NPR

BnM wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:16 pm

shaggy wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:51 pm https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... s-brussels

What an incredible odd news article.

Fuck

He said the UK had chosen a company to produce the Oxford vaccine that “had the advantage of being based in Britain, but no real experience in vaccine production … And we’re seeing today what that means.” Well why did you buy AZ then

The EU would “not let Britain down”, he said. “My sole objective is to make sure Europe produces the vaccines, for us and our friends, because this is a pandemic. But I think people will understand that we will put ourselves first, then our friends – albeit with a very short space of time between the two.”

You were screaming bloody murder when you accused the UK of putting itself first.

Breton said the European commission and AstraZeneca had signed a “best efforts” contract relying on five factories, including two in the UK, “a few days” before Britain had signed its deal, which he said he had not seen.

“I’m told the British health minister has said the UK has an ‘exclusivity contract’,” he said. “But I cannot imagine the company took the legal risk of signing an ‘exclusivity’ contract just after signing a ‘best efforts’ contract. That seems to me very dangerous legally. I cannot think it is the reality.”

Exclusivity is the wrong word and you're right, only an idiot would prioritise a later contract like that which means you weren't first we had binding agreements before you. As before you were again screaming bloody murder that the UK having priority despite only getting 30m out of 120m ordered was unethical, now you think/claim you have priority it's actually ethical.

It's an embarrassingly cringeworty article.

laurent wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:13 pm

Saint wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:01 pm

Fangle wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:44 pm I haven’t noticed any comments about the Moderna vaccine. Is it only being administered in the US?

Moderna has serious scale issues. The enormous bulk of manufacturing capacity is in the US, from where it can;t be exported. The EU and UK both have access to much smaller production from Switzerland; it accounts for around 10%-ish of EU delivery, and we just got first access to it in the UK this last week (it wasn;t on our pre-purchase list, not least because it was recognised they didn't have scale). They're investing heavily, but Moderna estimate it takes 9-12 months to bring a new facility online for production, so they're talking about 1.4 billion doses produced in 2022. Total 2021 production will be a fairly small fraction of that

Found the Info on orders.
https://covidtracker.fr/vaccintracker/

There is not much moderna ordered by EU compared with Pfizer / AZ
Johnson is approved but has not started delivering yet as it looks like

There is not much ordered because Moderna said they couldn't produce much in any timescale that worked for the EU. They're flat out at the moment, but it;'s just US and Swiss factories currently online. The difference between them is stark - nearly 80 million doses in the US, making up nearly 50% of their delivery so far. The EU could have ordered 10 times the amount and would still have the amount delivered today

Saint wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:24 pm

laurent wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:13 pm

Saint wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:01 pm

Moderna has serious scale issues. The enormous bulk of manufacturing capacity is in the US, from where it can;t be exported. The EU and UK both have access to much smaller production from Switzerland; it accounts for around 10%-ish of EU delivery, and we just got first access to it in the UK this last week (it wasn;t on our pre-purchase list, not least because it was recognised they didn't have scale). They're investing heavily, but Moderna estimate it takes 9-12 months to bring a new facility online for production, so they're talking about 1.4 billion doses produced in 2022. Total 2021 production will be a fairly small fraction of that

Found the Info on orders.
https://covidtracker.fr/vaccintracker/

There is not much moderna ordered by EU compared with Pfizer / AZ
Johnson is approved but has not started delivering yet as it looks like

There is not much ordered because Moderna said they couldn't produce much in any timescale that worked for the EU. They're flat out at the moment, but it;'s just US and Swiss factories currently online. The difference between them is stark - nearly 80 million doses in the US, making up nearly 50% of their delivery so far. The EU could have ordered 10 times the amount and would still have the amount delivered today

2 other things. Moderna is expensive! And the contracts Trump signed with vaccine companies prohibits sharing surplus doses with the rest of the world, they can only be used within US territories (I believe in some places, emergency doses have been sent to the embassies and are being given there, as a work around).

Raggs wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:39 pm

2 other things. Moderna is expensive! And the contracts Trump signed with vaccine companies prohibits sharing surplus doses with the rest of the world, they can only be used within US territories (I believe in some places, emergency doses have been sent to the embassies and are being given there, as a work around).

