Coronavirus

AstraZeneca has published latest data after a surprisingly public rebuke from US authorities. Overall efficacy reduces from 79% to 76% while efficacy in the over 65s improves from 80% to 85%. So hardly worth all the fuss. At either the higher or the lower figures, the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is highly effective.

You have to wonder what the real problem is here. What have Americans and so many Europeans got against a safe, highly effective and easily distributed vaccine being available to the world at cost?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56521166

[1andrew1]

This is a long article but really worth a read. It's a Sky investigation into what's going on with the AstraZeneca rollout "It's the story of Europe's vaccine rollout, but it may not be the story that you think it is."
https://news.sky.com/story/they-have...-game-12255905

---------- Post added at 13:32 ---------- Previous post was at 13:29 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

AstraZeneca has published latest data after a surprisingly public rebuke from US authorities. Overall efficacy reduces from 79% to 76% while efficacy in the over 65s improves from 80% to 85%. So hardly worth all the fuss. At either the higher or the lower figures, the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is highly effective.

You have to wonder what the real problem is here. What have Americans and so many Europeans got against a safe, highly effective and easily distributed vaccine being available to the world at cost?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56521166

Not really a European issue now (just the Swiss to ok it now I think) but international - Japan and the US and other countries have yet to approve.

Originally Posted by Chris

AstraZeneca has published latest data after a surprisingly public rebuke from US authorities. Overall efficacy reduces from 79% to 76% while efficacy in the over 65s improves from 80% to 85%. So hardly worth all the fuss. At either the higher or the lower figures, the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is highly effective.

You have to wonder what the real problem is here. What have Americans and so many Europeans got against a safe, highly effective and easily distributed vaccine being available to the world at cost?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56521166

In the USA, the FDA are sticklers for process and accuracy of the info provided (my brother-in-law has a lot of dealings with them), and if you don’t follow the process, or there are concerns that the supplied data has issues, they can be very heavy-handed.

So how does the rest of the universe regard the pfizer vaccine? Is that still being assessed by the universe?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Maggy

So how does the rest of the universe regard the pfizer vaccine? Is that still being assessed by the universe?

Pfizer was the first vaccine to be approved by the WHO and is being exported from Belgium worldwide including UAE, Hong Kong, Mexico and Canada. (USA production is just for USA).

The article below from last month lists the countries it was approved in then.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-...ccine/13157332

The AstraZeneca vaccine is the cheapest vaccine available so its success is strategically important to contain the virus globally, not just wealthier countries.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

This is a long article but really worth a read. It's a Sky investigation into what's going on with the AstraZeneca rollout "It's the story of Europe's vaccine rollout, but it may not be the story that you think it is."
https://news.sky.com/story/they-have...-game-12255905

That article reads like a conclusion in search of an argument. "not the story that you think it is" is the line handed to the journalist by his news desk. Everything else is arranged so as to support that line. The result is a number of pretty glaring inconsistencies and assertions that really ought to have been questioned, but haven't been.

The first is Parsons' failure to account for the differences in the nature and the background to the contacts signed by the UK and the EU with AZ. He attributes far too much weight to the dating of the final purchase contracts and their similar wording, but having observed that AZ had a prior relationship, and an initial contract with the UK government from months prior, he fails to explore the logical outcome of that. The UK government substantially funded Oxford's work and introduced Oxford to AZ in the first place, precisely in order to secure domestic production and guaranteed supply. This was publicly known at the time. How could the EU negotiators be ignorant of that? How could they think that anything in their contract with AZ would supersede anything previously arranged with the UK? That smacks of serious ineptitude.

Second, his German source lets slip that there are AZ vaccines sitting in fridges for 12 weeks against the second dose requirement. Yet the UK has consistently been portrayed as a lone wolf in pursuing the 12 week strategy. When did that change in Germany? It's worth a sidebar at least, but Parsons doesn't seem interested.

Third, the EU would by now have vaccinated around 25%, rather than its dismal 11%, had it had all the vaccine it was expecting. Yet this is still comfortably behind the US and far behind the UK, which has achieved almost double that by now. So where is the remaining problem in vaccine planning in the EU? Is it in national plans to distribute the vaccine, or is it in the EU's procurement strategy?

Fourth, and finally from me for now, though I'm sure there are others: does the EU really think this is a contractual issue with a commercial enterprise, or not? That is its assertion, and that's the line Parsons meekly adopts. But that is inconsistent with the EU's continual reference to the number of vaccines it claims to have exported and its constant complaining about lack of reciprocity. If this is a contractual issue between the EU and a commercial enterprise, then the number of vaccines made and exported by a different commercial enterprise is irrelevant. They are completely unconnected. Pfizer is fulfilling a contract with its customer. The EU neither owns Pfizer's product, nor is the EU responsible for exporting it. It has created no relationship with the recipient of the Pfizer vaccine, much less one that creates an obligation of reciprocity. All of the talk about the EU 'exporting' and complaining about lack of reciprocity is not an EU-AZ issue, it is an EU-UK issue. And that's the elephant in the room Parsons has ignored above all. The EU's attitude to all of this is quite blatantly being driven by lingering Brexit resentment and a UK triumph as a direct point of comparison with an EU failure.

