economic impact of Covid. Even $20 (going high deliberately) for 45 million people (rough population immunity threshold). It's nothing.

Originally Posted by jfman

Does that not make it the best place to deploy a vaccine? If most of the population are still susceptible.

I'd also expect Germany to be better placed to immediately distribute massive numbers of a vaccine that requires such cold storage throughout it's distribution chains. Scattering it round the continent is going to be a logistical challenge that I'd imagine is undesirable and perhaps unnecessary is other vaccines are in the pipeline that don't have the same issues.

I agree with you on the UK vs EU part of this though - pointless as you say everyone is gambling to a greater or lesser degree on big names and smaller companies.

---------- Post added at 20:58 ---------- Previous post was at 20:57 ----------



I do agree it's interesting, and I'm not saying you are wrong just playing devil's advocate slightly. Everyone is going to have to make judgement calls on where the vaccine goes first.

Now, are you suggesting herd immunity has already done the job in other places?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

Now, are you suggesting herd immunity has already done the job in other places?

It'd be interesting to know

[1andrew1]

Buying a portfolio of vaccines obviously makes sense and the UK seems to have done a good job here.
However, from the information below, it does appear that the EU was able to buy from Moderna but the UK struggled.

Robert Peston On 23 September I asked the government why the UK was not buying Moderna vaccine and I was told “because they won’t do a deal with anyone outside the US”. I then pointed out that a month earlier on 25 Aug EU announced it and member states bought 160m doses of it.
I received no further explanation or clarification, other than that we have “bio similar potential alternatives”. It is important for the Vaccine Taskforce’s Kate Bingham and Matt Hancock to explain why they did not buy Moderna Vaccine and whether that was a mistake.

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1328314816092659712

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Buying a portfolio of vaccines obviously makes sense and the UK seems to have done a good job here.
However, from the information below, it does appear that the EU was able to buy from Moderna but the UK struggled.

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1328314816092659712

The EU has yet to sign any deal with Moderna, so as yet the EU hasn't bought anything. The US has already signed up for 500m Moderna doses.

EU Health Commissioner Stella Kyriakides said on Twitter that Moderna’s results were “encouraging” and that new EU deals with vaccine makers were to “come soon”.
“Negotiations with the company are ongoing. We have not yet concluded or signed a contract,” Kyriakides told EU lawmakers in a regular hearing on Monday.

The Grauniad reports that what the EU has had since summer is a “potential purchase agreement” for Moderna’s vaccine.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-covid-vaccine

That’s somewhat less concrete than the firm pre-order HMG has placed with Pfizer. The government has cited higher cost, potential supply chain issues in Europe, and Moderna’s refusal to sign any actual supply contracts outside the USA as reasons for concentrating on Pfizer. It also quite reasonably points out that it therefore has an RNA vaccine in its portfolio. Pfizer’s cooperation with BioNTech on this project also means there will initially be two European manufacturing bases for it so there’s no chance of the US government slapping an export ban on the product to give their own population priority.

[jonbxx]

The nice thing about the EU is that there communications are pretty upfront. Here is their vaccine strategy page - https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-...blic-health_en

Here's a short summary;

Contracts in place

AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine - contact for 300million doses plus option for an additional 100million
Sanofi/GSK - 300million doses
Janssen - 200million doses plus option for an additional 200million
BioNTech/Pfizer - 200million doses plus option of an additional 100million

Talks in place;

Moderna - 80million doses
Curevac - 225million doses

The Sanofi/GSK one is the safe bet. The BioNTech, Moderna and Curevac ones are all mRNA vaccines which are a new technology but seem to give a storming immune response. The Janssen and AZ/Oxford ones are the 'risky' bets.

Looking through the candidates out there, there are some strange vaccines in trials right now!