WTF you are talking about “ mister I know everything “
Moderna received an investment of $500million from the Trump administration and a contract for 300 million doses for the USA.
They said on Tuesday that the deliveries for Europe and uk are on track.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN2BU15I

Ovals wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:16 pm

BnM wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:16 pm

shaggy wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:51 pm https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... s-brussels

What an incredible odd news article.

Fuck

He said the UK had chosen a company to produce the Oxford vaccine that “had the advantage of being based in Britain, but no real experience in vaccine production … And we’re seeing today what that means.” Well why did you buy AZ then

The EU would “not let Britain down”, he said. “My sole objective is to make sure Europe produces the vaccines, for us and our friends, because this is a pandemic. But I think people will understand that we will put ourselves first, then our friends – albeit with a very short space of time between the two.”

You were screaming bloody murder when you accused the UK of putting itself first.

Breton said the European commission and AstraZeneca had signed a “best efforts” contract relying on five factories, including two in the UK, “a few days” before Britain had signed its deal, which he said he had not seen.

“I’m told the British health minister has said the UK has an ‘exclusivity contract’,” he said. “But I cannot imagine the company took the legal risk of signing an ‘exclusivity’ contract just after signing a ‘best efforts’ contract. That seems to me very dangerous legally. I cannot think it is the reality.”

Exclusivity is the wrong word and you're right, only an idiot would prioritise a later contract like that which means you weren't first we had binding agreements before you. As before you were again screaming bloody murder that the UK having priority despite only getting 30m out of 120m ordered was unethical, now you think/claim you have priority it's actually ethical.

It's an embarrassingly cringeworty article.

Just read this myself. Unbelievable.

The fvck is wrong with the EU.

Sound like they’re bragging about creating laws to prevent vaccine exports.

And saying the UK must be nice and congratulate them or no second dose for UK.

WTAF?

Marylandolorian wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:00 pm

Raggs wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:39 pm

2 other things. Moderna is expensive! And the contracts Trump signed with vaccine companies prohibits sharing surplus doses with the rest of the world, they can only be used within US territories (I believe in some places, emergency doses have been sent to the embassies and are being given there, as a work around).

WTF you are talking about “ mister I know everything “
Moderna received an investment of $500million from the Trump administration and a contract for 300 million doses for the USA.
They said on Tuesday that the deliveries for Europe and uk are on track.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN2BU15I

OK...............

Let's not beat around the bush here. Moderna is around 25% more expensive than Pfizer (I don't think anyone has visibility of the exact amount the EU is paying for either, happy to be corrected). So it's pricey, but not abhorrently so - except that price seems to have been a strong issue for the EU procurement process.

The issue around capacity remains exactly as I said. The enormous capability of Moderna to produce vaccine is in the US, which will stay in the US, Trump or Bidne regardless. Currently they have a relatively small capability in Switzerland. It's fair to say it's on course, but as much as anything that's to do with Moderna setting expectations that they couldn't deliver any more

By 2022 Moderna will be in position to produce an absolute shitload of vaccine; in 2021, not so much, and nowhere near what you will see from Pfizer or AZ. The theory/hope is that by the time Moderna is producing in real volume the EU will alreay be sorted, and they just become part of the global mass vax effort

None of this is intended to be critical or praiseworthy - it's just an evaluation of what can be produced right now

Glaston wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 6:22 am The Halix plant in Holland.

All those reports last week of it being seed funded by the UK. £20 something million was the figure.

“In the discussion I had at the beginning with the CEO of AstraZeneca, I understood, he told me, that the ramp up of Halix has been financed by the British government,” Breton said. “And it happens that when I went to visit the site and I asked how much they’re received from the British government, the chairman and the CEO were there and they told me ‘zero’. So in fact, I asked three times a question and I got three times the same answer.”

That's Thierry Breton the EU's vaccine commissar.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... s-brussels

Odd!

What I haven't seen yet is realistic speculation on why it took so long for the plant's EMA authorisation application to get submitted in March, as Saint mentioned earlier in the thread MHRA signed-off last year.