Having read Adam Parsons' piece for Sky News, I'm forced to conclude that Europe's vaccine blame game is exactly the story I thought it was, and it is the ineptitude of the European Commission that is toying with people's lives, not the actions of a company that is making and distributing the vaccine, according to best effort, as agreed with its customers.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

AstraZeneca has published latest data after a surprisingly public rebuke from US authorities. Overall efficacy reduces from 79% to 76% while efficacy in the over 65s improves from 80% to 85%. So hardly worth all the fuss. At either the higher or the lower figures, the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is highly effective.

You have to wonder what the real problem is here. What have Americans and so many Europeans got against a safe, highly effective and easily distributed vaccine being available to the world at cost?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56521166

I suppose the flip side to that question is what have Astrazenica got against being open and transparent about their data.

Much of this would have been avoided had they not issued the haphazard press release the day after Pfizer claiming 62/70/90% efficacy. Other selective studies have been pulled out at random to come out with other figures.

A 70% efficacy vaccine isn't a bad vaccine. But rather than focus on the positives of availability, cost and relative ease of distribution chains there has been a focus on aiming for a 90% figure.

In other news I got my first dose today.

Originally Posted by jfman

I suppose the flip side to that question is what have Astrazenica got against being open and transparent about their data.

Much of this would have been avoided had they not issued the haphazard press release the day after Pfizer claiming 62/70/90% efficacy. Other selective studies have been pulled out at random to come out with other figures.

A 70% efficacy vaccine isn't a bad vaccine. But rather than focus on the positives of availability, cost and relative ease of distribution chains there has been a focus on aiming for a 90% figure.

In other news I got my first dose today.

AstraZeneca has suggested that the urgent nature of the situation led it to publish what it had earlier rather than wait to publish more later. In the past some have observed that AstraZeneca lacks experience in vaccine development. The USA’s response to it was however extremely heavy handed, though as Hugh has since suggested that might just be typical of the institutional culture of the FDA.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

AstraZeneca has suggested that the urgent nature of the situation led it to publish what it had earlier rather than wait to publish more later. In the past some have observed that AstraZeneca lacks experience in vaccine development. The USA’s response to it was however extremely heavy handed, though as Hugh has since suggested that might just be typical of the institutional culture of the FDA.

The authorities in the USA told them in advance for their press release the figures to include. They chose not to. I doubt that's inexperience in vaccine development so much as plenty of experience in PR.

Originally Posted by jfman

The authorities in the USA told them in advance for their press release the figures to include. They chose not to. I doubt that's inexperience in vaccine development so much as plenty of experience in PR.

How so? The overall efficacy figure dropped by a mere 3 points. The efficacy figure for over-65s, which is the most important one because those are the ones it most often kills, improved by 5 points. If they actually did know those figures and wilfully chose not to use them, qui bono?

All the drama over a measly 3% makes me think the US regulators were trying to drag the vaccine through the mud. There was no need to issue a public rebuke for such a minor discrepancy.

I am not usually the conspiracy minded type but I can't help but think that there is a reason the only vaccine that is being sold at cost has such a campaign against it despite studies and real-world data showing hardly any difference from the dramatically more expensive vaccines.

[Sephiroth]

Who cares about what the Eu gets or not gets? All that matters is that we get our vaccine and we keep up the COVAX commitment. Sod the EU until they see the light.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Who cares about what the Eu gets or not gets? All that matters is that we get our vaccine and we keep up the COVAX commitment. Sod the EU until they see the light.

Unfortunately, by "sodding the EU", we are talking about the negative impact on real people, not just the politicians who are screwing stuff up...

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Unfortunately, by "sodding the EU", we are talking about the negative impact on real people, not just the politicians who are screwing stuff up...

But the EU is willing negative impact on the UK. This really does beg the "sod-'em" sentiment.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Damien

All the drama over a measly 3% makes me think the US regulators were trying to drag the vaccine through the mud. There was no need to issue a public rebuke for such a minor discrepancy.

I am not usually the conspiracy minded type but I can't help but think that there is a reason the only vaccine that is being sold at cost has such a campaign against it despite studies and real-world data showing hardly any difference from the dramatically more expensive vaccines.

Drug regulators don't work on 'close enough'. If the submitter revises the data, all hell breaks loose - why was the figure changed? Why was the previous figure wrong? How is the new figure right? Have you reviewed the rest of your submitted data in light of this change?

Many on this forum disregard studies if even the tiniest aspect doesn't match what actually happened. Drug Regulators are this writ large. If one figure was incorrect, then they assume all figures are incorrect until proved otherwise.

The US pumped $1bn into the development of this vaccine. They definitely have an interest here