When will this shit end?

[Mr.Tease]

 

Quote

 

Here’s analysis from the Guardian’s international correspondent Michael Safi on what the success of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine means for poorer countries.

This week has seen a strong focus on the need for vaccines to be widely distributed to end the pandemic sooner, reduce the economic toll and make it less likely that dangerous new mutations emerge.

On that metric, the successful results of Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine is good news for poorer countries. It is a hardy formulation that can be stored for two years at -20C, and three months at room temperature, meaning it is within reach for places that do not have advanced cold-chain storage networks. It also requires just one shot to be effective, meaning significantly more people can be protected with smaller batches than those needed for other vaccines, who require two doses about three weeks apart.

Covax, an alliance that aims to distribute vaccines equally around the world, says it has a non-binding memorandum of understanding for about 500m doses of the Johnson & Johnson shot. How many of those shots it will receive, and at what schedule, is a key question – as we’ve seen in Europe, there is often a gap between what is delivered and what is promised in contracts, let alone non-binding memoranda of understanding. Covax aims to get the bulk of those half-a-million doses in the second half of this year, but it may face delays if the pharmaceutical giant chooses to fulfil its bilateral deals first or if production capacity is less and slower than expected.

Johnson & Johnson has said it will sell its vaccine on a not-for-profit basis, saying it would go for approximately $10 (£7.20)/dose during the course of the pandemic. That is more expensive than several of the other vaccines being produced, though the price is unlikely to be prohibitive.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2021/jan/29/coronavirus-live-news-novavax-effective-against-uk-variant-but-less-so-against-south-african-one

 

Phew, fortunately this won't happen- the EU will be more than happy to have it's batch diverted to these poorer countries as they don't acknowledge the concept of 'first come, first served'.

[incident]

Just now, dotdash79 said:

Aren’t GSK/Sanofi having another crack at it, and hoping for approval by winter. 

They've not abandoned their efforts - but they (and anyone else that hasn't already started Phase 3 trials) are going to have a huge obstacle in that there's now highly effective alternatives on the market and so any Vaccine vs Placebo trials they run are likely to be disrupted as the rollouts continue and any Vaccine vs Vaccine trials they run are going to take a huge amount longer to produce any useful results.

[dotdash79]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

I heard they were letting Pfizer make their vaccine in their factories instead?

I think they are doing that for a short period until they have there own ready, as it’s better having a plant earning some income and learning for the scaling up than nothing. 

[efcfanwirral]

1 hour ago, Toilet Duck said:

I think we’ve just been a bit spoilt! 66%, single dose, should be plenty to reduce the already low risks of young folk (probably changes the roll out strategy a bit). 

You pretty much answered a question I'd literally just come on here to ask you as it makes logical sense but I wasn't sure. Just to clarify then is the existing immune system a factor in how well the vaccine works? So for the people at lower risk of hospitalisation and even lower risk of death (and more chance of genuinely mild symptoms even without a vaccine) should a 66% vaccine help us kick it quicker and spread it less  alongside our natural responses, while keeping us out of hospital, whereas people with worse immune systems (already done by then anyway) would be best with a higher percentage?

Essentially what I'm asking is do you think even this one dose regime if it doesn't change could be the answer to us opening up for younger people, when it arrives,without having to wait for the booster? 

Edited January 29, 2021 by efcfanwirral

[dotdash79]

Just now, incident said:

They've not abandoned their efforts - but they (and anyone else that hasn't already started Phase 3 trials) are going to have a huge obstacle in that there's now highly effective alternatives on the market and so any Vaccine vs Placebo trials they run are likely to be disrupted as the rollouts continue and any Vaccine vs Vaccine trials they run are going to take a huge amount longer to produce any useful results.

There is plenty places in the world that would take a vaccine trial. 

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, xxialac said:

The contract isn't governed by English law (where the gent tweeting is from) but by Belgian law and that makes for weaker interpretation. This individual is a Belgian lawyer and thinks AZ have a stronger case then the EU.

 

ok, so both Belgium and English lawyers think AZ win?

[st dan]

1 minute ago, incident said:

They've not abandoned their efforts - but they (and anyone else that hasn't already started Phase 3 trials) are going to have a huge obstacle in that there's now highly effective alternatives on the market and so any Vaccine vs Placebo trials they run are likely to be disrupted as the rollouts continue and any Vaccine vs Vaccine trials they run are going to take a huge amount longer to produce any useful results.