Given the EU commissions' willingness to openly critique AZ, I would speculate the lack of it criticism here has something to do EU side re delayed funding to enable the plant to adjust for EMA approval (given EMA sign-off was done same month). Though I can't imagine these are terribly different from what the MHRA would have. All very odd.

Only speculation I have seen were muppet cries that the plant delayed so it could supplement UK production, which doesn't pass the sniff test and would have been called out.


As for Breton's unsubtle comments hinting they are being kind not to blackmail UK in completing dosing regimes or the 70% completion is better than our current strategy

Not that all member states+NO+IS will achieve 70% anyway, here is a Bloomberg chart reportedly on an EU memo re full dosing regimes delivered (not administered) by June end. Realistically only the Nordics + small states could do so given they traded with member states for more Pfizer jabs over AZ, but so long as Norway/Denmark have blanket suspensions or age recommendations on the latter they won't make it either. Should shut the rhetoric and focus on touting increased production over export bans, success in getting J&J to bottle in Europe rather than US and getting the Balkan states to use what they are being given.

Saint wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:22 pm
Let's not beat around the bush here. Moderna is around 25% more expensive than Pfizer (I don't think anyone has visibility of the exact amount the EU is paying for either, happy to be corrected). So it's pricey, but not abhorrently so - except that price seems to have been a strong issue for the EU procurement process.

A deliberate leak back in Dec20, which seemed to be corroborated by subsequent comments & leaks (particularly from the Hungarian government when they defended not buying more Moderna/Pfizer), put the prices per dose of the below. Can't see anything to suggest if the exercised additional options had different prices, and these supposedly are just the direct costs and don't include down payments provided for production set-up.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... price-list

Oxford/AstraZeneca: €1.78
Johnson & Johnson: $8.50
Sanofi/GSK: €7.56
Pfizer/BioNTech: €12
CureVac: €10
Moderna: $18

Based on Mar21 contracts published by the Hungarian government, they paid cEUR17 per full Sputnik dosing regime and were quoted EUR63 for full Sinopharm (which, after much bluster, they didn't order as much as initially quoted due to delivery times)

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/11/worl ... ook%20page.

Marylandolorian wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:00 pm

Raggs wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:39 pm

2 other things. Moderna is expensive! And the contracts Trump signed with vaccine companies prohibits sharing surplus doses with the rest of the world, they can only be used within US territories (I believe in some places, emergency doses have been sent to the embassies and are being given there, as a work around).

WTF you are talking about “ mister I know everything “
Moderna received an investment of $500million from the Trump administration and a contract for 300 million doses for the USA.
They said on Tuesday that the deliveries for Europe and uk are on track.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN2BU15I

Sorry, I should have been more clear, I meant US surplus doses, not every surplus dose that they produce.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/04 ... es-in-need

EDIT - I don't get why the guy attacks the UK in that article, several major EU countries just had fantastic weeks in dosing, really getting on track, and he tries to put the boot into the UK rather than celebrating that fact.

Calculon wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 4:34 pm Why would the AZ increase the risk of blood clots to a greater extent than the other covid vaccines, especially the other adenovirus vector ones?

Late to comment but it's interesting - the other adenovirus vector vaccines probably have the same problems. Yesterday EMA started investigating J&J based on reports from the USA. Sputnik will also be similar.

There are studies from early 2010s showing how adenovirus vectors increase the risk of blood clotting events. I would be surprised if it's only Astrazeneca that has this.

From my limited understanding it does not really make sense why AZ would be worse than the others

Raggs wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 8:30 am

Marylandolorian wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:00 pm

Raggs wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:39 pm

2 other things. Moderna is expensive! And the contracts Trump signed with vaccine companies prohibits sharing surplus doses with the rest of the world, they can only be used within US territories (I believe in some places, emergency doses have been sent to the embassies and are being given there, as a work around).

