NPR

Which jab are they eventually going to give to kids under 18?

Sandstorm wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 4:37 pm Which jab are they eventually going to give to kids under 18?

Moderna, Pfizer, and AZ are all running trials on under-18s (U-16s for Pfizer as they're approved by the FDA at least for 16+), J&J soon to start

POtential vaccine shortage confirmed

Significant reduction' in supply to affect pace of vaccine rollout, NHS letter reveals
Sky’s Sam Coates has obtained a letter from the NHS saying there will be a “significant reduction” in vaccine supply from 29 March, which means people under the age of 50 may have to wait longer than previously expected for their first dose. Doctors are being told to focus on vaccinating people in the first nine priority groups (which in practice now means the over-50s and people with underlying health conditions).

[media] [/media]

Saint wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 4:15 pm

Raggs wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 4:08 pm

Saint wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 4:02 pm In other news - final Novovax Phase III results are in. 96% effective in preventing infections for the original strain, 86% against the "Kent" variant. 100% effective in preventing death from either strain.

So on the assumption that they've been reviewing results in real time, and not just waiting on the final results to publish, we've got a week or so before this gets full approval?

They;ve been on a rolling review for some time. I think Novovax still have to submit some manufacturing data to MHRA, but the emergency approval has to be imminent

I take it Novavax will have been ramping up production over the last week while and will have some vaccine ready to go?

Biffer wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 5:08 pm

Saint wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 4:15 pm

Raggs wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 4:08 pm

So on the assumption that they've been reviewing results in real time, and not just waiting on the final results to publish, we've got a week or so before this gets full approval?

They;ve been on a rolling review for some time. I think Novovax still have to submit some manufacturing data to MHRA, but the emergency approval has to be imminent

I take it Novavax will have been ramping up production over the last week while and will have some vaccine ready to go?

I'm not sure, I've read an article earlier today, saying it won't be available until summer.

Sounds like they're expecting the EU to block exports of Pfizer, and probably Moderna as well.

Raggs wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 5:11 pm

Biffer wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 5:08 pm

Saint wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 4:15 pm

They;ve been on a rolling review for some time. I think Novovax still have to submit some manufacturing data to MHRA, but the emergency approval has to be imminent

I take it Novavax will have been ramping up production over the last week while and will have some vaccine ready to go?

I'm not sure, I've read an article earlier today, saying it won't be available until summer.

They're targetting early Summer for the US. Should be earlier in the UK because they can get MHRA approval quicker - the FDA want to see Phase III data form the US run trial

Saint wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 5:12 pm Sounds like they're expecting the EU to block exports of Pfizer, and probably Moderna as well.

Not sure the leaked Scottish schedule always showed a slow down in the first two weeks of April. We also know that April is the month the 'second dose debt' really kicks in so not surpised if they are going to slow down first doses.

The good news is there are about 10 million doses in storage so cat1-9 should all get done this month.

tc27 wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 5:44 pm

Saint wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 5:12 pm Sounds like they're expecting the EU to block exports of Pfizer, and probably Moderna as well.

Not sure the leaked Scottish schedule always showed a slow down in the first two weeks of April. We also know that April is the month the 'second dose debt' really kicks in so not surpised if they are going to slow down first doses.

The good news is there are about 10 million doses in storage so cat1-9 should all get done this month.

They're talking about a significant overall reduction in supply. Obviously second dose debt kicks in around then, but it also sounds like a new announcement from Vaccine Task Force.

Wall Street Journal reporting that Pfizer has been lobbying the German govt about its reliance on UK supplies

According to a person familiar with the process, production of the vaccine developed by Pfizer Inc. and BioNTech SE in the EU would grind to a halt within weeks if a vaccine war triggered U.K. bans on raw-material exports to the bloc.

The firms’ EU manufacturing, which is expected to produce more than half of the doses the bloc hopes to receive between April and June, is dependent on imports from the U.K., the U.S. and Canada, the person said.