Yeah it doesn’t make much sense for them to continue unless they are offering something substantially different than the others e.g. cheaper product, more effective (although not much room for improvement). Surely it becomes a business decision soon whether it is viable for them to continue or not. 

[incident]

Just now, dotdash79 said:

There is plenty places in the world that would take a vaccine trial. 

Yes, there is. But few of those places are going to commit to holding off delivering a tested vaccine while the trial takes place so the trial would at best be disrupted.

[zahidf]

6 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2021/jan/29/coronavirus-live-news-novavax-effective-against-uk-variant-but-less-so-against-south-african-one

 

Phew, fortunately this won't happen- the EU will be more than happy to have it's batch diverted to these poorer countries as they don't acknowledge the concept of 'first come, first served'.

Yup. Im sure theyll think of their 'moral and social duty'

[xxialac]

7 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

ok, so both Belgium and English lawyers think AZ win?

Not quite. That particular Belgian lawyer and that particular English lawyer thinks AZ has the stronger case.

It's a sample of two.

Edited January 29, 2021 by xxialac

[Mr.Tease]

4 minutes ago, xxialac said:

Not quite. That particular Belgian lawyer and that particular lawyer thinks AZ has the stronger case.

It's a sample of two.

But they say what I want to hear, therefore = 100% proof! 😉(modern day internet logic)

[dotdash79]

11 minutes ago, incident said:

Yes, there is. But few of those places are going to commit to holding off delivering a tested vaccine while the trial takes place so the trial would at best be disrupted.

No but a lot of them places aren’t going to get the vaccine in larger numbers soon. 

[stuartbert two hats]

@Toilet Duck Is it all eyes on the J&J double shot trial now?  And that it's very likely that trial is going to show their vaccine is as good as all the others?

[zahidf]

there you go

 

 

 

 

[zahidf]

 

 

 

[JoeyT]

Well the EU aren't coming out shining in any of this are they?

Publicising a contract which proves AZ aren't in the wrong and the EU have dropped the ball but then going on to potentially (if i've understood correctly) cause Pfizer to break it's contract with the UK by not being able to supply the vaccines the UK has paid for?

[aj6658]

Shame that the J+J jab won't be ready till the second half of the year. It would of been perfect for under 40s. That would of boosted vaccination numbers hugely. 

 

But good to hear the Novavax is gonna be available in April. Fingers cross we will have a strong supply at the point.  ( Hopefully around 3m doses per week) . At that point we should have enough to go 24/7.

[xxialac]

2 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

Well the EU aren't coming out shining in any of this are they?

1) Publicising a contract which proves AZ aren't in the wrong and the EU have dropped the ball but then going on to 2) potentially (if i've understood correctly) cause Pfizer to break it's contract with the UK by not being able to supply the vaccines the UK has paid for?

1) Not proven

2) Not yet happened, may never happen

[steviewevie]

10 minutes ago, zahidf said:

there you go

 

 

 

 

Go EU!

[Ozanne]

They haven’t said they will ban vaccine exports, just that companies will need to inform them before vaccines are exported.

The EU did this last year with PPE as well. 

[JoeyT]

Just now, xxialac said:

1) Not proven

2) Not yet happened, may never happen

1) Given the volume of opinion in AZ's favour (is there any which sides with the EU?) I'm inclined to sit on that side of the fence.

2) I used the word potentially.

I think it's time you took your EU tinted spectacles off.  

[onthebeach]

4 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

They haven’t said they will ban vaccine exports, just that companies will need to inform them before vaccines are exported.

The EU did this last year with PPE as well. 

This - hopefully. I think it may just be a bit of face saving to show to the EU member states that another country can’t come along, offer more money and potentially ‘jump the queue’ on existing orders

[steviewevie]

Pretty mad how we've gone from it usually taking about 10 years to come out with a new vaccine to all these different companies able to produce a working vaccine in under a year. Just goes to show what a lot of money and a lot of urgency can do.

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

1) Given the volume of opinion in AZ's favour (is there any which sides with the EU?) I'm inclined to sit on that side of the fence.

you mean in UK? on this thread? in the EU?!

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, onthebeach said:

This - hopefully. I think it may just be a bit of face saving to show to the EU member states that another country can’t come along, offer more money and potentially ‘jump the queue’ on existing orders

I think they just want a bit more transparency on what is being made in EU isn't going places when they're being told not enough vaccines for them.