WTF you are talking about “ mister I know everything “
Moderna received an investment of $500million from the Trump administration and a contract for 300 million doses for the USA.
They said on Tuesday that the deliveries for Europe and uk are on track.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN2BU15I

Sorry, I should have been more clear, I meant US surplus doses, not every surplus dose that they produce.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/04 ... es-in-need

EDIT - I don't get why the guy attacks the UK in that article, several major EU countries just had fantastic weeks in dosing, really getting on track, and he tries to put the boot into the UK rather than celebrating that fact.

First, my apologies to have said “ mister I know.....” , I mixed you with an other ugly face (jmk26..)

Very good Vanityfair’s article from this journalist investigator.
I didn’t see where the UK has been attacked.

Marylandolorian wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 5:17 pm

Raggs wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 8:30 am

Marylandolorian wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:00 pm
WTF you are talking about “ mister I know everything “
Moderna received an investment of $500million from the Trump administration and a contract for 300 million doses for the USA.
They said on Tuesday that the deliveries for Europe and uk are on track.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN2BU15I

Sorry, I should have been more clear, I meant US surplus doses, not every surplus dose that they produce.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/04 ... es-in-need

EDIT - I don't get why the guy attacks the UK in that article, several major EU countries just had fantastic weeks in dosing, really getting on track, and he tries to put the boot into the UK rather than celebrating that fact.

First, my apologies to have said “ mister I know.....” , I mixed you with an other ugly face (jmk26..)

Very good Vanityfair’s article from this journalist investigator.
I didn’t see where the UK has been attacked.

I was more referring to why we perhaps won't see moderna reaching further afield in general with that point. It's a massively US centric vaccine, that they cannot choose to share with others should they wish to. I do wonder if the vaccine makers would insist on that clause? It may be that they gave the USA a good price on the premise that the US wouldn't sell it on/give it away to other prospective clients.

Nice to see numerous countries really moving in the right direction now with vaccines. Did see a worrying poll about republicans not being willing to take the vaccine though? No idea as to how reliable the poll was, and what definition of republican was used.

Raggs wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 5:22 pm

Marylandolorian wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 5:17 pm

Raggs wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 8:30 am

Sorry, I should have been more clear, I meant US surplus doses, not every surplus dose that they produce.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/04 ... es-in-need

EDIT - I don't get why the guy attacks the UK in that article, several major EU countries just had fantastic weeks in dosing, really getting on track, and he tries to put the boot into the UK rather than celebrating that fact.

First, my apologies to have said “ mister I know.....” , I mixed you with an other ugly face (jmk26..)

Very good Vanityfair’s article from this journalist investigator.
I didn’t see where the UK has been attacked.

I was more referring to why we perhaps won't see moderna reaching further afield in general with that point. It's a massively US centric vaccine, that they cannot choose to share with others should they wish to. I do wonder if the vaccine makers would insist on that clause? It may be that they gave the USA a good price on the premise that the US wouldn't sell it on/give it away to other prospective clients.

Nice to see numerous countries really moving in the right direction now with vaccines. Did see a worrying poll about republicans not being willing to take the vaccine though? No idea as to how reliable the poll was, and what definition of republican was used.

The stupidest yanks ?

to be honest the current rates make me more optimistic > 1Million new vaccinations in a 4 day week is good.
the deliveries are ramping up and the government callendar is on track

the contamination numbers have declined (1 week in the new countrywide confinment with the worse affected areas on week 3)

Now is the spring holidays (kids have only been of school 1 week prior) so numbers should decline sharply next week all going well.
Gov will add Teachers to the next group of vaccinations. This summer should be semi normal ... with vaccinations opened to all adults.(if the vaccines keep arriving as planned).

Raggs wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 5:22 pm
I was more referring to why we perhaps won't see moderna reaching further afield in general with that point. It's a massively US centric vaccine, that they cannot choose to share with others should they wish to. I do wonder if the vaccine makers would insist on that clause? It may be that they gave the USA a good price on the premise that the US wouldn't sell it on/give it away to other prospective clients.



Nice to see numerous countries really moving in the right direction now with vaccines. Did see a worrying poll about republicans not being willing to take the vaccine though? No idea as to how reliable the poll was, and what definition of republican was used.