In a recent videoconference with German policy makers and industrial leaders that included Chancellor Angela Merkel, BioNTech Chief Operating Officer Sierk Poetting said that boosting the production of lipid, a vital ingredient in so-called mRNA vaccines, would take up to eight months and warned against any export restrictions that could endanger the supply.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-threat ... re_twitter

Lobby wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 5:57 pm Wall Street Journal reporting that Pfizer has been lobbying the German govt about its reliance on UK supplies

According to a person familiar with the process, production of the vaccine developed by Pfizer Inc. and BioNTech SE in the EU would grind to a halt within weeks if a vaccine war triggered U.K. bans on raw-material exports to the bloc.

The firms’ EU manufacturing, which is expected to produce more than half of the doses the bloc hopes to receive between April and June, is dependent on imports from the U.K., the U.S. and Canada, the person said.

In a recent videoconference with German policy makers and industrial leaders that included Chancellor Angela Merkel, BioNTech Chief Operating Officer Sierk Poetting said that boosting the production of lipid, a vital ingredient in so-called mRNA vaccines, would take up to eight months and warned against any export restrictions that could endanger the supply.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-threat ... re_twitter

Well, at least someone is raising the point.

Saint wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 3:58 pm

Rinkals wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 3:47 pm

Saint wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 1:17 pm

I'm of two minds to this, but actually it's the long term ability of Pharma to make profits that enables their long term ability to develop new vaccines and technologies.

Actually, I do understand their concerns.

But to my mind, it risks allowing the virus to incubate with the possibility of nastier versions down the line.

But it also risks a complete lack of investment and development in future tech to deal with the next big outbreak. There aren't any good answers here at all

I understand that, too.

But we are not talking about preventing pharmaceutical companies from making a profit; we are simply talking about a temporary moratorium to allow poorer nations access to a lifesaving technology which they may otherwise not have the resources to fight.

We are not only talking about saving lives in less developed nations, but the eradication of a pretty nasty bug which, if it's allowed to incubate and mutate into more deadly and more resistant strain, could end up costing lives in richer countries, too.

Rinkals wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 7:23 pm

Saint wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 3:58 pm

Rinkals wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 3:47 pm

Actually, I do understand their concerns.

But to my mind, it risks allowing the virus to incubate with the possibility of nastier versions down the line.

But it also risks a complete lack of investment and development in future tech to deal with the next big outbreak. There aren't any good answers here at all

I understand that, too.

But we are not talking about preventing pharmaceutical companies from making a profit; we are simply talking about a temporary moratorium to allow poorer nations access to a lifesaving technology which they may otherwise not have the resources to fight.

We are not only talking about saving lives in less developed nations, but the eradication of a pretty nasty bug which, if it's allowed to incubate and mutate into more deadly and more resistant strain, could end up costing lives in richer countries, too.

You are talking about throwing literally billions of $ of investment down the toilet. No pharma will spend any money on developing any new tech in future because all of that investment will simply be taken away from them during the next crisis. And then when we need them most they won't be in a position to provide the next vaccine. If you go down this route you need to find an alternative method to ensure that the ongoing continued development and investment happens - and at the moment I can't think of one.

Poor people have lost out for millennia. Rich people win. Why does anyone think this will change because.....pandemic??

Saint wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 8:17 pm

Rinkals wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 7:23 pm

Saint wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 3:58 pm

But it also risks a complete lack of investment and development in future tech to deal with the next big outbreak. There aren't any good answers here at all

I understand that, too.

But we are not talking about preventing pharmaceutical companies from making a profit; we are simply talking about a temporary moratorium to allow poorer nations access to a lifesaving technology which they may otherwise not have the resources to fight.

We are not only talking about saving lives in less developed nations, but the eradication of a pretty nasty bug which, if it's allowed to incubate and mutate into more deadly and more resistant strain, could end up costing lives in richer countries, too.

