Jump to content

When will this shit end?


Chrisp1986

Recommended Posts

Just now, incident said:

There's certainly scope for discussions to be had.

I assume the numbers quoted are the absolute maximum based on their own manufacturing capacity - the question is whether or not they're prepared to subcontract / licence out, or to failing that can strike a deal to acquire existing (ie ready to go) manufacturing capacity from elsewhere. If they're the only game in town or significantly more effective than the others, then there'll certainly be significant pressure on them to increase capacity one way or another, and it'll most likely be lucrative to do so.

I was thinking this exact same thing.

Surely you pull all resources together in something like this?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, incident said:

There's certainly scope for discussions to be had.

I assume the numbers quoted are the absolute maximum based on their own manufacturing capacity - the question is whether or not they're prepared to subcontract / licence out, or to failing that can strike a deal to acquire existing (ie ready to go) manufacturing capacity from elsewhere. If they're the only game in town or significantly more effective than the others, then there'll certainly be significant pressure on them to increase capacity one way or another, and it'll most likely be lucrative to do so.

They can have my spare bedroom if they want/need it? 

But seriously - potentially fantastic news! Well done to those working on this. True heroes!!  

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, incident said:

There's certainly scope for discussions to be had.

I assume the numbers quoted are the absolute maximum based on their own manufacturing capacity - the question is whether or not they're prepared to subcontract / licence out, or to failing that can strike a deal to acquire existing (ie ready to go) manufacturing capacity from elsewhere. If they're the only game in town or significantly more effective than the others, then there'll certainly be significant pressure on them to increase capacity one way or another, and it'll most likely be lucrative to do so.

I assume theyll license it out asap for quick manufracture.

If we have 50 millions doses, thats the elderly and health workers vaccinated, and we can all CRACK ON

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, topmarksbri said:

Medicine is of course, big business. If you were a shareholder of a company developing a rival vaccine I imagine you're probably strongly against this idea...

One imagines though that as we've been told many times lots of the vaccines in trials will fail for one reason or another you just start manufacturing at the sites which are no longer required as the vaccine failed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, topmarksbri said:

Have Pfizer discussed how they're going to distribute? I know Oxford have discussed earmarking some for 3rd world countries etc. Have to say 1.3bn doesn't seem like a lot when each person will need 2...

no real reason why normal healthy young people need one i don't think

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, zahidf said:

I assume theyll license it out asap for quick manufracture.

If we have 50 millions doses, thats the elderly and health workers vaccinated, and we can all CRACK ON

Is it 50m doses for U.K.? If so that’s even better than I thought, so 25m people vaccinated? What % of the population is likely to give herd immunity do we know? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JoeyT said:

One imagines though that as we've been told many times lots of the vaccines in trials will fail for one reason or another you just start manufacturing at the sites which are no longer required as the vaccine failed?

You'd hope so but the business end of medicine isn't as altruistic as we'd like it to be. Maybe could be government mandated? I would also suggest that most people think we'll end up with more than once vaccine so would probably be sensible to produce more than one in case of adverse reactions in certain groups. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

The tests are for infectiousness are they not? If someone is infected but not infectious, then them going about their business surely isn’t problematic? 

No the test is not for infectiousness, it just detects prescence of Coronavirus. It if fails to detect because the sample contained a low virus loading, it does not mean the person is not infectious. Virus loads can also change quickly from different samples from the same person as their own infection changes/grows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They just said on politics live that we’ve got 30 million doses ordered and you need 2 jabs so that means 15m people can get vaccinated straight up. There’s 12.5m people in the governments ‘vulnerable’ category so we have enough to vaccinate them and then some. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...