I didn’t know about the clause the article mentioned, but I’m not surprise when looking at the relationship that trumpet had with the rest of the world .
As for the republicans it’s more what Laurent mentioned , mainly the trumpers - far right, but when a bunch of them start dying , they’ll get it.
My state is 65% democrat and when we see what’s happening in Texas or other states we are in as much as disbelief as you guys.

@Saint, you are right



How much the US has spent on each

Larger European states have moved towards widening the time gap between mRNA doses to get more first jabs in (some eg Netherlands already followed UK example to begin with). France is also recommending the first available second dose of same vaccine type should be taken when available, wonder how well that will be tracked and outside of a trial setting and, if Isreal/UK transmission rates are to go by, reducing prevalence in general pop by time the different booster is administered anyway.

https://www.lejdd.fr/Politique/olivier- ... es-4037696

TheNatalShark wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 12:19 pm Larger European states have moved towards widening the time gap between mRNA doses to get more first jabs in (some eg Netherlands already followed UK example to begin with). France is also recommending the first available second dose of same vaccine type should be taken when available, wonder how well that will be tracked and outside of a trial setting and, if Isreal/UK transmission rates are to go by, reducing prevalence in general pop by time the different booster is administered anyway.

https://www.lejdd.fr/Politique/olivier- ... es-4037696

In France you get th appointment for second when you get the first if they extend then they will just push them back a few weeks

Another million+ doses delivered over Friday/Saturday in the UK, with over 900K being second doses

Bad (if unsurprising) news - the director of the Chinese CDC publicly admitted today that the Chinese vaccines "aren't very good". A recent study of Sinovac vaccine as delivered in Chile shows just 3% efficacy after a single dose, and 56% after a second dose. There's no similar stufy yet on Sinopharm - China are claiming 76% after two doses but that now seems unlikely

Later, the poor man tried to walk back his remarks (doubtless after at least one arm had been broken)

For reference, Sinovac accounts for almost 90% of all vaccine delivered in Chile, and while 56% is definitely better than nothing, we need to get volumes of the higher efficacy vaccines up rapidly

Saint wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:34 pm Bad (if unsurprising) news - the director of the Chinese CDC publicly admitted today that the Chinese vaccines "aren't very good". A recent study of Sinovac vaccine as delivered in Chile shows just 3% efficacy after a single dose, and 56% after a second dose. There's no similar stufy yet on Sinopharm - China are claiming 76% after two doses but that now seems unlikely

Later, the poor man tried to walk back his remarks (doubtless after at least one arm had been broken)

For reference, Sinovac accounts for almost 90% of all vaccine delivered in Chile, and while 56% is definitely better than nothing, we need to get volumes of the higher efficacy vaccines up rapidly

That probably explains why Chile's vaccination rate, which is second only to Israel, appears to be having a negligible effect on its case and death rates.

Lobby wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:54 pm

Saint wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:34 pm Bad (if unsurprising) news - the director of the Chinese CDC publicly admitted today that the Chinese vaccines "aren't very good". A recent study of Sinovac vaccine as delivered in Chile shows just 3% efficacy after a single dose, and 56% after a second dose. There's no similar stufy yet on Sinopharm - China are claiming 76% after two doses but that now seems unlikely

Later, the poor man tried to walk back his remarks (doubtless after at least one arm had been broken)

For reference, Sinovac accounts for almost 90% of all vaccine delivered in Chile, and while 56% is definitely better than nothing, we need to get volumes of the higher efficacy vaccines up rapidly

That probably explains why Chile's vaccination rate, which is second only to Israel, appears to be having a negligible effect on its case and death rates.

The timing of their release from lockdown has a lot to do with it as well.

Saint wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:34 pm Bad (if unsurprising) news - the director of the Chinese CDC publicly admitted today that the Chinese vaccines "aren't very good". A recent study of Sinovac vaccine as delivered in Chile shows just 3% efficacy after a single dose, and 56% after a second dose. There's no similar stufy yet on Sinopharm - China are claiming 76% after two doses but that now seems unlikely

Later, the poor man tried to walk back his remarks (doubtless after at least one arm had been broken)

For reference, Sinovac accounts for almost 90% of all vaccine delivered in Chile, and while 56% is definitely better than nothing, we need to get volumes of the higher efficacy vaccines up rapidly

Efficacy for what? How does it compare to the pfizer vaccine?