You are talking about throwing literally billions of $ of investment down the toilet. No pharma will spend any money on developing any new tech in future because all of that investment will simply be taken away from them during the next crisis. And then when we need them most they won't be in a position to provide the next vaccine. If you go down this route you need to find an alternative method to ensure that the ongoing continued development and investment happens - and at the moment I can't think of one.

This pandemic has demonstrated a practical way forward. Small companies developing vaccines with public funding and large companies providing the manufacturing and distribution.

Dinsdale Piranha wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 8:41 pm

Saint wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 8:17 pm

Rinkals wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 7:23 pm

I understand that, too.

But we are not talking about preventing pharmaceutical companies from making a profit; we are simply talking about a temporary moratorium to allow poorer nations access to a lifesaving technology which they may otherwise not have the resources to fight.

We are not only talking about saving lives in less developed nations, but the eradication of a pretty nasty bug which, if it's allowed to incubate and mutate into more deadly and more resistant strain, could end up costing lives in richer countries, too.

You are talking about throwing literally billions of $ of investment down the toilet. No pharma will spend any money on developing any new tech in future because all of that investment will simply be taken away from them during the next crisis. And then when we need them most they won't be in a position to provide the next vaccine. If you go down this route you need to find an alternative method to ensure that the ongoing continued development and investment happens - and at the moment I can't think of one.

This pandemic has demonstrated a practical way forward. Small companies developing vaccines with public funding and large companies providing the manufacturing and distribution.

The underlying manufacturing and production facilities don't suddenly spring into existence. As it is, we're seeing the limitations of production scale, and that's without a disincentive to invest

Saint wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 8:55 pm

Dinsdale Piranha wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 8:41 pm

Saint wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 8:17 pm

You are talking about throwing literally billions of $ of investment down the toilet. No pharma will spend any money on developing any new tech in future because all of that investment will simply be taken away from them during the next crisis. And then when we need them most they won't be in a position to provide the next vaccine. If you go down this route you need to find an alternative method to ensure that the ongoing continued development and investment happens - and at the moment I can't think of one.

This pandemic has demonstrated a practical way forward. Small companies developing vaccines with public funding and large companies providing the manufacturing and distribution.

The underlying manufacturing and production facilities don't suddenly spring into existence. As it is, we're seeing the limitations of production scale, and that's without a disincentive to invest

I don't think this is a major problem. Most of the actual manufacturing capacity is outsourced anyway.

Dinsdale Piranha wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 8:57 pm

Saint wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 8:55 pm

Dinsdale Piranha wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 8:41 pm
This pandemic has demonstrated a practical way forward. Small companies developing vaccines with public funding and large companies providing the manufacturing and distribution.

The underlying manufacturing and production facilities don't suddenly spring into existence. As it is, we're seeing the limitations of production scale, and that's without a disincentive to invest

I don't think this is a major problem. Most of the actual manufacturing capacity is outsourced anyway.

Outsourced or insourced, it exists because of investment (and implied future investment). Take a look at the Pfizer supply chain as an example - it's already constrained due to a supply chain issues for specific components. There will be even less capacity for those components if there's no other developed capacity to utilise them - capital will simply flow elsewhere where it sees a more likely return.


Capacity, especially for new tech, simply will not be developed because there will be no incentive to do it.


I think it's fairly clear that we're going to have to agree to disagree here. My only final observations are that we now have a leaked statement from Pfizer that effectively means they don't see how they could replace UK lipid production for their vaccine for at least 8 months. So grabbing the production IP for Pfizer and handing it to someone else simply won't solve anything in any timeframe that works, as all that does is bring production to current levels, which aren't enough. We've already seen how long and how much trouble it is to scale the biological processes for AZ, EXCEPT for the bulk production experts in India - who are already doing it. So that's not going to do much either. The real solution to a global lack of supply is to bring lots of vaccines online that utilise lots of different types of production, so that we can globally better utilise our manufacturing capacity. And in the longer term we need to work out a better mechanism to try and ensure that we have more capacity (even if it ends up lying unused).

No simple answers, and it comes back to something that I said 12 months ago on PR - the real answer requires a body like the WHO to have much more global control over everything in a global pandemic, or have all countries build and maintain their own infrastructure at the expense of other more politically valuable short term projects.

Letter received today.

Mines booked for 28th..

TB63 wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 10:39 pm Letter received today.

Mines booked for 28th..

Saint wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 8:17 pm

Rinkals wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 7:23 pm

Saint wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 3:58 pm

But it also risks a complete lack of investment and development in future tech to deal with the next big outbreak. There aren't any good answers here at all

I understand that, too.

But we are not talking about preventing pharmaceutical companies from making a profit; we are simply talking about a temporary moratorium to allow poorer nations access to a lifesaving technology which they may otherwise not have the resources to fight.

We are not only talking about saving lives in less developed nations, but the eradication of a pretty nasty bug which, if it's allowed to incubate and mutate into more deadly and more resistant strain, could end up costing lives in richer countries, too.

You are talking about throwing literally billions of $ of investment down the toilet. No pharma will spend any money on developing any new tech in future because all of that investment will simply be taken away from them during the next crisis. And then when we need them most they won't be in a position to provide the next vaccine. If you go down this route you need to find an alternative method to ensure that the ongoing continued development and investment happens - and at the moment I can't think of one.

No.

I'm not. That's not what I'm talking about.

I accept that there has been millions (or billions) thrown at this pandemic and the pharmaceuticals deserve a return on their investment.

But there are extenuating circumstances. Not only the lives lost in poorer countries which may not concern the wealthier nations, but the risk of allowing the virus to incubate and possibly develop into more dangerous forms, which should.

If this were simply another version of seasonal 'flu, your argument would be entirely valid.

Rinky has a point. The Pharmas have had billions of easy investment and produced a product in just 12 months everyone is screaming for, all for a lower cost than just about any other drug they ever made. Hell, they didn’t even have to take the regulators to Tahiti this time!

It’s boom time for them and we shouldn’t worry about how many percentage points on the dollar they might lose helping out Africa.

The companies have had underwriting and grants for industrial ramp up, but they have put billions into the techniques that have developed these vaccine technologies over the last couple of decades. You’re asking them to give that knowledge away for nothing, and then expect India and China to all of a sudden respect IP rights on these after the pandemic is over.

Biffer wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 8:35 am The companies have had underwriting and grants for industrial ramp up, but they have put billions into the techniques that have developed these vaccine technologies over the last couple of decades. You’re asking them to give that knowledge away for nothing, and then expect India and China to all of a sudden respect IP rights on these after the pandemic is over.

No, I’m not. Rinky and several others are asking for that.

I also don’t remember Pfiser or AZ putting up profit warning notices in 2018. They’ll be alright.

It's all irrelevant anyway. Pfizer have said that it's a minimum 8 months to be able to get any other production facility up to speed for increased Lipid production, so you can't scale that

SII, the world's largest vaccine producer, say that they can't even keep AZ production at current planned rate due to global supply shortages. So getting anywhere else to produce AZ isn't going to increase supply either

It now turns out that we're hitting a global shortage of stupid stuff like vials - making it increasingly criminal that there are 30 million doses of AZ sat in America fully complete and in vials that the US won't allow to go anywhere even though it's likely that they're not going to use them themselves

So, of the vaccines we've currently got available to see we simply can't manufacture any more. Unless we can increase production of vials and get factories fully kitted out to fill and finish, even approving new vaccines may not actually give us increased production

I'm suggesting that it is in the wealthier nations interests to contain the virus.

I accept that the life of the average Sowetan is of no concern to the pharmaceutical giants and profit comes first, but allowing the virus to possibly incubate into more dangerous forms might also have implications for the health of the wealthy. Which, if you are particularly conspiratorial, you may feel is part of the plan.