Lobby wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:54 pm That probably explains why Chile's vaccination rate, which is second only to Israel, appears to be having a negligible effect on its case and death rates.

This is not true. Chile's death rates and case rates are falling very quickly in people aged 70+ (the ones who have been vaccinated).

Calculon wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:26 pm

Saint wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:34 pm Bad (if unsurprising) news - the director of the Chinese CDC publicly admitted today that the Chinese vaccines "aren't very good". A recent study of Sinovac vaccine as delivered in Chile shows just 3% efficacy after a single dose, and 56% after a second dose. There's no similar stufy yet on Sinopharm - China are claiming 76% after two doses but that now seems unlikely

Later, the poor man tried to walk back his remarks (doubtless after at least one arm had been broken)

For reference, Sinovac accounts for almost 90% of all vaccine delivered in Chile, and while 56% is definitely better than nothing, we need to get volumes of the higher efficacy vaccines up rapidly

Efficacy for what? How does it compare to the pfizer vaccine?

3% against infection, rising to 56% after 4 weeks from the 2nd dose. There's no data yet concerning hospitalisation/death, which is what we have for Pfizer. You can compare against the UK portion of the AZ trials which did measure against infection rather than symptom results but you have to work hard to pick the data out. I can't quite work it all out from what I've read, but AZ on e dose appears to provide better efficacy against infection than Sinovac two dose

Calculon wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:26 pm

Saint wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:34 pm Bad (if unsurprising) news - the director of the Chinese CDC publicly admitted today that the Chinese vaccines "aren't very good". A recent study of Sinovac vaccine as delivered in Chile shows just 3% efficacy after a single dose, and 56% after a second dose. There's no similar stufy yet on Sinopharm - China are claiming 76% after two doses but that now seems unlikely

Later, the poor man tried to walk back his remarks (doubtless after at least one arm had been broken)

For reference, Sinovac accounts for almost 90% of all vaccine delivered in Chile, and while 56% is definitely better than nothing, we need to get volumes of the higher efficacy vaccines up rapidly

Efficacy for what? How does it compare to the pfizer vaccine?

Because I don’t want to fall out of the upstairs window, I’ll say it’s 3% better than Pfiser.

Lemoentjie wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:45 pm

Lobby wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:54 pm That probably explains why Chile's vaccination rate, which is second only to Israel, appears to be having a negligible effect on its case and death rates.

This is not true. Chile's death rates and case rates are falling very quickly in people aged 70+ (the ones who have been vaccinated).

Chile have one dosed 38.5% of their population, and two dosed 24.3%. That's an awful lot of 70+ year olds

Saint wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:57 pm

Calculon wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:26 pm

Saint wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:34 pm Bad (if unsurprising) news - the director of the Chinese CDC publicly admitted today that the Chinese vaccines "aren't very good". A recent study of Sinovac vaccine as delivered in Chile shows just 3% efficacy after a single dose, and 56% after a second dose. There's no similar stufy yet on Sinopharm - China are claiming 76% after two doses but that now seems unlikely

Later, the poor man tried to walk back his remarks (doubtless after at least one arm had been broken)

For reference, Sinovac accounts for almost 90% of all vaccine delivered in Chile, and while 56% is definitely better than nothing, we need to get volumes of the higher efficacy vaccines up rapidly

Efficacy for what? How does it compare to the pfizer vaccine?

3% against infection, rising to 56% after 4 weeks from the 2nd dose. There's no data yet concerning hospitalisation/death, which is what we have for Pfizer. You can compare against the UK portion of the AZ trials which did measure against infection rather than symptom results but you have to work hard to pick the data out. I can't quite work it all out from what I've read, but AZ on e dose appears to provide better efficacy against infection than Sinovac two dose

So symptomatic infection. what is the data for the Pfizer? Which study proves the AZ has better efficacy than the sinovac? Apologies if I've got this wrong but you appear to comparing the results of different trails in a way that is totally scientifically illiterate and frankly idiotic..