To be clear, I am not saying that the pharmaceutical companies haven't every right to recoup their loses and even make a sizeable profit to encourage further development, but in this instance, a temporary moratorium on the IP would be the right thing to do.

I'm pretty sure that doing so would have a minimal impact on their earnings, anyway.

Unless, of course, they are relying on the continued longevity of the virus as part of their income stream projections. Which I'm sure they aren't.

Rinkals wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 10:10 am I'm suggesting that it is in the wealthier nations interests to contain the virus.

I accept that the life of the average Sowetan is of no concern to the pharmaceutical giants and profit comes first, but allowing the virus to possibly incubate into more dangerous forms might also have implications for the health of the wealthy. Which, if you are particularly conspiratorial, you may feel is part of the plan.

To be clear, I am not saying that the pharmaceutical companies haven't every right to recoup their loses and even make a sizeable profit to encourage further development, but in this instance, a temporary moratorium on the IP would be the right thing to do.

I'm pretty sure that doing so would have a minimal impact on their earnings, anyway.

Unless, of course, they are relying on the continued longevity of the virus as part of their income stream projections. Which I'm sure they aren't.

I think we'd all agree that conatining the virus, throughout the world, is essential. But, is cancelling Pharma's IP rights really the best way to do that ? As Saint has pointed out, there are lots of other factors that have to be considered.

If you really want to get vaccines distributed across the world, it might be better to incentivise the Pharmas, to do so, rather than the opposite.

I'm talking about a "temporary moratorium".

Not cancelling the right to earn from your investment.

Rinkals wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 10:27 am I'm talking about a "temporary moratorium".

Not cancelling the right to earn from your investment.

Understood - but it would be extremely hard to reclaim the IP rights to much of the technology they'd have to give up - so it's questionable whether it could really be 'temporary'. It's also questionable whether it would be the fastest way to get vaccines into the 3rd world countries. AZ are already pushing their vaccines out to be manufactured all over the world - and providing the vaccines at cost - that would seem to be the best model for a rapid expansion.

Rinkals wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 10:27 am I'm talking about a "temporary moratorium".

Not cancelling the right to earn from your investment.

So you're expecting China and India to 'forget' the IP and never use it again after a couple of years? That would not happen. It's fairyland to think it would.

Biffer wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 10:41 am

Rinkals wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 10:27 am I'm talking about a "temporary moratorium".

Not cancelling the right to earn from your investment.

So you're expecting China and India to 'forget' the IP and never use it again after a couple of years? That would not happen. It's fairyland to think it would.

And we're talking mRNA tech here. Brand new, tons of issues with getting it to actually work, and once you have the equipment and know how, then... well... you've got the equipment and know how, even if they make you pinky promise not to use it...

Raggs wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 10:46 am

Biffer wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 10:41 am

Rinkals wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 10:27 am I'm talking about a "temporary moratorium".

Not cancelling the right to earn from your investment.

So you're expecting China and India to 'forget' the IP and never use it again after a couple of years? That would not happen. It's fairyland to think it would.

And we're talking mRNA tech here. Brand new, tons of issues with getting it to actually work, and once you have the equipment and know how, then... well... you've got the equipment and know how, even if they make you pinky promise not to use it...

Exactly. India is the prime mover in challenging IP around medicine tech generally, to expect them not to continue to use it is complete nonsense.

In other good news, it looks like the Brazil variant is more susceptible to AZ and Pfizer than first thought - although not peer reviewed yet

Saint wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 12:23 pm In other good news, it looks like the Brazil variant is more susceptible to AZ and Pfizer than first thought - although not peer reviewed yet

I saw some analysis that said the initial reports were really pretty inaccurate - correct about the transmissibility but not about vaccine resistance - due to the people the analysis was based on - a similar issue to the SA variant reporting.

On another note the USA stockpiling AZ makes me think it will be approved pretty soon.

Got my first AZ jab a couple of hours ago. Door to door in under 25 mins.

Biffer wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 10:41 am

Rinkals wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 10:27 am I'm talking about a "temporary moratorium".