Calculon wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:11 pm

Saint wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:57 pm

Calculon wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:26 pm

Efficacy for what? How does it compare to the pfizer vaccine?

3% against infection, rising to 56% after 4 weeks from the 2nd dose. There's no data yet concerning hospitalisation/death, which is what we have for Pfizer. You can compare against the UK portion of the AZ trials which did measure against infection rather than symptom results but you have to work hard to pick the data out. I can't quite work it all out from what I've read, but AZ on e dose appears to provide better efficacy against infection than Sinovac two dose

So symptomatic infection. what is the data for the Pfizer? Which study proves the AZ has better efficacy than the sinovac? Apologies if I've got this wrong but you appear to comparing the results of different trails in a way that is totally scientifically illiterate and frankly idiotic..

No, it's all infection.

The UK portion of the phase III trials for AZ were based on testing subjects for infection - they tested everyone on a regular basis, and that was the basis for the published numbers, which then were (incorrectly IMHO) just averaged in to the rest of the Phase 3 data from the rest of the world, which was purely symptomatic, hospitalised, and death. This is what the Chile study appears to be (it;s not fully published yet, only the headline numbers are coming out). The Pfizer and Moderna Phase 3 only looked at hospitalisation and death, not even symptomatic (happy to be corrected on that lats point). This is part of the genuine criticism of the AZ data - lots of different datasets with different standards used to determine efficacy, different dosing regimes, etc, all merged into a single published headline number

If you have enough time to sift through all the published phase III data you can establish EXACTLY what the total infection rate was in the UK for 1 dose patients, That;s what the MHRA did. I don't have the time nor the inclination to, except to say that I can;t see any number posted for the UK data subset that shows lower than the Sinovac 2 dose number that is being reported.

Of course there's LOTS of ifs/buts/maybes here - the UK numbers were based on a broad population, the Chile is only elder age groups, etc. But the high level view is hard to get away from

Now, I;m not going to spend time in detail picking out just the UK element of the published Phase III

Unless the vaccines were evaluated in the same trail, you really can't compare their efficacy. The is the most basic of scientific principles that every gcse science student should know but yet in almost every fucking media article this is exactly what they do.

This doesn't make sense, the 56% figure is for the coronavac only, or combined coronavac and Pfizer. If for coronavac only where is the data for Pfizer. If its combined, in theory the Pfizer results could be even worse.

Calculon wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:31 pm Unless the vaccines were evaluated in the same trail, you really can't compare their efficacy. The is the most basic of scientific principles that every gcse science student should know but yet in almost every fucking media article this is exactly what they do.

Erm... not quite. In fact, that's rather the opposite of the most basic scientific principles. Science needs to be reproducible. To say you can only compare within a single trial is completely against what good science is.

I won't argue that the media are being sensible here, throwing out all sorts of percentages without knowing what they refer to (I've complained about it in this thread), but reproducibility is exactly what science should do.

Calculon wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:31 pm Unless the vaccines were evaluated in the same trail, you really can't compare their efficacy. The is the most basic of scientific principles that every gcse science student should know but yet in almost every fucking media article this is exactly what they do.

And yet regulators do this all year round. They compare efficacy of studies against the same baseline minimums for efficacy all the time. Yes, they make corrections for the underlying datasets used, but at it's core they indirectly make the comparison all the time.

As I said, the Chile data would need to be corrected for the age and at risk profile of those having been vaccinated so far, but that's what regulators do.

Of course the real problem is that China have yet to publish any data of any Phase 3 trial on any of their vaccines to date - so here in Europe, North America etc we wouldn't even vaguely consider the possibility of approving them for use.

Raggs wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:40 pm

Calculon wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:31 pm Unless the vaccines were evaluated in the same trail, you really can't compare their efficacy. The is the most basic of scientific principles that every gcse science student should know but yet in almost every fucking media article this is exactly what they do.

Erm... not quite. In fact, that's rather the opposite of the most basic scientific principles. Science needs to be reproducible. To say you can only compare within a single trial is completely against what good science is.

I won't argue that the media are being sensible here, throwing out all sorts of percentages without knowing what they refer to (I've complained about it in this thread), but reproducibility is exactly what science should do.

Reproducibility using the same conditions and changing only one variable, clearly not the case here

Saint wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:44 pm

Calculon wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:31 pm Unless the vaccines were evaluated in the same trail, you really can't compare their efficacy. The is the most basic of scientific principles that every gcse science student should know but yet in almost every fucking media article this is exactly what they do.

And yet regulators do this all year round. They compare efficacy of studies against the same baseline minimums for efficacy all the time. Yes, they make corrections for the underlying datasets used, but at it's core they indirectly make the comparison all the time.

As I said, the Chile data would need to be corrected for the age and at risk profile of those having been vaccinated so far, but that's what regulators do.

Of course the real problem is that China have yet to publish any data of any Phase 3 trial on any of their vaccines to date - so here in Europe, North America etc we wouldn't even vaguely consider the possibility of approving them for use.

You appear to have almost no data from this Chile study yet you are comparing it to others. You can't even tell me if the 56% is combined coronavac and Pfizer or just coronavac on its own. Absolutely crazy

Calculon wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:52 pm

Saint wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:44 pm

Calculon wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 8:31 pm Unless the vaccines were evaluated in the same trail, you really can't compare their efficacy. The is the most basic of scientific principles that every gcse science student should know but yet in almost every fucking media article this is exactly what they do.

And yet regulators do this all year round. They compare efficacy of studies against the same baseline minimums for efficacy all the time. Yes, they make corrections for the underlying datasets used, but at it's core they indirectly make the comparison all the time.

As I said, the Chile data would need to be corrected for the age and at risk profile of those having been vaccinated so far, but that's what regulators do.

Of course the real problem is that China have yet to publish any data of any Phase 3 trial on any of their vaccines to date - so here in Europe, North America etc we wouldn't even vaguely consider the possibility of approving them for use.

You appear to have almost no data from this Chile study yet you are comparing it to others. You can't even tell me if the 56% is combined coronavac and Pfizer or just coronavac on its own. Absolutely crazy

That study is purely Sinovac - I thought I'd made that clear. And yes, it is high level data being published so far with a detailed report coming next week. There'a no equivalent Pfizer data coming from Chile (I've finally worked out what you were asking for) and I will freely admit I don;t know why, but a reasonably well educated guess would be that we have lots of data on Pfizer, bother form Phase 3 and widespread rollout, and very little on Sinovac, which would be why the University of Chile has focused on that single vaccine

You sure it's only sinovac? From what I've read it's combined, but I have little faith in the media articles so who knows. It actually makes little sense to have not evaluated the Pfizer at the same time, how many studies on it's efficacy against the coronavirus varientw found in Chile? It's hardly any extra work to evaluate the Pfizer as well anyway. I think I will have to read the actual study before I can comment any futher

Calculon wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 9:14 pm You sure it's only sinovac? From what I've read it's combined, but I have little faith in the media articles so who knows. It actually makes little sense to have not evaluated the Pfizer at the same time, how many studies on it's efficacy against the coronavirus varientw found in Chile? It's hardly any extra work to evaluate the Pfizer as well anyway. I think I will have to read the actual study before I can comment any futher

Everything I've read is that it;s Sinovac only. The relative numbers for Pfizer are very low, and given the current caseload in Chile (although it is rising) I could easily believe that even if they were running a study on Pfizer there isn't enough data to stand up to statistical analysis, That was the main reason AZ Phase 3 had to move out of the UK to get enough cases.

Add to that, given that this was a proactively monitored study - i.e. testing for asymptomatic infection - I could very easily believe that they wanted to save some time and money and focus on the vaccine for which they didn't have any data on

Pubs: Come on down, the beer garden is lovely!

Weather: No.

Hal Jordan wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 8:08 am Pubs: Come on down, the beer garden is lovely!

Weather: No.

Reckon the novelty will still see decent crowds despite the weather - and many pubs have pushed the whole idea of what's 'outdoor' right to the edge in terms of covered areas and heaters.

Hal Jordan wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 8:08 am Pubs: Come on down, the beer garden is lovely!

Weather: No.

Stunning day up here!

No pubs.

Snowed here again this morning, feel for the pubs