Not cancelling the right to earn from your investment.

So you're expecting China and India to 'forget' the IP and never use it again after a couple of years? That would not happen. It's fairyland to think it would.

It’s possible, not with the chinese of course.
from March 3rd

President Biden announced Tuesday that pharmaceutical giant Merck will help make Johnson & Johnson’s single-shot coronavirus vaccine — an unusual pact between fierce rivals that is among several steps intended to boost supply as Biden pushes toward having enough shots for every adult by the end of May.
Biden hailed the development as an example of industry coming together for the common good, in keeping with his frequent calls for a stronger emergency footing to combat the pandemic.
“Two of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world who are usually competitors are working together on the vaccine,” he said in remarks delivered at the White House. “This is the type of collaboration between companies we saw in World War II.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2 ... rtnership/

Go Merica

So it sounds like the astrazeneca vaccine will be banned in Europe.

Haven't heard that Sputnik having any problems. Definitely seems to be the superior adenovirus vaccine.

Dinsdale Piranha wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 12:47 pm

Saint wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 12:23 pm In other good news, it looks like the Brazil variant is more susceptible to AZ and Pfizer than first thought - although not peer reviewed yet

I saw some analysis that said the initial reports were really pretty inaccurate - correct about the transmissibility but not about vaccine resistance - due to the people the analysis was based on - a similar issue to the SA variant reporting.

On another note the USA stockpiling AZ makes me think it will be approved pretty soon.

Got my first AZ jab a couple of hours ago. Door to door in under 25 mins.

They still haven't completed the US Phase III trials, then it will need to go to FDA. By the time it gets approved (if it does) they'll have piles of vaccine from other sources already

Marylandolorian wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 12:52 pm

Biffer wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 10:41 am

Rinkals wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 10:27 am I'm talking about a "temporary moratorium".

Not cancelling the right to earn from your investment.

So you're expecting China and India to 'forget' the IP and never use it again after a couple of years? That would not happen. It's fairyland to think it would.

It’s possible, not with the chinese of course.
from March 3rd

President Biden announced Tuesday that pharmaceutical giant Merck will help make Johnson & Johnson’s single-shot coronavirus vaccine — an unusual pact between fierce rivals that is among several steps intended to boost supply as Biden pushes toward having enough shots for every adult by the end of May.
Biden hailed the development as an example of industry coming together for the common good, in keeping with his frequent calls for a stronger emergency footing to combat the pandemic.
“Two of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world who are usually competitors are working together on the vaccine,” he said in remarks delivered at the White House. “This is the type of collaboration between companies we saw in World War II.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2 ... rtnership/

Go Merica

Merck already have the knowhow to make an Adenovirus so there's no real knowledge transfer taking place

TheNatalShark wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 2:30 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 2:26 pm

Saint wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 1:38 pm Ireland become the latest country to suspend the use of AZ based on what is effectively anecdotal evidence. Completely ignoring the data from now 17 million doses delivered with so signs at all of any increase in blood clotting events

Utterly bonkers

What is going on here? Political cover for delivery delays?

Those dirty Europeans in the central European country of Thailand are also using "suspending to investigate" as a smoke screen for their failure in the European procurement programme.


Fu.ck sakes the blinkers are incredible.

Do you realise this is against the advice of both WHO and the Erm EMA (hint the E stands for European...)

Saint wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 2:00 pm

Dinsdale Piranha wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 12:47 pm

Saint wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 12:23 pm In other good news, it looks like the Brazil variant is more susceptible to AZ and Pfizer than first thought - although not peer reviewed yet

On another note the USA stockpiling AZ makes me think it will be approved pretty soon.

They still haven't completed the US Phase III trials, then it will need to go to FDA. By the time it gets approved (if it does) they'll have piles of vaccine from other sources already

A total of 300 million doses of Moderna, 300 millions of Pfizer and 100 million of Johnson are expected to have been delivered by mid July.